New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Our brilliant young president, Obama, has a new way of lowering the unemployment rate.

The unemployment rate fell to 6.7% in December, but the drop came mainly from workers leaving the labor force.

Only 62.8% of the adult population is participating in the labor market now -- meaning they either have a job or are looking for one. That matches the lowest level since 1978, when the population was much smaller.
"
Unemployment dropped to 6.7 percent because 525,000 additional unemployed adults were discouraged and did not seek a job," said University of Maryland economics Professor Peter Morici.

A total of only 74,000 jobs were created in December, leaving a NET LOSS OF 451,000 jobs.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2014/01/10/US-unemployment-rate-drops-to-67-percent/UPI-81341389361031/#ixzz2q0kivZ9a

If this trend, which has been occurring over the last 5 years continues, the economic collapse that I predicted will indeed occur. It may not happen at the exact time I predicted, but it will happen
 

Caroljo

Senator
And most of those 74,000 jobs created in December were probably temporary hires for the holidays! Wait till the January report comes out.....
 
And most of those 74,000 jobs created in December were probably temporary hires for the holidays! Wait till the January report comes out.....
Yep, and as average Americans are fed the lies by Obama's ministry of propaganda at ABC, CBS and particularly NBC, they will go about their daily lives thinking everything is coming up roses, and be caught totally unprepared for the very possible occurrence of the collapse which will start with Obama's expanded and growing welfare state.

Obama and the Democrats MUST BE STOPPED

Glad I don't live in the big city.
 

fairsheet

Senator
This part of the top-poster's cut 'n paste, tells us just about all we need to know about it's original screeder:

"""Only 62.8% of the adult population is participating in the labor market now -- meaning they either have a job or are looking for one. That matches the lowest level since 1978, when the population was much smaller."""

For as we all know, the cited percentage and "total population" are too entirely different constructs. This suggests that the screeder is a moron, OR he's about misleading his dupes.

Anyway....We all knew 70 years ago, that "labor market participation" as a percentage of the whole, would be declining 60-70 years later. That's why we (Reagan) reformed Social Security back in the 80's. We knew that in the future, fewer workers would be supporting more retired people.

All things being equal....IF "labor market participation" was actually flat or rising right now?...that'd be a really bad sign, since it would suggest that older people were having to work LONGER than they used to.
 
This part of the top-poster's cut 'n paste, tells us just about all we need to know about it's original screeder:

"""Only 62.8% of the adult population is participating in the labor market now -- meaning they either have a job or are looking for one. That matches the lowest level since 1978, when the population was much smaller."""

For as we all know, the cited percentage and "total population" are too entirely different constructs. This suggests that the screeder is a moron, OR he's about misleading his dupes.

Anyway....We all knew 70 years ago, that "labor market participation" as a percentage of the whole, would be declining 60-70 years later. That's why we (Reagan) reformed Social Security back in the 80's. We knew that in the future, fewer workers would be supporting more retired people.

All things being equal....IF "labor market participation" was actually flat or rising right now?...that'd be a really bad sign, since it would suggest that older people were having to work LONGER than they used to.
Fact: there are more Americans of working age today, than there were in 1978. And 74,000 jobs doesn't even keep up with the number of Americans entering the workforce.

Sorry, but Obama's big government policies are a total failure. That's also a fact.

And here's the proof. Your BS spin doesn't work.

>>>Real Unemployment Rate Of 11.5% Means Difference To Reported Rises To Record<<<<

The gross manipulation of the unemployment rate due to the plunging labor force participation rate and the soaring, record number of people that are not in the labor force is by now, we hope, clear to all. Yes, millions may be dropping out of the labor force because they can't find a job which somehow means the US economy is getting better, but sadly the US civilian, non-institutional population keeps rising, and hit a record 246.7 million in December. Which is why every month we show what the real unemployment rate would look like when normalized for the fudged participation rate by taking a 30 year average.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-10/real-unemployment-rate-115-means-difference-reported-rises-record
 
This part of the top-poster's cut 'n paste, tells us just about all we need to know about it's original screeder:

"""Only 62.8% of the adult population is participating in the labor market now -- meaning they either have a job or are looking for one. That matches the lowest level since 1978, when the population was much smaller."""

For as we all know, the cited percentage and "total population" are too entirely different constructs. This suggests that the screeder is a moron, OR he's about misleading his dupes.

Anyway....We all knew 70 years ago, that "labor market participation" as a percentage of the whole, would be declining 60-70 years later. That's why we (Reagan) reformed Social Security back in the 80's. We knew that in the future, fewer workers would be supporting more retired people.

All things being equal....IF "labor market participation" was actually flat or rising right now?...that'd be a really bad sign, since it would suggest that older people were having to work LONGER than they used to.
Fairsheet...I truly enjoy your posts. Well done.
 
Fact: there are more Americans of working age today, than there were in 1978. And 74,000 jobs doesn't even keep up with the number of Americans entering the workforce.

Sorry, but Obama's big government policies are a total failure. That's also a fact.

And here's the proof. Your BS spin doesn't work.

>>>Real Unemployment Rate Of 11.5% Means Difference To Reported Rises To Record<<<<

The gross manipulation of the unemployment rate due to the plunging labor force participation rate and the soaring, record number of people that are not in the labor force is by now, we hope, clear to all. Yes, millions may be dropping out of the labor force because they can't find a job which somehow means the US economy is getting better, but sadly the US civilian, non-institutional population keeps rising, and hit a record 246.7 million in December. Which is why every month we show what the real unemployment rate would look like when normalized for the fudged participation rate by taking a 30 year average.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-10/real-unemployment-rate-115-means-difference-reported-rises-record
I once listened to the head of the Bureau of Statistics on CSPAN. The man was a humble public servant that obviously tried as hard as possible to create accurate statistics. I did not know you were in that league. Analyzing statistics from a couch is more an exercise in selective perception than anything resembling science. Having read your drivel before, I am willing to bet you found a source for your desired outcome. After all, we all know you are intimately familiar with statistics over the ages, your PHD in stat says it all.
 
Fact: there are more Americans of working age today, than there were in 1978. And 74,000 jobs doesn't even keep up with the number of Americans entering the workforce.

Sorry, but Obama's big government policies are a total failure. That's also a fact.

And here's the proof. Your BS spin doesn't work.

>>>Real Unemployment Rate Of 11.5% Means Difference To Reported Rises To Record<<<<

The gross manipulation of the unemployment rate due to the plunging labor force participation rate and the soaring, record number of people that are not in the labor force is by now, we hope, clear to all. Yes, millions may be dropping out of the labor force because they can't find a job which somehow means the US economy is getting better, but sadly the US civilian, non-institutional population keeps rising, and hit a record 246.7 million in December. Which is why every month we show what the real unemployment rate would look like when normalized for the fudged participation rate by taking a 30 year average.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-10/real-unemployment-rate-115-means-difference-reported-rises-record
The workforce is comprised of working age Americans, only I/3 of those that are leaving the workforce are retirees, and more people are becoming working age than are retiring.

The job creation doesn't even keep up with those entering the workforce. If you'd read the article, you would find out the facts.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-10/real-unemployment-rate-115-means-difference-reported-rises-record
By the way, you are the one that is BSing and spinning to try to save Obama's bacon.
 

fairsheet

Senator
Fairsheet...I truly enjoy your posts. Well done.
Thanks man. I'm all for cussing and discussing whatever. All I ask (wish) is that we operate from a factual foundation.

As an aside as to "labor force participation", a couple of things jumped out when I saw the linked charting. One is that the range between high and low (around 3%) is probably a heckuva lot smaller than most of us would assume. And the second...is a pretty obvious question that nobody seems to be addressing....Why was labor force participation so "low" in 1978?

Oh...an another sidenote. This morning, one of my local newspapers ran a full page piece about a local unemployed electrician and the fact that his unemplyoment benefits were running out. He said he just needed 3 more months, since that's when the traditional construction season would be getting into swing.

The kicker for me though, is that this fellow's 67-years old. No doubt..the fact of this man's be willing to go back to work is MOST impressive. I wish him the best of the best in terms of his search for work. BUT...is the fact that a 67-year old man is having trouble finding work in a demanding trade such as this, really a sign of a weak economy? How much time and how many resources should we expend, in order that every 67-year old who wants a job, can find a job?
 

Renee

Governor
And most of those 74,000 jobs created in December were probably temporary hires for the holidays! Wait till the January report comes out.....
I guess you're not aware those numbers are figured in...Jeeez....but keep praying the numbers are bad, you can't even hide the glee.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Thanks man. I'm all for cussing and discussing whatever. All I ask (wish) is that we operate from a factual foundation.

As an aside as to "labor force participation", a couple of things jumped out when I saw the linked charting. One is that the range between high and low (around 3%) is probably a heckuva lot smaller than most of us would assume. And the second...is a pretty obvious question that nobody seems to be addressing....Why was labor force participation so "low" in 1978?

Oh...an another sidenote. This morning, one of my local newspapers ran a full page piece about a local unemployed electrician and the fact that his unemplyoment benefits were running out. He said he just needed 3 more months, since that's when the traditional construction season would be getting into swing.

The kicker for me though, is that this fellow's 67-years old. No doubt..the fact of this man's be willing to go back to work is MOST impressive. I wish him the best of the best in terms of his search for work. BUT...is the fact that a 67-year old man is having trouble finding work in a demanding trade such as this, really a sign of a weak economy? How much time and how many resources should we expend, in order that every 67-year old who wants a job, can find a job?

how do you mean..resources? shouldnt he get UE...indefinitely...?
 

fairsheet

Senator
how do you mean..resources? shouldnt he get UE...indefinitely...?
Hell no, he shouldn't. Call me callous (again), but we (society) have already extended Medicare and Social Security to this man. My guess is that he's got a pension due him, as well.

Maybe he wants to continue working because that's just the kind of guy he is?.....or because he wants even more than what he has now?......or maybe he made some poor financial decisions over the years? Whatever....as I alluded, my wishes and thoughts are with him as regards his search for work. BUT....I don't feel obligated to subsidize him (beynd SSI and Medicare) in the meantime.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Hell no, he shouldn't. Call me callous (again), but we (society) have already extended Medicare and Social Security to this man. My guess is that he's got a pension due him, as well.

Maybe he wants to continue working because that's just the kind of guy he is?.....or because he wants even more than what he has now?......or maybe he made some poor financial decisions over the years? Whatever....as I alluded, my wishes and thoughts are with him as regards his search for work. BUT....I don't feel obligated to subsidize him (beynd SSI and Medicare) in the meantime.
as well as other people who make poor decisions? maybe he needs the money?
 

Caroljo

Senator
I guess you're not aware those numbers are figured in...Jeeez....but keep praying the numbers are bad, you can't even hide the glee.
You're a complete idiot if you think people are actually happy about the unemployment numbers! Of course they're figured in, that's what made the % drop! When they no longer have those temporary jobs, it'll go back up. But then you'll have another dumb excuse for that when it happens too.
 
I am sure the old electrician paid into SS so if he gets that money, good for him. SS is not means tested but it is taxable income. As for Medicare, good for him too. If the old guy wants to work and can work or was laid off, let him get UE as long as he was truly working and not just making it all up. But I do agree that this case needs more attention, the fraud potential is there.
 

fairsheet

Senator
I am sure the old electrician paid into SS so if he gets that money, good for him. SS is not means tested but it is taxable income. As for Medicare, good for him too. If the old guy wants to work and can work or was laid off, let him get UE as long as he was truly working and not just making it all up. But I do agree that this case needs more attention, the fraud potential is there.
I must qualify. I'm definitely not "accusing" this guy of being a fraudster. And as I say....more power TO the guy for presumably wanting to go back to work. I just thought it odd that this full-page piece chose a 67-year old as their exemplar for the "problem" of expiring unemployment benefits.
 
Top