4.7%

[pinqy]

They couldn't find a job worth doing. I mean duh.

How is that different than discouraged?? Or if the person doesn't need a job and doesn't care anymore if he gets one, why should we care in analyzing the labor force?

What is your point?

Two points:
That you haven't made it clear what you think "frustrated" means and how it's different from discouraged.
That if someone decides he doesn't actually need a job because it's too much hassle, then he's irrelevant to any analysis of the labor force. We care about people not being able to get jobs, not about people choosing not to work.

Bullshit. Se care very much why the people not in the labor force chose not to work and whether it's economically related

To a degree, which is why discouraged and marginally attached are tracked. But that's for potential labor. Let's say there are 20 people who want jobs. 10 are looking and 10 are not. 20 jobs open up and the ten who were looking get hired. The 10 not looking are obviously not hired. So if we counted those not looking as unemployed, we would be saying the economy was short 10 jobs. But there are 10 jobs unfilled.
Now, what if only 8 jobs opened up instead of 20? How many people do we have who could have been working if there were enough jobs? 2. The 10 not looking wouldn't be working no matter how many jobs were available.

So why do you think counting people who wouldn't be working no matter how many jobs were available the same as those looking for work is more useful?

 

[edthecynic]

You don't grasp the difference? Seriously? I said LEFT THE LABOR FORCE.

You referred to the BLS term. You're either committing the fallacy of equivocation or you're just stupid and don't speak English well

Or you are trying to lie your way out of admitting the truth.
So why were they "frustrated" enough to leave the labor force?

They couldn't find a job worth doing. I mean duh. I don't even know what you're trying to argue. Seriously, you don't think that a low LFPR is an issue? That's stupid

A low LFPR will stop being an issue to the Right

Stopped reading here. I gave you another chance and you seemed to be taking it. Now you just want to argue with W again. Go to it, there are Republicans everywhere on the board

Bullshit! You read every word and had no answer so you invented your imaginary W reference even though I brought up Tramp and not W.
Here it is again unedited:

A low LFPR will stop being an issue to the Right if it stays low under Tramp, just as Tramp's "real" unemployment number, 96 million, will stop being the "real" unemployment number as it increases every year of the Tramp dictatorship.

JAN. 11, 2017 Press Conference
TRUMP: There will be a major border tax on these companies that are leaving and getting away with murder. And if our politicians had what it takes, they would have done this years ago. And you’d have millions more workers right now in the United States that are — 96 million really wanting a job and they can’t get. You know that story. The real number — that’s the real number.

 

[kaz]

They couldn't find a job worth doing. I mean duh.

How is that different than discouraged?? Or if the person doesn't need a job and doesn't care anymore if he gets one, why should we care in analyzing the labor force?

What is your point?

Two points:
That you haven't made it clear what you think "frustrated" means and how it's different from discouraged.
That if someone decides he doesn't actually need a job because it's too much hassle, then he's irrelevant to any analysis of the labor force. We care about people not being able to get jobs, not about people choosing not to work.

Bullshit. Se care very much why the people not in the labor force chose not to work and whether it's economically related

To a degree, which is why discouraged and marginally attached are tracked. But that's for potential labor. Let's say there are 20 people who want jobs. 10 are looking and 10 are not. 20 jobs open up and the ten who were looking get hired. The 10 not looking are obviously not hired. So if we counted those not looking as unemployed, we would be saying the economy was short 10 jobs. But there are 10 jobs unfilled.
Now, what if only 8 jobs opened up instead of 20? How many people do we have who could have been working if there were enough jobs? 2. The 10 not looking wouldn't be working no matter how many jobs were available.

So why do you think counting people who wouldn't be working no matter how many jobs were available the same as those looking for work is more useful?

I don't know how to explain it at this point other than duh, think about it. People working contribute to their family and nation's wealth. It's highly significant what the LFPR is

 

[kaz]

You don't grasp the difference? Seriously? I said LEFT THE LABOR FORCE.

You referred to the BLS term. You're either committing the fallacy of equivocation or you're just stupid and don't speak English well

Or you are trying to lie your way out of admitting the truth.
So why were they "frustrated" enough to leave the labor force?

They couldn't find a job worth doing. I mean duh. I don't even know what you're trying to argue. Seriously, you don't think that a low LFPR is an issue? That's stupid

A low LFPR will stop being an issue to the Right

Stopped reading here. I gave you another chance and you seemed to be taking it. Now you just want to argue with W again. Go to it, there are Republicans everywhere on the board

Bullshit! You read every word and had no answer so you invented your imaginary W reference even though I brought up Tramp and not W.
Here it is again unedited:

A low LFPR will stop being an issue to the Right if it stays low under Tramp, just as Tramp's "real" unemployment number, 96 million, will stop being the "real" unemployment number as it increases every year of the Tramp dictatorship.

JAN. 11, 2017 Press Conference
TRUMP: There will be a major border tax on these companies that are leaving and getting away with murder. And if our politicians had what it takes, they would have done this years ago. And you’d have millions more workers right now in the United States that are — 96 million really wanting a job and they can’t get. You know that story. The real number — that’s the real number.

I'm not a Republican, Holmes, and I'm tired of telling you that. They are all over the board, easy to find. I invite you to do that since they are the only ones you want to debate. No way I'm defending W. I didn't support him, didn't vote for him and I sure don't want to argue for his policies. Besides, it's your turn to be W. So why did you get us in that stupid war, W? I mean both of them. Go ahead, you defend him. Hey W, remember when "Mission Accomplished" bit you in the ass? So what about that?

 

[Faun]

Or you are trying to lie your way out of admitting the truth.
So why were they "frustrated" enough to leave the labor force?

They couldn't find a job worth doing. I mean duh. I don't even know what you're trying to argue. Seriously, you don't think that a low LFPR is an issue? That's stupid

A low LFPR will stop being an issue to the Right

Stopped reading here. I gave you another chance and you seemed to be taking it. Now you just want to argue with W again. Go to it, there are Republicans everywhere on the board

Bullshit! You read every word and had no answer so you invented your imaginary W reference even though I brought up Tramp and not W.
Here it is again unedited:

A low LFPR will stop being an issue to the Right if it stays low under Tramp, just as Tramp's "real" unemployment number, 96 million, will stop being the "real" unemployment number as it increases every year of the Tramp dictatorship.

JAN. 11, 2017 Press Conference
TRUMP: There will be a major border tax on these companies that are leaving and getting away with murder. And if our politicians had what it takes, they would have done this years ago. And you’d have millions more workers right now in the United States that are — 96 million really wanting a job and they can’t get. You know that story. The real number — that’s the real number.

I'm not a Republican, Holmes, and I'm tired of telling you that. They are all over the board, easy to find. I invite you to do that since they are the only ones you want to debate. No way I'm defending W. I didn't support him, didn't vote for him and I sure don't want to argue for his policies. Besides, it's your turn to be W. So why did you get us in that stupid war, W? I mean both of them. Go ahead, you defend him. Hey W, remember when "Mission Accomplished" bit you in the ass? So what about that?

Stop kazzing. No one called you a Republican.

 

[edthecynic]

Or you are trying to lie your way out of admitting the truth.
So why were they "frustrated" enough to leave the labor force?

They couldn't find a job worth doing. I mean duh. I don't even know what you're trying to argue. Seriously, you don't think that a low LFPR is an issue? That's stupid

A low LFPR will stop being an issue to the Right

Stopped reading here. I gave you another chance and you seemed to be taking it. Now you just want to argue with W again. Go to it, there are Republicans everywhere on the board

Bullshit! You read every word and had no answer so you invented your imaginary W reference even though I brought up Tramp and not W.
Here it is again unedited:

A low LFPR will stop being an issue to the Right if it stays low under Tramp, just as Tramp's "real" unemployment number, 96 million, will stop being the "real" unemployment number as it increases every year of the Tramp dictatorship.

JAN. 11, 2017 Press Conference
TRUMP: There will be a major border tax on these companies that are leaving and getting away with murder. And if our politicians had what it takes, they would have done this years ago. And you’d have millions more workers right now in the United States that are — 96 million really wanting a job and they can’t get. You know that story. The real number — that’s the real number.

I'm not a Republican, Holmes, and I'm tired of telling you that. They are all over the board, easy to find. I invite you to do that since they are the only ones you want to debate. No way I'm defending W. I didn't support him, didn't vote for him and I sure don't want to argue for his policies. Besides, it's your turn to be W. So why did you get us in that stupid war, W? I mean both of them. Go ahead, you defend him. Hey W, remember when "Mission Accomplished" bit you in the ass? So what about that?

You can't defend your unemployment lies, so you can only deflect and play dumb.

 

[kaz]

They couldn't find a job worth doing. I mean duh. I don't even know what you're trying to argue. Seriously, you don't think that a low LFPR is an issue? That's stupid

A low LFPR will stop being an issue to the Right

Stopped reading here. I gave you another chance and you seemed to be taking it. Now you just want to argue with W again. Go to it, there are Republicans everywhere on the board

Bullshit! You read every word and had no answer so you invented your imaginary W reference even though I brought up Tramp and not W.
Here it is again unedited:

A low LFPR will stop being an issue to the Right if it stays low under Tramp, just as Tramp's "real" unemployment number, 96 million, will stop being the "real" unemployment number as it increases every year of the Tramp dictatorship.

JAN. 11, 2017 Press Conference
TRUMP: There will be a major border tax on these companies that are leaving and getting away with murder. And if our politicians had what it takes, they would have done this years ago. And you’d have millions more workers right now in the United States that are — 96 million really wanting a job and they can’t get. You know that story. The real number — that’s the real number.

I'm not a Republican, Holmes, and I'm tired of telling you that. They are all over the board, easy to find. I invite you to do that since they are the only ones you want to debate. No way I'm defending W. I didn't support him, didn't vote for him and I sure don't want to argue for his policies. Besides, it's your turn to be W. So why did you get us in that stupid war, W? I mean both of them. Go ahead, you defend him. Hey W, remember when "Mission Accomplished" bit you in the ass? So what about that?

You can't defend your unemployment lies, so you can only deflect and play dumb.

Dumb is that you keep calling me a Republican and arguing with W. Again, I have no problem with that you only want to debate Republicans. Go to it, my blessing! I'm just not one and I have no interest in defending their views

 

[edthecynic]

Dumb is that you keep calling me a Republican and arguing with W.

Super dumb is YOU thinking you can get away with that lie.

 

[kaz]

Dumb is that you keep calling me a Republican and arguing with W.

Super dumb is YOU thinking you can get away with that lie.

There's no lie about it, maybe you are intoning your labels without meaning anything by it. A thought, maybe you should stay away from labels in a discussion on content.

Clearly you keep calling me a Republican though. Just read the thread.

The problem with your constant labeling is that when you label me incorrectly, it makes me believe you are not listening to my actual views. I'm a libertarian, my views are consistent with libertarian. When you keep calling me right wing, conservative, Republican, etc, what I hear is that you haven't heard me.

If you want to label my views as "libertarian" that would be fine since it would be accurate. What about that bothers you so much?

 

[SixFoot]

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.

You were either too young, or asleep in the partisan corner back in the day when Democrats were foaming at the mouth over 5% unemployment. That was diffe(R)ent though, right?

Anyway, be sure to mark in your "calendar" the current Labor Force Participation rate of 62.7% (the lowest still, since the 1970's when most women were still stay-at-home moms).

 

[edthecynic]

Dumb is that you keep calling me a Republican and arguing with W.

Super dumb is YOU thinking you can get away with that lie.

There's no lie about it, maybe you are intoning your labels without meaning anything by it. A thought, maybe you should stay away from labels in a discussion on content.

Clearly you keep calling me a Republican though. Just read the thread.

As I said, when the Right get caught lying, they just keep on lying.
All you have to do to prove you are not lying scum is link to the post you claim I called you a Republican in.

 

[kaz]

Dumb is that you keep calling me a Republican and arguing with W.

Super dumb is YOU thinking you can get away with that lie.

There's no lie about it, maybe you are intoning your labels without meaning anything by it. A thought, maybe you should stay away from labels in a discussion on content.

Clearly you keep calling me a Republican though. Just read the thread.

As I said, when the Right get caught lying, they just keep on lying.
All you have to do to prove you are not lying scum is link to the post you claim I called you a Republican in.

Again your obsessive labeling. Maybe you do not mean what I hear when you keep labeling.

Seriously though. I am a libertarian. Why does it bother you so much that you have an obsessive need to label me yet a complete aversion to labeling me accurately? What about just calling me a libertarian bothers you so much? If you did that, I wouldn't keep thinking you're calling me a Republican when you say you are not when you keep calling me right wing and conservative, which I am not other than fiscally

 

[edthecynic]

Dumb is that you keep calling me a Republican and arguing with W.

Super dumb is YOU thinking you can get away with that lie.

There's no lie about it, maybe you are intoning your labels without meaning anything by it. A thought, maybe you should stay away from labels in a discussion on content.

Clearly you keep calling me a Republican though. Just read the thread.

As I said, when the Right get caught lying, they just keep on lying.
All you have to do to prove you are not lying scum is link to the post you claim I called you a Republican in.

Again your obsessive labeling. Maybe you do not mean what I hear when you keep labeling.

Seriously though. I am a libertarian. Why does it bother you so much that you have an obsessive need to label me yet a complete aversion to labeling me accurately? What about just calling me a libertarian bothers you so much? If you did that, I wouldn't keep thinking you're calling me a Republican when you say you are not when you keep calling me right wing and conservative, which I am not other than fiscally

So no link, not a surprise.

 

[kaz]

Dumb is that you keep calling me a Republican and arguing with W.

Super dumb is YOU thinking you can get away with that lie.

There's no lie about it, maybe you are intoning your labels without meaning anything by it. A thought, maybe you should stay away from labels in a discussion on content.

Clearly you keep calling me a Republican though. Just read the thread.

As I said, when the Right get caught lying, they just keep on lying.
All you have to do to prove you are not lying scum is link to the post you claim I called you a Republican in.

Again your obsessive labeling. Maybe you do not mean what I hear when you keep labeling.

Seriously though. I am a libertarian. Why does it bother you so much that you have an obsessive need to label me yet a complete aversion to labeling me accurately? What about just calling me a libertarian bothers you so much? If you did that, I wouldn't keep thinking you're calling me a Republican when you say you are not when you keep calling me right wing and conservative, which I am not other than fiscally

So no link, not a surprise.

Link to what? What are you talking about?

I'm asking you a question. Why does the word libertarian bother you so much that you can't say it? Why in your love of labeling do you feel so much better labeling me incorrectly? It's a question from me to you. What link are you looking for in that? It makes no sense.

I am "right" fiscally, but when you call me right, the connotation includes morality and military where I am more left than you are. If you just said libertarian it would cover that.

What about the word libertarian is so distressing to you that you can't use it even to improve clarity and accuracy?

 

[edthecynic]

Super dumb is YOU thinking you can get away with that lie.

There's no lie about it, maybe you are intoning your labels without meaning anything by it. A thought, maybe you should stay away from labels in a discussion on content.

Clearly you keep calling me a Republican though. Just read the thread.

As I said, when the Right get caught lying, they just keep on lying.
All you have to do to prove you are not lying scum is link to the post you claim I called you a Republican in.

Again your obsessive labeling. Maybe you do not mean what I hear when you keep labeling.

Seriously though. I am a libertarian. Why does it bother you so much that you have an obsessive need to label me yet a complete aversion to labeling me accurately? What about just calling me a libertarian bothers you so much? If you did that, I wouldn't keep thinking you're calling me a Republican when you say you are not when you keep calling me right wing and conservative, which I am not other than fiscally

So no link, not a surprise.

Link to what? What are you talking about?

And now the dumb act.

You said I called you a Republican in this very thread, and I said post the link.
You were lying therefore you can't, so you lie some more, play dumb, and try to change the subject.

 

[pinqy]

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.

You were either too young, or asleep in the partisan corner back in the day when Democrats were foaming at the mouth over 5% unemployment. That was diffe(R)ent though, right?

Anyway, be sure to mark in your "calendar" the current Labor Force Participation rate of 62.7% (the lowest still, since the 1970's when most women were still stay-at-home moms).

Ok, so that means that 37.3% of the population do not want, do not need, are not able, or are not willing to work. 94% of those not in the labor force do not want a job.
75% of those not in the labor force are disabled, over 65, or full time students age 16-24.
8 years ago, it was 61%

 

[kaz]

There's no lie about it, maybe you are intoning your labels without meaning anything by it. A thought, maybe you should stay away from labels in a discussion on content.

Clearly you keep calling me a Republican though. Just read the thread.

As I said, when the Right get caught lying, they just keep on lying.
All you have to do to prove you are not lying scum is link to the post you claim I called you a Republican in.

Again your obsessive labeling. Maybe you do not mean what I hear when you keep labeling.

Seriously though. I am a libertarian. Why does it bother you so much that you have an obsessive need to label me yet a complete aversion to labeling me accurately? What about just calling me a libertarian bothers you so much? If you did that, I wouldn't keep thinking you're calling me a Republican when you say you are not when you keep calling me right wing and conservative, which I am not other than fiscally

So no link, not a surprise.

Link to what? What are you talking about?

And now the dumb act.

You said I called you a Republican in this very thread, and I said post the link.
You were lying therefore you can't, so you lie some more, play dumb, and try to change the subject.

Actually I addressed that directly, read the post #274, which is just a couple up.

Now you answer my question. Why does the term "libertarian" distress you so much you can't use it even though it would clarify that yes I am fiscally conservative but I'm neither socially conservative nor for big military?

 

[usmbguest5318]

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?

Whether it stays at or around 4-5% depends on a variety of factors. Labor, thus employment, is simply something sold in the marketplace. It's subject to the same laws and principles of supply and demand as anything else. Accordingly, the shifters of demand and supply for all other things traded in the marketplace work the same with labor. Unemployment/employment is nothing but a very high level way of depicting the supply of labor.

• Supply shifters
• Demand shifters
• Understanding the difference between a shift in supply/demand and a change in quantity demanded
  
  

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That number will increase at the beginning after all the useless government employees get fired whom Obama hired to skew his numbers. Then, it will come back down when Trump brings jobs back.

That's an alternative fact, it doesn't count. The actual fact is that the size of the federal workforce only increased by 0.3% under Obama.

 

[edthecynic]

As I said, when the Right get caught lying, they just keep on lying.
All you have to do to prove you are not lying scum is link to the post you claim I called you a Republican in.

Again your obsessive labeling. Maybe you do not mean what I hear when you keep labeling.

Seriously though. I am a libertarian. Why does it bother you so much that you have an obsessive need to label me yet a complete aversion to labeling me accurately? What about just calling me a libertarian bothers you so much? If you did that, I wouldn't keep thinking you're calling me a Republican when you say you are not when you keep calling me right wing and conservative, which I am not other than fiscally

So no link, not a surprise.

Link to what? What are you talking about?

And now the dumb act.

You said I called you a Republican in this very thread, and I said post the link.
You were lying therefore you can't, so you lie some more, play dumb, and try to change the subject.

Actually I addressed that directly, read the post #274, which is just a couple up.

There was no link to me calling you a Republican or attacking W, only you trying to divert.
Try again.