- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
We were talking about the number of people in the workforce. There are more people in the workforce now than in December 2007. As my link shows.
There are more people working now than when the recession started. It's just a fact.
they :spin: everything!
Why is US Oil Consumption Lower? Better Gasoline Mileage? | Our Finite World
our oil consumption and miles driven have been in collapse because less people are working less period. The Main Stain Media is getting hammered in the ratings because the American people recognize the BS they are spreading and refuse to watch the :spin:
The labor participation is at an all time low, too.
37.2%: Percentage Not in Labor Force Remains at 36-Year High | CNS News
The percentage of American civilians 16 or older who do not have a job and are not actively seeking one remained at a 36-year high in May, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In December, April, and now May, the labor force participation rate has been 62.8 percent. That means that 37.2 percent were not participating in the labor force during those months.
Before December, the last time the labor force participation rate sunk as low as 62.8 percent was February 1978, when it was also 62.8 percent. At that time, Jimmy Carter was president.
Media outlets work overtime to spin bad economic data | Fox News
Media outlets work overtime to spin bad economic data
are you guys working overtime?
Obamas ability to be portrayed as a winner is staggering given the facts shows just how incompetent he actually is.
ONE THING IS FOR SURE the drudgereport is your friend.
I read an article the other day that described how the process for determining unemployment has recently been changed - it seems that today in la-la land, you are now unemployed only if you are currently collecting an unemployment check! I guess those who have just given up trying to find a job are just lazy, huh? The article further stated that if unemployment were calculated as it has been for years, the true rate would be closer to 14 percent! So I wonder how they're going to pay for both their health insurance, and their "skyrocketing" utility bills under the new EPA rules? Where are Houdini and David Copperfield when you need them? :mrgreen:
Greetings, apdst. :2wave:
I would love a source please. Then I'll consider this.
Research is something that seems to escape liberals. You want badly to believe what you are told. Clinton changed the way unemployment was measured in 1995 with the official rate, the U-3 always being understated.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf
You do realize that the only change to the official rate was that before, people waiting to start a new job did not have to have looked for work in the previous 4weeks to be classified as unemployed. Now they do. And military were once again excluded from the survey (they were only included from 1984 to 1993)Research is something that seems to escape liberals. You want badly to believe what you are told. Clinton changed the way unemployment was measured in 1995 with the official rate, the U-3 always being understated.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf
You do realize that the only change to the official rate was that before, people waiting to start a new job did not have to have looked for work in the previous 4weeks to be classified as unemployed. Now they do. And military were once again excluded from the survey (they were only included from 1984 to 1993)
I read an article the other day that described how the process for determining unemployment has recently been changed - it seems that today in la-la land, you are now unemployed only if you are currently collecting an unemployment check! I guess those who have just given up trying to find a job are just lazy, huh? The article further stated that if unemployment were calculated as it has been for years, the true rate would be closer to 14 percent! So I wonder how they're going to pay for both their health insurance, and their "skyrocketing" utility bills under the new EPA rules? Where are Houdini and David Copperfield when you need them? :mrgreen:
Greetings, apdst. :2wave:
They love to spout "post a link" when all they have to do is use google, the information is out there they know it.
You obviously didn't read my post. Your responding posts in no way address what I said. Please read it and get back to me. Thanks.
Oh, so you'll be happy that while the official rate didn't change, the U-6 dropped. But why do you consider including people who have jobs as a truer picture of unemployment? And discouraged are nowhere near record high.The high was 1,308,000 in December 2010 It's now at 697,000.Yes, and I realize that the official rate that is posted isn't really the true picture and that we have fewer people working today than we had when the recession began. The U-6 rate is the true picture and what is ignored with Obama are the huge numbers of discouraged workers that is still at record highs.
Oh, so you'll be happy that while the official rate didn't change, the U-6 dropped. But why do you consider including people who have jobs as a truer picture of unemployment? And discouraged are nowhere near record high.The high was 1,308,000 in December 2010 It's now at 697,000.
Absolutely untrue.
Why don't you read the actual methodology? Employment Situation Technical NoteI am trying to locate the article, per Luftwaffe's request. I will post the link as soon as I find it. I don't know what you consider "untrue," but I posted what I had read. You can then take it up with the writer of the article.
Greetings, pinqy. :2wave:
great doing the avg. thing huh? fine so the upper most workers get paid more and this offsets more lower wage jobs being added.
Not really rocket science, but answer this one question. How much effect did dictator Obama's Executive order giving ALL federal workers a 10.10 minimum wage factor into all of this?
I assure you more then you think, but hey its your :spin:.
Oooooh a whole 5 cents? That makes up for all the losses :roll:
I'm sure the 21.9 million underemployed agree with you when compared to 11.8 million back in 06.
Why don't you read the actual methodology? Employment Situation Technical Note
Which actual methodology are you referring to? I know the difference between U3 and U6, but I was fortunate in never having to collect unemployment, nor do I expect to in the future.
This is globalism. Corporations have gotten very good at not needing full-time positions, Unions don't have the muscle to make them, and the American public is schizo on the issue so the government goes along with what the Money says.
Don't know why conservatives fuss so much over the natural outcomes of an economy where corporations can distribute their pipelines across continents and still pull everything together. The world the way it is and the way it is going should be everything you ever wanted.
Which actual methodology are you referring to? I know the difference between U3 and U6, but I was fortunate in never having to collect unemployment, nor do I expect to in the future.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?