- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 36,921
- Reaction score
- 17,904
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Yeah ... but I kinda like ol' Pete.
There's something appealing about a guy willing to totally submit to living a life of naivete'.
I misunderstood then.
A record 90 million people in the U.S. over the age of 16 are not in the labor force.
90,473,000: Record Number Not in Labor Force--Up Almost 10M Under Obama | CNS News
Undoubtedly a sub-par report, but you're plainly incorrect in your wording. The 866k figure you cite is the cumulative number of those discouraged from seeking employment due to labor market conditions, not a month over month increase.over 300k dropped out of the labor force, 866,000 people became discouraged, the labor participation rate dropped to a 35 year low at 63.2%, and zero construction jobs were created.
Among the marginally attached, there were 866,000 discouraged workers in August, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data arenot seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them.
The Jobs Committee is hard at work. I hear they are meeting regularly discussing how to simulate industry and economic growth.
Undoubtedly a sub-par report, but you're plainly incorrect in your wording. The 866k figure you cite is the cumulative number of those discouraged from seeking employment due to labor market conditions, not a month over month increase.
Employment Situation Summary
The changes are reported upon monthly. The 866k figure is culmulative, not a monthly gain as you claim.Discouraged workers is cumulative, it is a monthly number and discouraged workers aren't counted in the unemployment calculation that is reported but is in the U-6 number.
The changes are reported upon monthly. The 866k figure is culmulative, not a monthly gain as you claim.
No they do not. Under the subsection of Marginally attached individuals, you'll find the total amount of those not in the work force due to poor job prospects is 866,000, up slightly from 844,000 at the same time last year, hence the BLS terming of the year over year difference as "virtually unchanged".Better tell that to BLS because they disagree with you.
Better tell that to BLS because they disagree with you.
No they do not. Under the subsection of Marginally attached individuals, you'll find the total amount of those not in the work force due to poor job prospects is 866,000, up slightly from 844,000 at the same time last year, hence the BLS terming of the year over year difference as "virtually unchanged".
http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea38.pdf
Last time I argued this with you, I was a BLS employee, so you're wrong. The monthly number of discouraged, like all other figures published that don't explicitly say "change" is the total number.
Yes, it is a monthly report...that doesn't mean the number of new discouraged. People can, and will be, discouraged for months. Look at the numbers: A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex. see how they add up? It would make no sense if that were new discouraged.I had this same argument with another poster here and believed as you did so I wrote BLS and got an answer stating that discouraged workers were a monthly report. Year over year means the same month last year as this year. Not one month did GW Bush ever have over 800k in discouraged workers and there were many months when Obama had over a million. Those people aren't counted as unemployed and the more discouraged workers the better the unemployment percentage is going to be.
Yes, it is a monthly report...that doesn't mean the number of new discouraged. People can, and will be, discouraged for months. Look at the numbers: A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex. see how they add up? It would make no sense if that were new discouraged.
That was never the point, of course some people remain discouraged for months
Right....866,000 in August.....down from 988,000 in July...an improvement.it is a monthly number and last month it was over 800k and is ignored when talking about Obama performance.
Then why have you been falsely claiming it was the number so became discouraged that month?
Right....866,000 in August.....down from 988,000 in July...an improvement.
Yep, some of those discouraged have now dropped out of the labor force completely. Congratulations! Labor force dropped, employment number dropped, labor participation rate is the worst in 35 years. The number of discouraged is a monthly number and that has always been my point. sorry if I wasn't clear.
44Yeah, when you wrote "866,000 people became discouraged" it seemed like you meant 866,000 people became discouraged rather than the total number. As for the drop, some started looking and some of those found jobs...some decided they no longer wanted one, and some went over the 12 month cut-off. The reason for the time limit is that by that point, they're no more likely to start looking than those who say they don't want a job.
Actually, the problem predates Obama's administration and dates back to Greenspan/Clinton. Those two set the trajectory we are on. We are now still living in the aftermath of their bubble.
Of course Bush and Obama should have taken the hit and cut the budget. They didn't and so we are still stumbling along.
Ahhh you go further back to Reagan trickle down did not exactly work!!
Not sure where you get your information but bls, bea, and the U.S. treasury say you are wrong, Reagan economy created 17 million jobs, doubled GDP, and increased govt. revenue by 60%. Now you people can continue to try and divert from the Obama disaster but the numbers just make you look and sound foolish. Get some pride and stop believing what the left tells you. BLS.gov, BEA.gov, and the U.S. Treasury are great sites and prove the liberal rhetoric wrong.
The Mystery Of Income Inequality Broken Down To One Simple Chart - Forbes
Umm it pretty much common knowledge. Plus you are sighting jobs created. You do realize Reagan almost tripled the debt in doing so. Plus income disparity started getting out of control under him. Which was his handlers sole premise. Not saying Clinton didn't have a hand in it as well. However Republicans are the worst about it and what is really sick is they think they had nothing to do with it. I guess that's why they want history books rewritten, 50 years from now will the bible say Reagan died on the cross for your sins??? You live in a state where income equality is at a record low or are you just blind to that fact? It called serfdom and that is what the rich want and they paid a lot to get it.
Yes, Reagan tripled the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion dollars and we got a peace dividend out of that, doubling of GDP, 60% increase in Income tax revenue, and 17 million jobs. Not a bad return on that investment. Wonder what the debt service is on the 1.7 trillion Reagan debt vs. the 6.4 trillion Obama debt?
You and others like you just don't get it and probably never will. The rest of us will be paying for that ignorance for a long time. Doubt seriously you were around in the 80's or old enough to understand what Reagan inherited. Too bad you and others like you are spending so much time demonizing Reagan that you are ignoring that this country was built on equal opportunity not equal outcome.