Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your number is of the size of the labor force, not its participation rate of that force , there for that is the total number of people over 16 and under 65, regardless of if they want a job or not.
that means the 319,000 people you are talking about either died or turned 65.
Unless you polled those people, you have no idea why they no longer have a job, but nice speculation. for all you know that entire population is of Baby boomers
I also dont see where you are getting any of those sets of numbers from do you mind actually showing where they claim from ????
You don't see where he is getting those numbers from? They are from the BLS LNU02000000, LNU02500000, LNU02600000, and it's the BLS which claims to be polling people to see if they have jobs.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 17 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,544 posts, read 16,528,077 times
Reputation: 6029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
You don't see where he is getting those numbers from? They are from the BLS LNU02000000, LNU02500000, LNU02600000, and it's the BLS which claims to be polling people to see if they have jobs.
In his original post, he had a link, in it those numbers werent there. When asked to actually provide a link to those numbers he refused.
Well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't stop it from drowning itself after crapping all over itself after making itself look like a complete moron.
really, you are telling me that if I terminate someone(for what ever reason) who has 8 years of service and raises, that i am going to hire a new person on at that same rate ?????????
That doesnt even happen in a Good economy.
if you fire someone with 8 years of service and want to hire someone equally qualified, you need to pay them.
Bush? He had a few good years. You can thank government expansion and the mother of all housing bubbles for that. But job growth was anemic even in the best of years, and then the bubble burst.
There were more positive job gains this year than the entire Bush presidency.
YOU are the deflecting.
The numbers you showed indicated it was BETTER in 2003..
We're discussing a short period of time.. YOU posted the stats.. now you don tlike them.
321,000 people hired. BUT
92,450,000 are still not working. This is the lowest labor participation rate since 1978
11,900,000 have dropped out of the labor force since 2009 They are not counted as being 'unemployed'
currently there are about 8000-10000 people in America turning 65 DAILY(an average age of retirement )(and many boomers are putting retirement off till their 70's)
currently there are about 13,000 people in America turning 18 DAILY (bls uses 16, but many youths don't find employment till after college at 21...so 18 is used for an average)
the LPR should actually be growing since you have MORE people coming of age for employment, than you have people coming of age for retirement
Use the statistics you just stated and the LFPR goes down. Do the math.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
