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 last time we had sustained job growth this good Clinton was President. This is literally better than anything we saw under GWB but I'm sure the RWNJs will continue lying and dissembling. They always do.
Next thing you'll say is the economy was peachy during the war because their was job growth and unemployment was down.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 26 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,568 posts, read 16,556,695 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
Why can't you look for the truth? Anyone who can take the thought process to the next level KNOWS women started to enter the workforce in the 1970's. Thanks for showing that chart, just more proof the failure in chief is nothing but a bald faced liar who cares little about the working stiff. Obama is a Bush uncorrected.
So the fact that participation started dropping years before Barack Obama was even in the Senate is his fault ?
Labor Force Participation peaked in April of 2000, And has been going down since.
I knew some posters on C-D were blind, i didnt know they were this far gone though.
2. Economic growth is calculated by a couple of dozen indicators, However the majority of people (like yourself) dont realize that, so your only indicator is job growth. So when you see the 2 dont match, your mind explodes.
3. people both enter the job market and leave it, that is why the numbers arent jumping as either way as you said.
4. Jobs created is not the same as jobs filled. There are about 3 million open positions around the nation that no one has filled.
The real unemployment rate, 12.2% is sky high. Our unemployment rate today is higher than at any time period dating back to the early 80s. And here we are 7 years into this mess and still crawling out of the hole like a snail.
And people, young and old, are falling out of the workforce by the millions. Old people are retiring and young people are just giving up on trying to find a job.
Look at the years 1929-1934. The US economy was very volatile as well during that period.
And all during those years the talking heads were telling the people that everyone was fine and recovery was just around the corner.
It's called "False Hope" and history is full of it coming from politicians and businessmen.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 26 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,568 posts, read 16,556,695 times
Reputation: 6044
Quote:
Originally Posted by CravingMountains
The real unemployment rate, 12.2% is sky high. Our unemployment rate today is higher than at any time period dating back to the early 80s. And here we are 7 years into this mess and still crawling out of the hole like a snail.
And people, young and old, are falling out of the workforce by the millions. Old people are retiring and young people are just giving up on trying to find a job.
U.S. Payroll to Population Rate 43.4% in April
Seasonal rise in hiring in 2014 begins at typical time
by Ben Ryan
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The U.S. Payroll to Population employment rate (P2P), as measured by Gallup, was 43.4% in April. This is up slightly from 42.7% in March, but down from 44.5% in April 2013. The P2P rate of 42.6% for the first quarter of 2014 is also below the averages for the first quarters of 2012 (43.6%) and 2013 (43.4%).
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
Not rock bottom.
The Labor Force Participation Rate was 58.6% in 1948.
It didn't even go over 62% until 1977.
Look at the historical data in your above link, by setting years from 1948 - 2014.
As usual, you miss the entire point.
The Labor Force Participation Rate -- in conjunction with the Employment-to-Population Ratio --- indicates whether or not you can pay for your Social Welfare Programs, specifically those programs funded based on payroll taxes.
Such programs include Social Security (based on FICA payroll tax) and Medicare (based on HI payroll tax).
It would also include any potential universal healthcare plan, and that would be a Bismarck-style Plan, since the Beveridge Plan was ruled unconstitutional by your Supreme Court.
It's a simple 6th Grade Math Equation:
Social Security Revenues = #Working Americans * FICA tax rate * Wages
From the Multiplication Theorem, we know that increasing any one of the Factors will increase the Product. Conversely, decreasing any one of the Factors will decrease the Product.
The number of working Americans has decreased, and wages have decreased, and you have been at unsustainable levels for more than 6 years.
At present levels, you need another 13 Million Americans working....and you ain't got it, and never will.
Wages --- and it doesn't matter if we talk in terms of nominal wages or real wages -- are not going to increase over the short-term, mid-term or long-term relative to either the number of working Americans, or the number of Americans receiving benefits from those Social Welfare Programs.
The possible alternatives presently are to increase the FICA/HI payroll taxes, or to decrease benefits or to do a combination of both.
The issue here is it doesn't matter what you do.....that money is coming out of your Economy, and you can't stop it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks
So our positive growth rate in the second quarter won't translate into more hiring?
So....negative GDP is now considered positive by Liberals?
WTF?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
But the last 2 GDP announcements would have put us in an official recession if the government hadn't changed their GDP calculations. A recession is 2 consecutive negative GDP reports..has nothing to do with which quarter.
Yes, indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
The new calculations automatically added 3% to the GDP number.
It's actually 1.5% to 4%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223
You seem to think you've scored a point. The labor participation rate is the lowest that it's been in 35 years. What's more, it's kind of a non sequitur on your part to bring 1948 into the picture, chiefly because that was before the age of the two-income households.
Not to mention that it is necessary to factor in the cost of Social Welfare Programs that are dependent on the Labor Participation Rate/Employment-to-Population Ratio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223
Look, I realize that you'll do or say anything to keep up the happy talk, but the truth is that a lower percentage of Americans have jobs than in more than a generation. What's more, the people who are dropping out of the labor force are not older Americans retiring, as the pat explanation would go, but the people who are still in the prime of their lives.
What that does is skew the Earnings Curve.
An individual, or an household will earn less over its life-time than normal, since people are either not working, or not working in their career fields.
"real" unemployment has gone down for 5 straight years, peaking at 17.1% in 2010.
Kids who are choosing not to go to work, are actually going to college, not just "not looking for work".
you are perpetuating false narrative.
And you know that now, do you? After I graduated college back in 2011 there were many months that I just gave up looking because throwing out 50 more resumes didn't seem like it would get me anywhere. I prone to believe there were and are currently millions of youngsters just like I was out there.
And are you seriously bragging about our fall in unemployment? This has been the slowest recovery in the history of this nation. And if it wasn't for boomers retiring, the U6 rate wouldn't have declined even half as much as it has.
So the fact that participation started dropping years before Barack Obama was even in the Senate is his fault ?
Labor Force Participation peaked in April of 2000, And has been going down since.
I knew some posters on C-D were blind, i didnt know they were this far gone though.
You didn't answer all you did was deflect like an obamabot.
Your blind faith has led you to believe the horrific policies Obama has chosen aren't a cause?
Why don't you know their is little difference between this administration and the last except the hand picked winners and losers? Talk about blind.
This meant only 60% of adult 16 to 65 are working. Then you add kids and those in retirement, then you get about 35 to 40% to support the US. If you take out government workers, the number go lower, probably in the low 30s. Government workers leech off the private sector too. So, you have 30 people working to support 100 people. No country can survive like this.
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.
