Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

New ObaMao all-time record - 100 MILLION folks out of the labor force

calfoxwc

By calfoxwc
in POLITICAL DISCUSSION

Recommended Posts

calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
Posted

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/03/its-a-new-record-americans-not-participating-in-the-labor-force-nears-100-million/

 

this loser president has been a freaking disaster, and his racist base manipulations

has been worse than a disaster. The damage he has caused may never go away.

 

Sure, he didn't "start the fire"...

 

he just turned a campfire into a ragin forest fire. High taxes, way too much of his

stupiass regulations, illegals, the list is long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tour2ma Contributor

Tour2ma

Posted
Posted

What is the max age for "Age eligible to work"?

 

Has to be >100 to manufacture those kind of figures.

 

Also as low as "soon-to-be-conceived"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jbluhm86 Enthusiast

jbluhm86

Posted
Posted

The Blaze's "report" is utter nonsense:

 

First of all, the total US population (FY2015), from newborns to the oldest American, is around 320 million people. If you subtract out the number of citizens who normally don't fully participate in the workforce anyway - those under the age of 18 (73,645,000) and above the age of 70 (31,693,000) - this leaves a maximum possible workforce (ages 18-70) of around 214,662,000.

 

So, if the Blaze's "report" is to be believed, and 100 million people are not participating in the workforce, that would come out to an unemployment rate of 46.6%. To put that in perspective, that would place the US within the top 10 countries with the highest unemployment rates, somewhere between the Republic of the Congo and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Or, to put it another way, even the highest unemployment rate of the Great Depression, 1934, was 25%.

 

Funny how some of these claims become dubious when you bother to actually look into them deep enough.

 

But, the conservative zealots eat up whatever garbage the Blaze spits out and believes it like it's gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

baloney, jblu. You can't change how the calc is done whenever it suits you, as in, against a rep and for a dem.

 

It's worse, far, far worse under obaMao the terrible sombeitch.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/record-94708000-americans-not-labor-force-participation-rate-drops

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/14/more-and-more-americans-are-outside-the-labor-force-entirely-who-are-they/

 

FT_14.11.12_laborForce_200px.png

Now, jblu, looky at the bold line. see it go up from 2000, to 2008. Now, take your time...what...does...it.....do....from 08 to 2014?

Would little jblusies like to have backhisliberaltruckupsies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

what if aliens work here and live to be 500 years old?

 

what if iizard woodpeckers only live to be 23?

 

what if birdbrains play whack-a-mole all day long, and miss lunch, and go hungry?

 

what if ...

 

'I'll Never Retire': Americans Break Record for Working Past 65 ...
www.bloomberg.com/.../-i-ll-never-retire-americans-break-record-for-w...
May 13, 2016 - 'I'll Never Retire': Americans Break Record for Working Past 65 ... benefits was at least one reason they had retired later than they planned to.
Americans Settling on Older Retirement Age | Gallup
www.gallup.com/poll/.../americans-settling-older-retirement-age.aspx
Apr 29, 2015 - As part of that survey, Gallup asked nonretired Americans the age at which they expect to retire, and also asked retired Americans to report the age at which they retired. ... On average, nonretired Americans expect to retire at age 65, similar to averages of between 65 and 67 since 2009.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

the calculation doesn't change, though. The results of the calc, if perfectly legit over the years, are perfectly

legit now, even when it's ObaMao that has the disgrace of too much unemployment on him.

 

and, it's higher. quibbling over technicalities over how it's calc'ed misses the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLD Woody Grand Master

MLD Woody

Posted
Posted

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/31/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-us-has-93-milion-people-out-work/

 

 

or one, it includes lots of people who likely aren’t looking for work. It includes every American of retirement age -- 65 and older. It includes every high-school student at least 16 years of age. It includes every college and many graduate or professional-school students. It includes every person who has a disability that makes it impossible for them to work. It includes parents who are choosing to stay home to take care of their kids. It includes every adult who’s gone back to school full-time. It even includes trust-fund kids who are living off investments.

 

 

 

More old people = higher number

 

 

Didn't realize that number had no max age cap

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLD Woody Grand Master

MLD Woody

Posted
Posted

the calculation doesn't change, though. The results of the calc, if perfectly legit over the years, are perfectly

legit now, even when it's ObaMao that has the disgrace of too much unemployment on him.

 

and, it's higher. quibbling over technicalities over how it's calc'ed misses the point.

 

 

You're parading around a big number because it looks bad. I would say understanding how that number is calculated is more than "quibbling over technicalities". You saw a post on your bias new site, saw a big number, and thought "ah ha! That confirms what I already thought!" and then posted it over here. At no point did you actually try to understand what that number means. THAT'S a huge problem, with too many people now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I say "quibbling" because the numbers were used against Bush for eight years.

 

NOW, there are excuses as to why the numbers are not quite as valid, etc etc etc.

 

It's only been eight years, it isn't like it's been 50. Numbers need to be accurate only when

it's in defense of the left. Otherwise, any numbers sure as hell are their benchmark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

On a more serious note, the number of people of working age who are not actively seeking employment should be the useful metric here.

 

- People who are retiring earlier than the federal/state retirement age because they've had a good career and are able to do so because of good investments etc shouldn't really count against the non-participation rate (and also shouldn't really count against any one presidential administration).

- People who are retired shouldn't count. Social security is what, 65? 67? Something like that. And people over that counts for about 15% of people off the bat, around 20% of whom are still working (statistics will vary but these numbers are 'about there'), so you're looking at a little over 12% there.

- People still in education shouldn't count. 23% of the US population is under 18. Maybe knock that down to 21-22% because som 16-17 year olds might have a part time job? About 20m people are in college, good for about 6% of the population. Call it 3% because I'm sure at least half are doing something to put themselves through college.

 

So, 12 + 21 + 3 = 36% of the population isn't really going to count against this. Meaning 64% of the population is going to count against it. And the numbers in the OP suggest 62.7% of people are in the labour force. Rough numbers aside, it looks like it's about close to what it should be.

 

 

The important information to consider isn't really counted there, and that's hours worked per eligible person - if someone works a paper route for 2 hours per week, are they counted as being in the labour force? One knock that there's been on the jobs growth is that the jobs aren't really what they seem, with requirements for employees who work over a certain amount of hours per week to have whatever perks meaning those hours are being cut and given to someone else, so what is really only one 48 hour per week job is being split in to three 16 hour jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

You say quibbling because you posted a number you didn't understand and then got called out on it.

 

Now you're rambling on about what you think the left did before.

 

 

More old people = more people out of the workforce.

you've never called anybody out on anything, woodypeckerhead.

It's just an excuse to protect the gutless liberal weinie entitlement mess made far worse by Obamao.

 

For instance:

 

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ils/pdf/opbils81.pdf

 

"Record unemployment among older workers does not keep them out of the job market"

 

Life under Obama sucks. And these numbers prove it - Telegraph
www.telegraph.co.uk › News › World News › Barack Obama

Oct 28, 2014 - Things are worse for black Americans, whose poverty rate has risen ... Finally, even the much praised unemployment rates can be misleading.

 

 

Tavis Smiley: On Every Leading Economic Issue Black Americans ...
www.thegatewaypundit.com/.../tavis-smiley-on-every-leading-economic-...

Jan 11, 2016 - For blacks, it's worse. ... these democrats like keeping minorities dumb and unemployed and on ... is swimning in wealth under this administration according to Larry Elder. .... Just like Tavis will be humping Barry's again even without any ballz. ... Black Americans voted for Obama at the 98% level, twice.

 

they are not all elderly, birdbrain. Blaming it on "more "elderly" is just ignorant.

 

Nobody is going to excuse obaMao's failures because there is more old folks, republicans,

and not being able to be asswholish long enough around here, with no opposition.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

http://www.actionforex.com/articles-library/financial-glossary/unemployment-20041209484/


The sample survey has its own problems, because the total number of workers in the economy is based on guesses rather than a census. So many economists look to the survey of employers to get a better estimate of the number of jobs created or destroyed.


Due to these deficiencies, many labor market economists prefer to look at a range of economic statistics such as:


  • Labour market participation rate (the percentage of people aged between 15 and 64 who are currently employed or searching for employment)
  • The total number of full-time jobs in an economy
  • The number of people seeking work as a raw number and not a percentage
  • The total number of person-hours worked in a month compared to the total number of person-hours people would like to work
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLD Woody Grand Master

MLD Woody

Posted
Posted

Now you seem to be vomiting as many other links and statistics you can in this thread that you think make Obama look bad. All while getting further from the original statistic you posted.

 

I'll try to remember to look through it all later. Or maybe Chris will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tour2ma Contributor

Tour2ma

Posted
Posted

The Blaze's "report" is utter nonsense:

 

cal was promised there would be no math...

 

 

In light of current developments I'm thinking of doing a Fake News audit of this forum for 2016. See who has posted how many in new threads during ... and how big the gap is between cal and "field".

 

Would you be interested in helping? Maybe a few other "flaming libs" could join in as well to distribute the load. There's only about 56 pages of treads started in 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well, libs will be starting them when Trump is in office, like the eight years of Bush's presidency.

 

Have a nice day and quit whining, only 5 weeks away !

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLD Woody Grand Master

MLD Woody

Posted
Posted

 

cal was promised there would be no math...

 

 

In light of current developments I'm thinking of doing a Fake News audit of this forum for 2016. See who has posted how many in new threads during ... and how big the gap is between cal and "field".

 

Would you be interested in helping? Maybe a few other "flaming libs" could join in as well to distribute the load. There's only about 56 pages of treads started in 2016.

 

 

 

oh geez man... it's the holidays

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

 

cal was promised there would be no math...

 

 

In light of current developments I'm thinking of doing a Fake News audit of this forum for 2016. See who has posted how many in new threads during ... and how big the gap is between cal and "field".

 

Would you be interested in helping? Maybe a few other "flaming libs" could join in as well to distribute the load. There's only about 56 pages of treads started in 2016.

You mean the gap from 1 to 2? Or like military spending, the gap between 1 and 'the total of everyone else'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...