4.7%

[edthecynic]

I don't attack or defend any Party, I expose Right-wing liars and the techniques they use to deceive.

Right wingers like me who oppose morality laws and think the military is in too many wars and should be smaller?

Wait, you're a liar ...

When you lied about the increase in those workers not in the labor force being due to workers getting discouraged and quit looking, I called you on it and pointed out that the number not in the labor force will continue to rise every year of Tramp's Reign and challenged you to make a friendly wager on it and you refused, which says you know I am right.

I will say this, if Clinton had won the not in labor force would increase every year also. It increased every year of Bush's 2 terms. The lie is that it is due to workers getting discouraged and giving up looking, and that is what I nailed you on.

You also called me a Republican because you're a liar and I stopped reading after that.

You're also not very smart, you don't grasp the significance of size of the labor force and it being historically low

Repeating your lie that I called you a Republican does not make it any less of a lie, it only makes you a serial liar. Since I already corrected you on this earlier in this thread, it also makes you a premeditated liar.

The labor force is the largest it has ever been in the history of this great country.

You keep saying I'm a Trump supporter, I'm not, a right winger, I'm not, and the implication is clearly that I am a Republican, I'm not.

You're a little liar and your pants are on fire and all you're doing it stoking the fire repeating the lies. I will give Trump a chance, I've said that clearly. But Google "Trump" in the name of threads I started before the election and see the dozen or so anti-Trump threads I started.

You just lie, lie and lie again.

Then you attack W and want me to defend it. I never voted for the guy and I oppose him, he's Obama's clone, they both sucked

You parrot Tramp's and Limbaugh's lies, that makes you a certified caed carrying Right-winger.

 

[Faun]

4.7%. Remember that number folks. That is the unemployment rate on Obama's last day in office.

Anybody think it will be that low on Trump's last day?

Median income dropped under Obama in eight years. That is utterly pathetic. Take your phony narrative and shove it up your ass.

And that's not even using the real inflation numbers. It's even worse then. There has been no real growth in wages since 2000, not so for every other cost of living. That's been rising.

Have someone explain to you what the real median household income figures in that chart means.

lol, you are the one who needs the explanation. It is adjusted for inflation or at least what inflation they will admit to. Apparently you didn't even realize what you posted. Too funny.

Translation: ding has his own set of alternative facts

 

[ding]

Median income dropped under Obama in eight years. That is utterly pathetic. Take your phony narrative and shove it up your ass.

And that's not even using the real inflation numbers. It's even worse then. There has been no real growth in wages since 2000, not so for every other cost of living. That's been rising.

Have someone explain to you what the real median household income figures in that chart means.

lol, you are the one who needs the explanation. It is adjusted for inflation or at least what inflation they will admit to. Apparently you didn't even realize what you posted. Too funny.

Translation: ding has his own set of alternative facts

You did see the word, "adjusted." in there, right? What exactly do you believe it is adjusted for, Einstein?

 

[kaz]

Right wingers like me who oppose morality laws and think the military is in too many wars and should be smaller?

Wait, you're a liar ...

When you lied about the increase in those workers not in the labor force being due to workers getting discouraged and quit looking, I called you on it and pointed out that the number not in the labor force will continue to rise every year of Tramp's Reign and challenged you to make a friendly wager on it and you refused, which says you know I am right.

I will say this, if Clinton had won the not in labor force would increase every year also. It increased every year of Bush's 2 terms. The lie is that it is due to workers getting discouraged and giving up looking, and that is what I nailed you on.

You also called me a Republican because you're a liar and I stopped reading after that.

You're also not very smart, you don't grasp the significance of size of the labor force and it being historically low

Repeating your lie that I called you a Republican does not make it any less of a lie, it only makes you a serial liar. Since I already corrected you on this earlier in this thread, it also makes you a premeditated liar.

The labor force is the largest it has ever been in the history of this great country.

You keep saying I'm a Trump supporter, I'm not, a right winger, I'm not, and the implication is clearly that I am a Republican, I'm not.

You're a little liar and your pants are on fire and all you're doing it stoking the fire repeating the lies. I will give Trump a chance, I've said that clearly. But Google "Trump" in the name of threads I started before the election and see the dozen or so anti-Trump threads I started.

You just lie, lie and lie again.

Then you attack W and want me to defend it. I never voted for the guy and I oppose him, he's Obama's clone, they both sucked

You parrot Tramp's and Limbaugh's lies, that makes you a certified caed carrying Right-winger.

I do? Like what? Just making your shit up again, liar

 

[edthecynic]

When you lied about the increase in those workers not in the labor force being due to workers getting discouraged and quit looking, I called you on it and pointed out that the number not in the labor force will continue to rise every year of Tramp's Reign and challenged you to make a friendly wager on it and you refused, which says you know I am right.

I will say this, if Clinton had won the not in labor force would increase every year also. It increased every year of Bush's 2 terms. The lie is that it is due to workers getting discouraged and giving up looking, and that is what I nailed you on.

You also called me a Republican because you're a liar and I stopped reading after that.

You're also not very smart, you don't grasp the significance of size of the labor force and it being historically low

Repeating your lie that I called you a Republican does not make it any less of a lie, it only makes you a serial liar. Since I already corrected you on this earlier in this thread, it also makes you a premeditated liar.

The labor force is the largest it has ever been in the history of this great country.

You keep saying I'm a Trump supporter, I'm not, a right winger, I'm not, and the implication is clearly that I am a Republican, I'm not.

You're a little liar and your pants are on fire and all you're doing it stoking the fire repeating the lies. I will give Trump a chance, I've said that clearly. But Google "Trump" in the name of threads I started before the election and see the dozen or so anti-Trump threads I started.

You just lie, lie and lie again.

Then you attack W and want me to defend it. I never voted for the guy and I oppose him, he's Obama's clone, they both sucked

You parrot Tramp's and Limbaugh's lies, that makes you a certified caed carrying Right-winger.

I do? Like what? Just making your shit up again, liar

You said the size of the labor force was historically low when it is the highest it has ever been in the entire history of this great country.

 

[kaz]

You also called me a Republican because you're a liar and I stopped reading after that.

You're also not very smart, you don't grasp the significance of size of the labor force and it being historically low

Repeating your lie that I called you a Republican does not make it any less of a lie, it only makes you a serial liar. Since I already corrected you on this earlier in this thread, it also makes you a premeditated liar.

The labor force is the largest it has ever been in the history of this great country.

You keep saying I'm a Trump supporter, I'm not, a right winger, I'm not, and the implication is clearly that I am a Republican, I'm not.

You're a little liar and your pants are on fire and all you're doing it stoking the fire repeating the lies. I will give Trump a chance, I've said that clearly. But Google "Trump" in the name of threads I started before the election and see the dozen or so anti-Trump threads I started.

You just lie, lie and lie again.

Then you attack W and want me to defend it. I never voted for the guy and I oppose him, he's Obama's clone, they both sucked

You parrot Tramp's and Limbaugh's lies, that makes you a certified caed carrying Right-winger.

I do? Like what? Just making your shit up again, liar

You said the size of the labor force was historically low when it is the highest it has ever been in the entire history of this great country.

Bull shit. The labor force participation RATE is not high

 

[edthecynic]

Repeating your lie that I called you a Republican does not make it any less of a lie, it only makes you a serial liar. Since I already corrected you on this earlier in this thread, it also makes you a premeditated liar.

The labor force is the largest it has ever been in the history of this great country.

You keep saying I'm a Trump supporter, I'm not, a right winger, I'm not, and the implication is clearly that I am a Republican, I'm not.

You're a little liar and your pants are on fire and all you're doing it stoking the fire repeating the lies. I will give Trump a chance, I've said that clearly. But Google "Trump" in the name of threads I started before the election and see the dozen or so anti-Trump threads I started.

You just lie, lie and lie again.

Then you attack W and want me to defend it. I never voted for the guy and I oppose him, he's Obama's clone, they both sucked

You parrot Tramp's and Limbaugh's lies, that makes you a certified caed carrying Right-winger.

I do? Like what? Just making your shit up again, liar

You said the size of the labor force was historically low when it is the highest it has ever been in the entire history of this great country.

Bull shit. The labor force participation RATE is not high

When caught lying the Right always move the goalposts.
You didn't say the labor force "participation rate" was low, you said:

You're also not very smart, you don't grasp the significance of size of the labor force and it being historically low

 

[kaz]

You keep saying I'm a Trump supporter, I'm not, a right winger, I'm not, and the implication is clearly that I am a Republican, I'm not.

You're a little liar and your pants are on fire and all you're doing it stoking the fire repeating the lies. I will give Trump a chance, I've said that clearly. But Google "Trump" in the name of threads I started before the election and see the dozen or so anti-Trump threads I started.

You just lie, lie and lie again.

Then you attack W and want me to defend it. I never voted for the guy and I oppose him, he's Obama's clone, they both sucked

You parrot Tramp's and Limbaugh's lies, that makes you a certified caed carrying Right-winger.

I do? Like what? Just making your shit up again, liar

You said the size of the labor force was historically low when it is the highest it has ever been in the entire history of this great country.

Bull shit. The labor force participation RATE is not high

When caught lying the Right always move the goalposts.
You didn't say the labor force "participation rate" was low, you said:

You're also not very smart, you don't grasp the significance of size of the labor force and it being historically low

That is ambiguous, and I've said LFPR in almost every post. Is "large" absolute or relative?

Your argument that size of labor ignoring the size of the population is ridiculous

 

[edthecynic]

You parrot Tramp's and Limbaugh's lies, that makes you a certified caed carrying Right-winger.

I do? Like what? Just making your shit up again, liar

You said the size of the labor force was historically low when it is the highest it has ever been in the entire history of this great country.

Bull shit. The labor force participation RATE is not high

When caught lying the Right always move the goalposts.
You didn't say the labor force "participation rate" was low, you said:

You're also not very smart, you don't grasp the significance of size of the labor force and it being historically low

That is ambiguous, and I've said LFPR in almost every post. Is "large" absolute or relative?

Your argument that size of labor ignoring the size of the population is ridiculous

No, my argument is the size of the labor force is affected by demographics, not economic factors alone like discouragement as you and the dishonest Right like Tramp and Limbaugh imply, making the LFPR useless when not corrected for demographics. And the Right NEVER correct for demographics because they are not honest enough to correct for demographics. Although they might start to correct for demographics if Tramp's LFPR drops.

 

[kaz]

I do? Like what? Just making your shit up again, liar

You said the size of the labor force was historically low when it is the highest it has ever been in the entire history of this great country.

Bull shit. The labor force participation RATE is not high

When caught lying the Right always move the goalposts.
You didn't say the labor force "participation rate" was low, you said:

You're also not very smart, you don't grasp the significance of size of the labor force and it being historically low

That is ambiguous, and I've said LFPR in almost every post. Is "large" absolute or relative?

Your argument that size of labor ignoring the size of the population is ridiculous

No, my argument is the size of the labor force is affected by demographics, not economic factors alone like discouragement as you and the dishonest Right like Tramp and Limbaugh imply, making the LFPR useless when not corrected for demographics. And the Right NEVER correct for demographics because they are not honest enough to correct for demographics. Although they might start to correct for demographics if Tramp's LFPR drops.

I'm not putting you on ignore, but I am ignoring you now for this discussion until you get a grip. I'm not a Republican and I'm not interested in defending W. I invite you to find any of the Republicans on the board who are interested in doing that. But you're just boring the shit out of me

 

[edthecynic]

You said the size of the labor force was historically low when it is the highest it has ever been in the entire history of this great country.

Bull shit. The labor force participation RATE is not high

When caught lying the Right always move the goalposts.
You didn't say the labor force "participation rate" was low, you said:

You're also not very smart, you don't grasp the significance of size of the labor force and it being historically low

That is ambiguous, and I've said LFPR in almost every post. Is "large" absolute or relative?

Your argument that size of labor ignoring the size of the population is ridiculous

No, my argument is the size of the labor force is affected by demographics, not economic factors alone like discouragement as you and the dishonest Right like Tramp and Limbaugh imply, making the LFPR useless when not corrected for demographics. And the Right NEVER correct for demographics because they are not honest enough to correct for demographics. Although they might start to correct for demographics if Tramp's LFPR drops.

I'm not putting you on ignore, but I am ignoring you now for this discussion until you get a grip. I'm not a Republican and I'm not interested in defending W. I invite you to find any of the Republicans on the board who are interested in doing that. But you're just boring the shit out of me

Well, there you go again.
I never called you a Republican and I never attacked W.
I just pointed out the flaw in using the LFPR, and you deflect with Republicans and W.

 

[Clementine]

4.7%. Remember that number folks. That is the unemployment rate on Obama's last day in office.

Anybody think it will be that low on Trump's last day?

Want to bet?

With all the billionaire business criminals and Nazi dingbats he appointed to his cabinet, I'm sure the economy is going to be a shambles by the time he's through.

These corporate leaders all say regulations are "job killers." How come after 8 years of Obama's regulations the unemployment rate is only 4.7%? I don't think it has ever been that low in my lifetime.

The real reason they oppose regulations is because protecting workers, consumers, and the environment takes money out of their greedy hands.

Ironically, the working class white chumps who most strongly supported Trump will be the ones hurting the most in a few years.

That number is no where near accurate. Millions have given up completely and millions were forced to settle for a lesser job after Obamacare and other policies put their previous employers out of business.

There are more government jobs than ever but that just means a bigger tax burden on the shrinking private sector.

 

[kaz]

4.7%. Remember that number folks. That is the unemployment rate on Obama's last day in office.

Anybody think it will be that low on Trump's last day?

Want to bet?

With all the billionaire business criminals and Nazi dingbats he appointed to his cabinet, I'm sure the economy is going to be a shambles by the time he's through.

These corporate leaders all say regulations are "job killers." How come after 8 years of Obama's regulations the unemployment rate is only 4.7%? I don't think it has ever been that low in my lifetime.

The real reason they oppose regulations is because protecting workers, consumers, and the environment takes money out of their greedy hands.

Ironically, the working class white chumps who most strongly supported Trump will be the ones hurting the most in a few years.

That number is no where near accurate. Millions have given up completely and millions were forced to settle for a lesser job after Obamacare and other policies put their previous employers out of business.

There are more government jobs than ever but that just means a bigger tax burden on the shrinking private sector.

The irony is that if Trump gives people hope and they start finding jobs, that will drive up the UE rate. As you say, it's a bogus measurement. Let's measure what is relevant, the LFPR

 

[Clementine]

4.7%. Remember that number folks. That is the unemployment rate on Obama's last day in office.

Anybody think it will be that low on Trump's last day?

Want to bet?

With all the billionaire business criminals and Nazi dingbats he appointed to his cabinet, I'm sure the economy is going to be a shambles by the time he's through.

These corporate leaders all say regulations are "job killers." How come after 8 years of Obama's regulations the unemployment rate is only 4.7%? I don't think it has ever been that low in my lifetime.

The real reason they oppose regulations is because protecting workers, consumers, and the environment takes money out of their greedy hands.

Ironically, the working class white chumps who most strongly supported Trump will be the ones hurting the most in a few years.

That number is no where near accurate. Millions have given up completely and millions were forced to settle for a lesser job after Obamacare and other policies put their previous employers out of business.

There are more government jobs than ever but that just means a bigger tax burden on the shrinking private sector.

The irony is that if Trump gives people hope and they start finding jobs, that will drive up the UE rate. As you say, it's a bogus measurement. Let's measure what is relevant, the LFPR

And criticism will come no matter what. At a time when the more accurate UE was the same number under Bush, Pelosi had a hissy fit and demanded to know where the jobs were.

More people than ever are on welfare. We haven't changed for the better in the last 8 years.

 

[pinqy]

The irony is that if Trump gives people hope and they start finding jobs, that will drive up the UE rate. As you say, it's a bogus measurement. Let's measure what is relevant, the LFPR

The Labor Force Participation Rate tells us what percent of the population is doing something about work. But it doesn't tell us anything about why people aren't...whether it's by choice or not.
The Unemployment rate tells us what percent of those doing something about work are successful.

What are you examining that the percent that wants a job is more relevant than the percent that's successful at finding work?

 

[edthecynic]

Millions have given up completely

Liar!

 

[pinqy]

That number is no where near accurate. Millions have given up completely and millions were forced to settle for a lesser job after Obamacare and other policies put their previous employers out of business.

How does that make the UE rate inaccurate? It's not supposed to measure people who aren't trying to work or make judgement calls about quality of work. You can't complain that something is inaccurate at measuring something it's not meant to measure.

And since no one in the history of ever has included people not trying to work as unemployed (with some narrow exceptions such as when a one-industry town, such as a factory town or mining town, loses its industry), you'd be hard pressed to argue that it should include discouraged.

And it is not true that "millions" gave up....the number of Discouraged workers is less than half a million.

 

[kaz]

The irony is that if Trump gives people hope and they start finding jobs, that will drive up the UE rate. As you say, it's a bogus measurement. Let's measure what is relevant, the LFPR

The Labor Force Participation Rate tells us what percent of the population is doing something about work. But it doesn't tell us anything about why people aren't...whether it's by choice or not.
The Unemployment rate tells us what percent of those doing something about work are successful.

What are you examining that the percent that wants a job is more relevant than the percent that's successful at finding work?

That's why you look at the labor force as a whole, all the various reasons people don't work is cancelled out

 

[pinqy]

The irony is that if Trump gives people hope and they start finding jobs, that will drive up the UE rate. As you say, it's a bogus measurement. Let's measure what is relevant, the LFPR

The Labor Force Participation Rate tells us what percent of the population is doing something about work. But it doesn't tell us anything about why people aren't...whether it's by choice or not.
The Unemployment rate tells us what percent of those doing something about work are successful.

What are you examining that the percent that wants a job is more relevant than the percent that's successful at finding work?

That's why you look at the labor force as a whole, all the various reasons people don't work is cancelled out

Cancelled out? I'm not sure what you mean. And looking at the labor force as a whole, you're not looking at those who aren't trying to work, which I thought you wanted to do.

 

[Faun]

4.7%. Remember that number folks. That is the unemployment rate on Obama's last day in office.

Anybody think it will be that low on Trump's last day?

Want to bet?

With all the billionaire business criminals and Nazi dingbats he appointed to his cabinet, I'm sure the economy is going to be a shambles by the time he's through.

These corporate leaders all say regulations are "job killers." How come after 8 years of Obama's regulations the unemployment rate is only 4.7%? I don't think it has ever been that low in my lifetime.

The real reason they oppose regulations is because protecting workers, consumers, and the environment takes money out of their greedy hands.

Ironically, the working class white chumps who most strongly supported Trump will be the ones hurting the most in a few years.

That number is no where near accurate. Millions have given up completely and millions were forced to settle for a lesser job after Obamacare and other policies put their previous employers out of business.

There are more government jobs than ever but that just means a bigger tax burden on the shrinking private sector.

There are only an additional 218,000 federal employees which barely keeps up with population growth.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data