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.
The article is bullsh*t aimed at the gullible and uneducated. Wow, the irony. If the government wanted to "doctor" the numbers they would "doctor" ALL the numbers - INCLUDING the Labor Force Participation rate. Nice try but there's a little thing called the cencus and IRS so they can't totally lie about the numbers of real humans that actually exist.The Labor Force Participation rate fell because more people RETIRED early rather than going through the bother of looking for a new job at a late stage in life.
Ken
True for some. But a lot of boomers can't afford to retire and as the link I gave you to the second half of the article states their numbers have actually increased in the labor force not declined.
I'll take 5% unemployment any day. Your argument is ridiculous, in is one I would encourage Obama to make
The fact that private sector job growth SHRUNK by 2.4 million in 2001, and another half million in 2002 is bound to be ridiculous to people like you. I may have to try that head-in-sand thing sometime. It seems to have an interesting side effect.
Only a fool would believe that if economy is losing millions of jobs that things are great if official unemployment rate is low. For those in touch with reality:
One of the most disturbing aspects of the unemployment picture, reports CBS News Correspondent Lou Miliano, is that not since 1994 have so many workers failed to land another job within six months. Many of them are older, and many of them like 50-year-old Kenosha, Wisconsin, machinist Jim Baker are not high-tech or dot-com.
"I can't really accept a low-paying service job because it doesn't pay the bills," Baker said.
He may have to, if for no other reason than to get medical coverage for his family. Baker has bladder cancer, one child in college, and another in high school heading for college. He gets just $500 a month from Social Security, not the $1600 he would have gotten had he reached retirement age.
The new reality for many older jobless, like Baker, is that a service job isn't something you take to keep you busy in retirement, it becomes a new career — and there is no retirement.
And that ain't from 2009 or 2010 or 2011 or 2012. That is from 2002.
The fact that private sector job growth SHRUNK by 2.4 million in 2001, and another half million in 2002 is bound to be ridiculous to people like you. I may have to try that head-in-sand thing sometime. It seems to have an interesting side effect.
Only a fool would believe that if economy is losing millions of jobs that things are great if official unemployment rate is low. For those in touch with reality:
One of the most disturbing aspects of the unemployment picture, reports CBS News Correspondent Lou Miliano, is that not since 1994 have so many workers failed to land another job within six months. Many of them are older, and many of them like 50-year-old Kenosha, Wisconsin, machinist Jim Baker are not high-tech or dot-com.
"I can't really accept a low-paying service job because it doesn't pay the bills," Baker said.
He may have to, if for no other reason than to get medical coverage for his family. Baker has bladder cancer, one child in college, and another in high school heading for college. He gets just $500 a month from Social Security, not the $1600 he would have gotten had he reached retirement age.
The new reality for many older jobless, like Baker, is that a service job isn't something you take to keep you busy in retirement, it becomes a new career — and there is no retirement.
And that ain't from 2009 or 2010 or 2011 or 2012. That is from 2002.
Considering the Ostrich Syndrome effect, I find self handicapped from going any further. The point that needed to be made, has been. Now only if there were a cure for delusions due to political reasons, would you see the point being made (the first step before being in a position to have a grasp of it).
So if someone hasn't found any jobs they want so have stopped looking for work and decided to ride on unemployment checks for awhile we should count them as part of the labor force? If someone wants to work but decided it is wiser to go back to school full time to get a masters degree they should be included?
Sorry, if you haven't looked for a job in over a month because you are feeling discouraged your belong right where the ILO definition puts you: not in the active labor force.
I hope Obama adopts your mean-spirited view of the unemployed to justify his phoney numbers during the election. We'll see how that sells.
Why don't you look at the stock market value in gold from 1980 - 2005? - a period of TWENTY FIVE YEARS when gold barely budged AT ALL and the stock market soared. Gold is in a bubble right now - just as it was in the late 70's - and it WILL crash again - just like it did in the early 80's. The only thing being "manipulated" is the price of gold - which is being promoted by the gold vendors. Last time this happened a LOT of "gold bugs" lost their shirts (and their pants and their shoes and socks - not to mention much of their investment in gold). Same thing will happen this time around - I don't know when, but it WILL happen, and when it happens, it will happen FAST.
Invest in gold if you wish, but the fact is commodities is RISKY - you can make money FAST and you can lose it FAST - and gold is commodity like any other.
Ken
"Why don't you look at the stock market value in gold from 1980 - 2005? - a period of TWENTY FIVE YEARS when gold barely budged AT ALL and the stock market soared."
Does that make sense to you? Look at the value of the dollar from when Nixon closed the gold window until today. Continuously down.... Yet gold remained the same. What does that tell you? Manipulation much. Do you have any idea how Private Central Banking works? Do you know the Rothschild's literally run the gold comex, trading index? They get a fee for every transaction. Everything you see is manipulated. Yet you believe in some fictitious market.
"Gold is in a bubble right now - just as it was in the late 70's - and it WILL crash again - just like it did in the early 80's. The only thing being "manipulated" is the price of gold - which is being promoted by the gold vendors."
You don't know that gold is in a bubble. Neither do I. Most claim it's undervalued. You would need a free market to see what it's true value is. But that's something you don't have.
You can't lose value if you're invested in Gold. a $20 dollar Gold coin in the early part of last century would buy you a very nice suit with a very nice tie and shoes. A $20 dollar coin would buy the same today. Gold's value is constant. Only the central Banksters make it seem different based on how much or how little funny money they have in circulation at any particular time.
By the way, I don't agree with money being backed by precious metals anymore. Because the banksters own 90% of it. (Gold and Silver) I believe the government should issue its own non interest bearing notes based on population/economic needs. Just like the Colonies did in the Revolutionary War period and Lincoln did during the Civil War. Backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S., just like now, but leaving the criminals out of the loop. No need for the middlemen.
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.
If the government wanted to "doctor" the numbers they would "doctor" ALL the numbers - INCLUDING the Labor Force Participation rate. Nice try but there's a little thing called the cencus and IRS so they can't totally lie about the numbers of real humans that actually exist.The Labor Force Participation rate fell because more people RETIRED early rather than going through the bother of looking for a new job at a late stage in life.
