58 straight months of jobs growth, ACA working great where allowed to, where is this bad economy?

[Faun]

On one side are those who take the view that what is being observed are actually Baby Boomers leaving the workforce and retiring, such as minnpost.com’s Erik Hare, writing in a piece, “Decline in labor force driven by retirement, not discouragement.”
Hare calls it a “lie” that “this is the result of people giving up looking for work, a sign that the ‘recovery’ is weak.” Instead, Hare points to a Philadelphia Federal Reserve study on the topic that takes a narrow look at Bureau nonparticipation data, concluding that retirements beginning in 2010 began to play a role in driving down the participation rate.
The trouble with the study is that labor participation has been declining a lot longer than since 2010. In fact, it peaked in 1997 at 67.1 percent, and has dropped annually ever since. As the study notes, “retirement had not played much of a role until around 2010.” By then, the rate had already dropped 2.4 percent.
Meaning, retirement cannot be thought to have played much of a role in the participation rates up until that point, and may only be tangentially affecting it now.

Does everybody see this^^^ ... ?

This is exactly why conservatives are so brain-dead. Here, the conservative writes, "meaning, retirement cannot be thought to have played much of a role in the participation rates up until that point, and may only be tangentially affecting it now," after reading a report which states the retirees between 2000 and 2011 contributed about 22% to the drop in the LFPR and some 80% since then.

He clearly doesn't possess the intelligence required to process the actual meaning of words. An affliction often associated with conservatism.

He can read .... but he can't understand.

 

[Faun]

you know what's hysterical? I haven't been on this site since yesterday afternoon, yet here is this idiot loser^^^^^ desperately trying to dispel the FACTS I put up here yesterday

lmao


record numbers are on disability under Obama
this loser left-wing nutjob o-bot is actually tring to brag that nubers are slightly down in Obama's recent years, fro RECORD HIGHS under him
record numbers are on some kind of disability NOT related to military service unde robama
he's EXPANDED THE WELFARE STATE

AND THAT IS WHY LABOR MARKET PARTICIPATION IS AT A 40-YEAR LOW
and as I repeatedle showed IT ISNT BECAUSE OF RETIRING BABY BOOMERS; only about 3% is

libs are laughable losers who lie to themselves

Well if nothing else, you reaffirm the established fact that conservatives are batshit insane; and for that, I thank you for posting such ridiculous tripe.

But while you idiotically attribute much of drop in the LFPR to folks going on to disability; but only "3%" to retiring baby boomers, the actual numbers bitch-slap you silly...

From the end of 2008 through the end of 2014, there has been an increase of people on disability by about 1.5 million...



... meanwhile, the number of retired people during that same period has increased by almost 7 million...



More than 4 and a half times as many people are retired under Obama than those on disability, and here you are blaming people on disability far more than those who retire for the drop in the labor force participation rate.



Do you understand now why so many posters here laugh at you?

nobody here takes you seriously; record numbers are on disability under obama. the 40-year low in the Labor Market Participation rate isnt because of retiring Baby Boomers, as anybody can tell if you have a brain and a shred of honesty. one article has that as being about 3% of the cause of the low rate of labor market participation

you're just a clown watching it all fall apart

Who cares if you're too stupid to comprehend the charts I posted?

You're a conservative -- nobody expects you to understand numbers.

But I posted those charts to prove just how rightarded you are and your pathetically weak response confirms it.

Thanks again!

YAWN

You sure do exercise your mouth a lot. Keeping it stretched out to accommodate even bigger cocks, no doubt.

your charts are meaningless; because you're LYING TO YOURSELF
so typical of a loser lefty to not man up and admit he's wrong

not my fault you arent enough of a man to accept an article that breaks down your GRAPH and gives it real meaning and context

The number of actual people disabled and/or retired is not meaningless just because the numbers destroy your idiocy.

You can't even understand the article you posted splits into two periods, one from 2000-2011 and another from 2012-2013; while I'm posting numbers from 2009-2014. And here you are, idiotically saying the numbers don't match up as though it makes your point, when in reality, the numbers don't match up because they're different ranges of years.

You really are a fucking retard.

 

[Faun]

Looks like wethisbedown is having a meltdown.

 

[bedowin62]

you know what's hysterical? I haven't been on this site since yesterday afternoon, yet here is this idiot loser^^^^^ desperately trying to dispel the FACTS I put up here yesterday

lmao


record numbers are on disability under Obama
this loser left-wing nutjob o-bot is actually tring to brag that nubers are slightly down in Obama's recent years, fro RECORD HIGHS under him
record numbers are on some kind of disability NOT related to military service unde robama
he's EXPANDED THE WELFARE STATE

AND THAT IS WHY LABOR MARKET PARTICIPATION IS AT A 40-YEAR LOW
and as I repeatedle showed IT ISNT BECAUSE OF RETIRING BABY BOOMERS; only about 3% is

libs are laughable losers who lie to themselves

Well if nothing else, you reaffirm the established fact that conservatives are batshit insane; and for that, I thank you for posting such ridiculous tripe.

But while you idiotically attribute much of drop in the LFPR to folks going on to disability; but only "3%" to retiring baby boomers, the actual numbers bitch-slap you silly...

From the end of 2008 through the end of 2014, there has been an increase of people on disability by about 1.5 million...



... meanwhile, the number of retired people during that same period has increased by almost 7 million...



More than 4 and a half times as many people are retired under Obama than those on disability, and here you are blaming people on disability far more than those who retire for the drop in the labor force participation rate.



Do you understand now why so many posters here laugh at you?

nobody here takes you seriously; record numbers are on disability under obama. the 40-year low in the Labor Market Participation rate isnt because of retiring Baby Boomers, as anybody can tell if you have a brain and a shred of honesty. one article has that as being about 3% of the cause of the low rate of labor market participation

you're just a clown watching it all fall apart

Who cares if you're too stupid to comprehend the charts I posted?

You're a conservative -- nobody expects you to understand numbers.

But I posted those charts to prove just how rightarded you are and your pathetically weak response confirms it.

Thanks again!

YAWN

You sure do exercise your mouth a lot. Keeping it stretched out to accommodate even bigger cocks, no doubt.

your charts are meaningless; because you're LYING TO YOURSELF
so typical of a loser lefty to not man up and admit he's wrong

not my fault you arent enough of a man to accept an article that breaks down your GRAPH and gives it real meaning and context

The number of actual people disabled and/or retired is not meaningless just because the numbers destroy your idiocy.

You can't even understand the article you posted splits into two periods, one from 2000-2011 and another from 2012-2013; while I'm posting numbers from 2009-2014. And here you are, idiotically saying the numbers don't match up as though it makes your point, when in reality, the numbers don't match up because they're different ranges of years.

You really are a fucking retard.

you're simply a butthurt angry loser. you're still crying like a baby long after i stop posting. you can call me any name you want; use up the whole emojis you want; thruth is every body here sees what you are; an unhinged excuse-making Progressive loser and dupe for the failed left-wing agenda

 

[bedowin62]

people collecting a non-military related disability are at record numbers under obama. you dont like that article; there are literally hundreds more. you would find something wrong with anything that flies in the face of your spoon-fed narrative; just like you laughably did when it was clearly pointed out to you that retiring Baby Boomers arent the main cause for the 40 year low in labor market participation under obama.

what a clown

 

[bedowin62]

Unfit for Work: The startling rise of disability in America ...
apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

• Cached
• Similar

NPR
Loading...
In the past three decades, the number of Americans who are on disability has skyrocketed. The rise has come even as medical advances have allowed many ...

 

[ScienceRocks]

Unfit for Work: The startling rise of disability in America ...
apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

• Cached
• Similar

NPR
Loading...
In the past three decades, the number of Americans who are on disability has skyrocketed. The rise has come even as medical advances have allowed many ...

Why not set up a automated system of food production which allows for the end of work or die??? We don't live in the early 20th century anymore!

 

[bedowin62]

Record number of Americans on disability would make up ...
www.washingtontimes.com/.../record-number-am...

• Cached
• Similar

The Washington Times
Loading...
May 30, 2013 - Newly released data by the Social Security Administration shows that 10978040 Americans now are receiving disability benefits. What the ...

 

[Faun]

Well if nothing else, you reaffirm the established fact that conservatives are batshit insane; and for that, I thank you for posting such ridiculous tripe.

But while you idiotically attribute much of drop in the LFPR to folks going on to disability; but only "3%" to retiring baby boomers, the actual numbers bitch-slap you silly...

From the end of 2008 through the end of 2014, there has been an increase of people on disability by about 1.5 million...



... meanwhile, the number of retired people during that same period has increased by almost 7 million...



More than 4 and a half times as many people are retired under Obama than those on disability, and here you are blaming people on disability far more than those who retire for the drop in the labor force participation rate.



Do you understand now why so many posters here laugh at you?

nobody here takes you seriously; record numbers are on disability under obama. the 40-year low in the Labor Market Participation rate isnt because of retiring Baby Boomers, as anybody can tell if you have a brain and a shred of honesty. one article has that as being about 3% of the cause of the low rate of labor market participation

you're just a clown watching it all fall apart

Who cares if you're too stupid to comprehend the charts I posted?

You're a conservative -- nobody expects you to understand numbers.

But I posted those charts to prove just how rightarded you are and your pathetically weak response confirms it.

Thanks again!

YAWN

You sure do exercise your mouth a lot. Keeping it stretched out to accommodate even bigger cocks, no doubt.

your charts are meaningless; because you're LYING TO YOURSELF
so typical of a loser lefty to not man up and admit he's wrong

not my fault you arent enough of a man to accept an article that breaks down your GRAPH and gives it real meaning and context

The number of actual people disabled and/or retired is not meaningless just because the numbers destroy your idiocy.

You can't even understand the article you posted splits into two periods, one from 2000-2011 and another from 2012-2013; while I'm posting numbers from 2009-2014. And here you are, idiotically saying the numbers don't match up as though it makes your point, when in reality, the numbers don't match up because they're different ranges of years.

You really are a fucking retard.

you're simply a butthurt angry loser. you're still crying like a baby long after i stop posting. you can call me any name you want; use up the whole emojis you want; thruth is every body here sees what you are; an unhinged excuse-making Progressive loser and dupe for the failed left-wing agenda

Why on Earth would I be mad at a bedwetter like you? Because you splash around in it? And how on Earth would I know you stopped posting? You think I can see into your mommy's basement?

Meanwhile, what everyone here sees is how you ignore real numbers from verifiable sources because they reveal what an imbecile you are.

Since Obama's been president, there has been an increase of 1.5 million people on disability and an increase of 7 million people retiring.

Morons like you blame the lion's share of the drop in the labor force participation rate on the people collecting disability and not on those who retired.

 

[Faun]

Record number of Americans on disability would make up ...
www.washingtontimes.com/.../record-number-am...

• Cached
• Similar

The Washington Times
Loading...
May 30, 2013 - Newly released data by the Social Security Administration shows that 10978040 Americans now are receiving disability benefits. What the ...

Holyfuckingshit!

Do you ever stop posting bullshit? That number is counting children of disabled folks... many of whom are too young to be counted in the 'not in labor force' anyway and have no impact on it.



Of the numbers referred to in May/2013 in that article, almost 2 Million of the people collecting disability benefits are children under 18 of disabled folks. The BLS doesn't factor anyone under 16 in the labor force participation rate.

What a gullible dumbfuck you are, eh?

 

[edthecynic]

nobody here takes you seriously; record numbers are on disability under obama. the 40-year low in the Labor Market Participation rate isnt because of retiring Baby Boomers, as anybody can tell if you have a brain and a shred of honesty. one article has that as being about 3% of the cause of the low rate of labor market participation

Record numbers were on disability EVERY year of the Bush Regime!
And no article ever said the retiring Boomers only accounted for 3% of the decline in LPR, I nailed you on that lie earlier, but you STILL lie.
The very article you linked to for that 3% lie actually says this:

"However, after decades of growth, the baby-boom population began reaching their mid-fifties in 2000, and started exiting
the labor force. The baby-boomer population was thus responsible for much of the increase in the labor force participation rate from
the 70s through the 90s, but is now contributing to the declining labor force participation rate."

 

[edthecynic]

On one side are those who take the view that what is being observed are actually Baby Boomers leaving the workforce and retiring, such as minnpost.com’s Erik Hare, writing in a piece, “Decline in labor force driven by retirement, not discouragement.”
Hare calls it a “lie” that “this is the result of people giving up looking for work, a sign that the ‘recovery’ is weak.” Instead, Hare points to a Philadelphia Federal Reserve study on the topic that takes a narrow look at Bureau nonparticipation data, concluding that retirements beginning in 2010 began to play a role in driving down the participation rate.
The trouble with the study is that labor participation has been declining a lot longer than since 2010. In fact, it peaked in 1997 at 67.1 percent, and has dropped annually ever since. As the study notes, “retirement had not played much of a role until around 2010.” By then, the rate had already dropped 2.4 percent.
Meaning, retirement cannot be thought to have played much of a role in the participation rates up until that point, and may only be tangentially affecting it now.

Then also meaning that the phony unemployment numbers of the Bush Regime were due to the drop in LPR before the Bush Depression.

 

[edthecynic]

• that the population of those aged 25-54 increased by 1.12 million, and yet its labor force actually shrank by 1.53 million—a net loss of 2.65 million; and

• 2.53 million people aged 16-24 failed to enter the labor force compared to the rate in 2003..

Claiming a net loss of 2.65 million makes the moronic assumption of 100% LPR.

 

[Faun]

nobody here takes you seriously; record numbers are on disability under obama. the 40-year low in the Labor Market Participation rate isnt because of retiring Baby Boomers, as anybody can tell if you have a brain and a shred of honesty. one article has that as being about 3% of the cause of the low rate of labor market participation

Record numbers were on disability EVERY year of the Bush Regime!
And no article ever said the retiring Boomers only accounted for 3% of the decline in LPR, I nailed you on that lie earlier, but you STILL lie.
The very article you linked to for that 3% lie actually says this:

"However, after decades of growth, the baby-boom population began reaching their mid-fifties in 2000, and started exiting
the labor force. The baby-boomer population was thus responsible for much of the increase in the labor force participation rate from
the 70s through the 90s, but is now contributing to the declining labor force participation rate."

Even worse for that rightard .... 70% more people went on disability while Bush was president than they did while Obama's been president. After 8 years of Bush, there were 2.6 million more people on disability than when he started. Whereas under Obama, that number has increased by 1.5 million.

 

[edthecynic]

people collecting a non-military related disability are at record numbers under obama. you dont like that article; there are literally hundreds more. you would find something wrong with anything that flies in the face of your spoon-fed narrative; just like you laughably did when it was clearly pointed out to you that retiring Baby Boomers arent the main cause for the 40 year low in labor market participation under obama.

what a clown

Again, just as the disabled set records EVERY year of the Bush Regime, but the Right never made a peep.
Again your 3% article disagrees with you and also attributes the increase in disability to the aging Boomers!!!

From your own link:

"a growing number of prime-age men are citing
disability or illness as their reason for not working
in the past year ( Juahn and Potter 2006). From
1969 to 2004, the proportion of 25-54 year-olds
citing disability grew from 1.9% to 5.5%. In
Montana, the number of people on disability has
almost doubled from about 16,000 to 31,000,
most of which came since 2000. The majority
of this increase is the result of the baby-boomer
population getting older, and thus reaching the
age group most likely to pursue disability benefits.

 

[bedowin62]

people collecting a non-military related disability are at record numbers under obama. you dont like that article; there are literally hundreds more. you would find something wrong with anything that flies in the face of your spoon-fed narrative; just like you laughably did when it was clearly pointed out to you that retiring Baby Boomers arent the main cause for the 40 year low in labor market participation under obama.

what a clown

Again, just as the disabled set records EVERY year of the Bush Regime, but the Right never made a peep.
Again your 3% article disagrees with you and also attributes the increase in disability to the aging Boomers!!!

From your own link:

"a growing number of prime-age men are citing
disability or illness as their reason for not working
in the past year ( Juahn and Potter 2006). From
1969 to 2004, the proportion of 25-54 year-olds
citing disability grew from 1.9% to 5.5%. In
Montana, the number of people on disability has
almost doubled from about 16,000 to 31,000,
most of which came since 2000. The majority
of this increase is the result of the baby-boomer
population getting older, and thus reaching the
age group most likely to pursue disability benefits.

LMAO!!

I guess you missed the part of "MY OWN LINK" where that particular thing you put in bold letters says "IN MONTANA"??

and you're trying to apply it to the whole country


because you're simply a clown and a loser. I already posted several topics saying that the 40-year low in labor market participation isn't because of retiring baby boomers FOR THE MOST PART.
your pathetic attempt at a comeback was to quote something I posted that clearly refers to one state, and one of the least populated states at that, montana

you and your idiot brother faun are just laughable losers who aren't man enough to admit when you're wrong

 

[sakinago]

And the only thing I've pointed out about GE is that they've done everything that the far left HATES...and their CEO was best pals with Barry. So all that "talk" that was coming from this administration about fighting against corporate greed has to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt considering Obama's relationship with Immelt.

Yep, democrats are no different than republicans. They payoff government for special favors. The only difference is the democratic base isn't smart enough to realize they are corrupt.

Yet the R-Derp's and the Franco's of this board are absolutely convinced that the only politicians in the pockets of big business are Republicans.

Make up your minds. Do the rich own and control our government or not?

You Republicans defend the very rich and powerful that own you.

Does soros, buffet, turner, gates, rockefellers, and vandys all own the Republican Party?

 

[sealybobo]

And the only thing I've pointed out about GE is that they've done everything that the far left HATES...and their CEO was best pals with Barry. So all that "talk" that was coming from this administration about fighting against corporate greed has to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt considering Obama's relationship with Immelt.

Yep, democrats are no different than republicans. They payoff government for special favors. The only difference is the democratic base isn't smart enough to realize they are corrupt.

Yet the R-Derp's and the Franco's of this board are absolutely convinced that the only politicians in the pockets of big business are Republicans.

Make up your minds. Do the rich own and control our government or not?

You Republicans defend the very rich and powerful that own you.

Does soros, buffet, turner, gates, rockefellers, and vandys all own the Republican Party?

Do you like the things these men push for? What are their evil agendas.

 

[bedowin62]

And the only thing I've pointed out about GE is that they've done everything that the far left HATES...and their CEO was best pals with Barry. So all that "talk" that was coming from this administration about fighting against corporate greed has to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt considering Obama's relationship with Immelt.

Yep, democrats are no different than republicans. They payoff government for special favors. The only difference is the democratic base isn't smart enough to realize they are corrupt.

Yet the R-Derp's and the Franco's of this board are absolutely convinced that the only politicians in the pockets of big business are Republicans.

Make up your minds. Do the rich own and control our government or not?

You Republicans defend the very rich and powerful that own you.

Does soros, buffet, turner, gates, rockefellers, and vandys all own the Republican Party?

Do you like the things these men push for? What are their evil agendas.

Soros funds several dozen organizations fighting for things that arent in America's interests; like open borders or instance. this has already been pointed out to you

 

[Papageorgio]

And the only thing I've pointed out about GE is that they've done everything that the far left HATES...and their CEO was best pals with Barry. So all that "talk" that was coming from this administration about fighting against corporate greed has to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt considering Obama's relationship with Immelt.

Yep, democrats are no different than republicans. They payoff government for special favors. The only difference is the democratic base isn't smart enough to realize they are corrupt.

Yet the R-Derp's and the Franco's of this board are absolutely convinced that the only politicians in the pockets of big business are Republicans.

Make up your minds. Do the rich own and control our government or not?

You Republicans defend the very rich and powerful that own you.

Does soros, buffet, turner, gates, rockefellers, and vandys all own the Republican Party?

Do you like the things these men push for? What are their evil agendas.

Preferential treatment when laws are written to protect their business interests and profits.