• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In 1 in 5 Families NO ONE Works...

eohrnberger said:
I don't see where the retired are identified as these people being described. How is it you make that leap?
Click to expand...

How many retired people you know with jobs?
 
Deuce said:
How many retired people you know with jobs?
Click to expand...

In an interview a couple of years ago Sean Connery was asked why he had not been in contention for a part that seemed especially suitable for him. His reply: "I'm retired. That means I don't work."
 
Glen Contrarian said:
No...but read my first reply again. If there are higher percentages of populations on food stamps in red states, then that obviously means that it's more likely that red states may well have generally higher percentages of families that don't work.
Click to expand...

Unemployment Rates for States

seems as the states with the highest unemployment rates are both red and blue....6 of the bottom 10 are blue states.( and once again,I need to voice my opposition to the idiotic red/blue state bull**** that so many dullards subscribe to)

how can that possibly be Glen?...you are here telling us it's a red state thing, but the facts don't line up with your ultra-partisan narrative.
 
eohrnberger said:
I don't see where the retired are identified as these people being described. How is it you make that leap?
Click to expand...

they are not delineated, but are included.

me and the wife are part of that 1 in 5 number.... we are officially unemployed.
 
Me and my wife are retired, neither of us work. I worked for 40+ years, I'm done. So I'm sure in this survey we're counted as the 1 in 5.

We're also included in the 93 million Americans who are over 16 who don't work number the cons throw out every single month to try and make Obama, and the economy look bad.

My 92 YO father doesn't work, and he isn't looking to work either. He's also in the 1 in 5 AND the 93 mil over 16 who doesn't work. ;)

BTW because Boomers are retiring by the MILLIONS those numbers will grow each and every year, no matter which party is in the WH.
 
disneydude said:
And yet....it is the blue states that always prop up the red states who are the ones who take more from the federal government than they pay in. Imagine that!
Click to expand...

oh jeez, not that old meme again.

it's hilarious that lefties are incapable of understanding why it's a dumb meme.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
May 1st is a Sunday. So the monthly Unemployment Report will be released on May 2nd. Check in on any threads about the report on the 2nd, it'll be there. It is every month.
Click to expand...

Then it should be easy for you to cite an example.
 
Thrilla said:
nah, it's far far dumber...for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...

I'm not JUST talking about dumb. I'm talking about being purposely disingenuous. Implying every one of the 93 mil number are unemployed and 'looking for a job' is disingenuous.

Because of the Boomers that number's been rising for awhile, and it ill keep rising for 10+ years. Short of killing all the Boomers, there's nothing that can be done to stop that number from rising.

And NO, I'm not in favor of killing all the Boomers. I am 1.

I think I've taking this thread far enough off-course.
 
Thrilla said:
Unemployment Rates for States

seems as the states with the highest unemployment rates are both red and blue....6 of the bottom 10 are blue states.( and once again,I need to voice my opposition to the idiotic red/blue state bull**** that so many dullards subscribe to)

how can that possibly be Glen?...you are here telling us it's a red state thing, but the facts don't line up with your ultra-partisan narrative.
Click to expand...

If you'd paid attention to what I've written over the years, I've said MANY times that while red states DO generally have higher rates of divorce, poverty, teenage pregnancy, welfare, food stamps, homicides, and violent crimes...and while they DO have generally have lower rates of educational attainment and health care coverage and life expectancy, I've ALSO said many times that this is not due to red/blue governance.

Think on that - red states are worse off on SO many metrics...but I'm saying it's not the conservatives' fault. If I were as "ultra-partisan" as you want so badly to believe, why would I say that? Care to answer?
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
I'm not JUST talking about dumb. I'm talking about being purposely disingenuous. Implying every one of the 93 mil number are unemployed and 'looking for a job' is disingenuous.

Because of the Boomers that number's been rising for awhile, and it ill keep rising for 10+ years. Short of killing all the Boomers, there's nothing that can be done to stop that number from rising.

And NO, I'm not in favor of killing all the Boomers. I am 1.

I think I've taking this thread far enough off-course.
Click to expand...

so it's your argument that boomers retiring is the only cause for that numbers being at or near historic lows?
 
eohrnberger said:
I don't see where the retired are identified as these people being described. How is it you make that leap?
Click to expand...

I do not have the numbers handy, but a large portion of those families where no one is working are retired families.
 
Thrilla said:
you're talking about the labor participation rate..correct?
Click to expand...

Yes, and no. The rate % is 1 number. That's the number of working people who stopped looking for jobs.

The 93 mil number is the amount of people who are over 16 who aren't working. If you are 16 and in HS, you are counted in the 93 mil. Even though you never looked for a job. If you are 92 and haven't worked for 30 years you are still counted in the 93 mil.

So obviously as boomers retire that 93 mil number will keep going up. There is no choice, and nothing can be done to stop it.
 
Thrilla said:
so it's your argument that boomers retiring is the only cause for that numbers being at or near historic lows?
Click to expand...

Lows? Highs. The 93 mil number is high, and it will keep getting higher. It's been climbing for years, and most economist agree it will keep climbing for at east 10+ more years. because of the Boomers it has to.

But anyway again, this is waaaay off-topic.

have a nice night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom