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

[pinqy]

People who start small businesses or who are entrepreneurs tend to not show up on the books cause they don't pay taxes.

The labor force data don't come from tax data, but from a survey of houses.

 

[Freewill]

It looks real terrible until it is realized that one is 0.17 degF / decade and the other is 0.28 degF / decade.

Except it is .17 deg C, not F, which = .3 deg F.
.28 deg F = .176 deg C

Apparently you were not able to see the actual chart, her is a snip of the US chart:

View attachment 46877

Are you saying that NOAA meant to say degC instead of degF? It is the same for global I just didn't bother snipping it.

Apparently you can't read your own 2 TWO charts.
But you can, which is why you left the below out of your rebuttal where YOU got the .17 degrees from that you mis labeled as degF!

It looks real terrible until it is realized that one is 0.17 degF / decade and the other is 0.28 degF / decade.

Yep, I gotta admit it I stepped in it again. Made a mistake, my bad. But at least I provided the information.

So, instead of 0.17 degF it is about 0.3 degF, just like the US.

11 deg C = 51.8 deg F
11.17 degC = 52.106

Delta of .306 Deg F.

I used 11 degC because I didn't know what NOAA used to determine abnormality.

Never the less, not much.

 

[boedicca]

That baby boomer excuse has been thoroughly debunked. The LFPR has increased for older worker while plummeting for the young and prime age populations.

View attachment 46859

Civilian labor force participation rates by age sex race and ethnicity

96 million have dropped out of workforce, that's about a quarter of the country. That means they made no significant effort to find a new job. These are not people heading into retirement, just people without jobs, who have given up looking. A healthy rate of adding jobs 50,000 a week. How can you argue that 96 million is not a bad number?

You are mistaken. The 94 million not in the Labor Force most certainly includes retirees, or are you claiming none of the 38 million people age 65 and older not in the Labor Force are retired. Most Disabled are also not in the Labor Force, and many students.

As for your claim that those Not in the Labor Force "dropped out," in July alone, 658,000 people entered the population as Not in the Labor Force. Labor force status flows by sex current month

No, in July, the Civilian population increased by 213K, the Labor force increased by 69K, and those Not In The Labor Force increased by 144K. Total employed increased by 101K, a less that 50% rate for those entering the Labor Force.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data seasonally adjusted

If you had bothered to click on my link, you would have seen I was talking gross flows of just outside population to Not in the Labor Force. Citing the net change of all variables doesn't contradict me

If you had bothered to look at mine you'd see that I calculated the total change in the Civilian population. Your figures are incorrect.

I gave my link, I was NOT showing total (net) change to the population,

The Civilian Population Not In The Labor Force DID NOT increase by 658K in July alone..

Good thing I didn't claim that, then. 743.000 entered the population, 658k of whom entered as not in the labor force.
At the same time, 530,000 left the population.. Net change +213,000

My point was that if 658k entered as not in the labor force they clearly did not "drop out" of the labor force as claimed.

That is bunk math. The total Civilian Population (Labor Force plus Not In Labor Force) increased by 213K. 530K did not LEAVE the population.

 

[pinqy]

You are mistaken. The 94 million not in the Labor Force most certainly includes retirees, or are you claiming none of the 38 million people age 65 and older not in the Labor Force are retired. Most Disabled are also not in the Labor Force, and many students.

As for your claim that those Not in the Labor Force "dropped out," in July alone, 658,000 people entered the population as Not in the Labor Force. Labor force status flows by sex current month

No, in July, the Civilian population increased by 213K, the Labor force increased by 69K, and those Not In The Labor Force increased by 144K. Total employed increased by 101K, a less that 50% rate for those entering the Labor Force.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data seasonally adjusted

If you had bothered to click on my link, you would have seen I was talking gross flows of just outside population to Not in the Labor Force. Citing the net change of all variables doesn't contradict me

If you had bothered to look at mine you'd see that I calculated the total change in the Civilian population. Your figures are incorrect.

I gave my link, I was NOT showing total (net) change to the population,

The Civilian Population Not In The Labor Force DID NOT increase by 658K in July alone..

Good thing I didn't claim that, then. 743.000 entered the population, 658k of whom entered as not in the labor force.
At the same time, 530,000 left the population.. Net change +213,000

My point was that if 658k entered as not in the labor force they clearly did not "drop out" of the labor force as claimed.

That is bunk math. The total Civilian Population (Labor Force plus Not In Labor Force) increased by 213K. 530K did not LEAVE the population.

743,000 entered the population. 530, 000 left. Net change is 213,000
I showed the link: other total inflows - other total outflows.
So how is my math bunk when we both get +213,000?

 

[boedicca]

No, in July, the Civilian population increased by 213K, the Labor force increased by 69K, and those Not In The Labor Force increased by 144K. Total employed increased by 101K, a less that 50% rate for those entering the Labor Force.

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data seasonally adjusted

If you had bothered to click on my link, you would have seen I was talking gross flows of just outside population to Not in the Labor Force. Citing the net change of all variables doesn't contradict me

If you had bothered to look at mine you'd see that I calculated the total change in the Civilian population. Your figures are incorrect.

I gave my link, I was NOT showing total (net) change to the population,

The Civilian Population Not In The Labor Force DID NOT increase by 658K in July alone..

Good thing I didn't claim that, then. 743.000 entered the population, 658k of whom entered as not in the labor force.
At the same time, 530,000 left the population.. Net change +213,000

My point was that if 658k entered as not in the labor force they clearly did not "drop out" of the labor force as claimed.

That is bunk math. The total Civilian Population (Labor Force plus Not In Labor Force) increased by 213K. 530K did not LEAVE the population.

743,000 entered the population. 530, 000 left. Net change is 213,000
I showed the link: other total inflows - other total outflows.
So how is my math bunk when we both get +213,000?

You are wrong. The Civilian Population, which include the Labor Force, and those who are not in the Labor Force increased by 213K. The Labor Force increased by by 69K. Not in the Labor Force increased by 144K. 69K plus 144K = 213K.

 

[healthmyths]

Obama has like MOST totally ignorant people said he preferred that the 1,400 health insurance companies go out of business not figuring that
they pay $100 BILLION a year in Federal/state/local/property taxes while employing 400,000 people that will then require nearly 2 years of unemployment benefits costing nearly $20 billion for 99 weeks (The amount will be 60% of the average weekly earnings during your base year period.--average $45,000 for each of the 400,000 employees)..
More importantly though ignorant people like Obama didn't figure as I'm sure those ignorant professionals..i.e. physicians/lawyers that support Obama and a Federal single payer system comes into play the 1946 Federal Tort Claims Act would apply.
This would mean ALL physicians would be under Federal contract under a single payer and therefore could not be sued.
Thus the $270 billion lawyers make each year would be dramatically reduced as no more medical malpractice.
The ONLY good that would come from that would be doctors wouldn't practice defensive medicine that the insurance companies gladly pay out as claims as it constantly raises premiums. This would save about $850 billion a year in wasted duplicate testings,etc. i.e. "defensive medicine".
http://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media/8968/defensivemedicine_ebook_final.pdf

So with a single payer system no more suing the doctor. All doctors working for standard government salary which is currently using the VA system..Chart High-paying government jobs - USATODAY.com
Veterans Health Administration Medical officer (doctor) of which there are 12,708 that each make over $180,000.
Versus private practice average single family practice physician gross of $695,191...
200 Statistics on Physician Compensation
So I'm sure the 500,000 plus physicians will be happy to continue at the rate $180,000 per year as a Federal Employee.
And if there are physicians willing to settle for nearly 1/3 what they were making their quality would still be the same???
But those people that know better including the "smartest" President among others favoring "Universal single payer system" they know better!

And so will this happen???

These people think so...
“Most companies are asking for 30 to 50 percent rate increases due to the claims ratio this year,” he said.
“That’s going to be detrimental to the consumer.”
Smaller companies simply can’t compete, Wilson said.
He pointed to CoOportunity Health, one of 23 health insurance cooperatives set up with millions of dollars in federal grants and loans under provisions of the ACA. CoOportunity, which service more than 100,000 customers in Iowa and Nebraska, fell apart in January -- the first co-op to fall.
Others likely will follow, Wilson said.
“There are 19 other co-op plans designed under the health plan that are losing money,” he said.
Bigger insurance companies are vulnerable, too. Milwaukee-based Assurant Health, for example, closed in June.

Politics have blurred the distinction between health care reform and health insurance reform.
Wilson said things are bound to get worse.
“I think we’re headed down a bad path; the cost is unsustainable,” he said. “They need to figure out this law doesn’t work. There are some good things, but they need to take the politics out and agree what is good and what is bad and fix it.”
Health care reform creates bigger players Business Monthly

BUT who am I compared to the "smartest" president and the people that designed Obamacare who coincidentally said it took the
"Stupidity of the American Voter" to pass Obamacare, Gruber!!!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Here, dupes, more fact than you've seen in years:

One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats during Obama’s presidency. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans.
It is also used to counter any argument that Republican legislation, (passed during the six years of total Republican control,) has anything to do with today’s problems. They claim that the Democrats had a super majority for two years and passed all kinds of legislation, (over Republican objection and filibuster,) that completely undid all Republican policies and legislation, and this absolves them from today’s problems.
The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 60 working days during that period, insufficient time to undo even a small portion of the legislation passed during six years of Republican control. Here are the details:
To define terms, a Filibuster-Proof Majority or Super Majority is the number of votes required to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. According to current Senate rules, 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster.
Here is a time-line of the events after the 2008 election:
1. BALANCE BEFORE THE ELECTION. In 2007 – 2008 the balance in the Senate was 51-49 in favor of the Democrats. On top of that, there was a Republican president who would likely veto any legislation the Republicans didn’t like. Not exactly a super majority.
2. BIG GAIN IN 2008, BUT STILL NO SUPER MAJORITY. Coming out the 2008 election, the Democrats made big gains, but they didn’t immediately get a Super Majority. The Minnesota Senate race required a recount and was not undecided for more than six months. During that time, Norm Coleman was still sitting in the Senate and the Balance 59-41, still not a Super Majority.
3. KENNEDY GRAVELY ILL. Teddy Kennedy casthis last vote in April and left Washington for good around the first of May. Technically he could come back to Washington vote on a pressing issue, but in actual fact, he never returned, even to vote on the Sotomayor confirmation. That left the balance in the Senate 58-41, two votes away from a super majority.
4. STILL NO SUPER MAJORITY. In July, Al Frankin was finally declared the winner and was sworn in on July 7th, 2009, so the Democrats finally had a Super Majority of 60-40 six and one-half months into the year. However, by this point, Kennedy was unable to return to Washington even to participate in the Health Care debate, so it was only a technical super majority because Kennedy could no longer vote and the Senate does not allow proxies. Now the actual actual balance of voting members was 59-40 not enough to overcome a Republican filibuster.
5. SENATE IS IN RECESS. Even if Kennedy were able to vote, the Senate went into summer recess three weeks later, from August 7th to September 8th.
6. KENNEDY DIES. Six weeks later, on Aug 26, 2009 Teddy Kennedy died, putting the balance at 59-40. Now the Democrats don’t even have technical super majority.
7. FINALLY, A SUPER MAJORITY! Kennedy’s replacement was sworn in on September 25, 2009, finally making the majority 60-40, just enough for a super majority.
8. SENATE ADJOURNS. However the Senate adjourned for the year on October 9th, only providing 11 working days of super majority, from September 25th to October 9th.
9. SPECIAL SESSIONS. During October, November and December, the Senate had several special sessions to deal with final passage of ACA and Budget appropriations.
October = 13th – 15th, 20th – 22nd, 27th, 29th = 8 days
November = 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th 16th, 17th, 19th, 21st = 8 days
December = 1st, 3rd - 8th, 10th – 13th, 15th – 18th, 19th, 21st – 24th = 20 days
Total Special Session Days = 36.
8. SCOTT BROWN ELECTED. Scott Brown was elected on January 19th 2010. The Senate was in session for 10 days in January, but Scott Brown wasn’t sworn into office on February 4th, so the Democrats only had 13 days of super majority in 2010.
Summary:
Regular Session: 11 working days
Special Session: 36 working days
Lame Duck Session: 13 working days
The Democrats only had 60 days of Super Majority between 2008 and 2010.
Discussion: One of the central themes of the Republican argument is that the Democrats had a super majority for two full years and so they had plenty of time pass new legislation or undo any problems that were caused by six years of Republican control of all three branches of government. This is argument is used by the Republicans immunize themselves against any responsibility for ongoing problems that might have been caused by their policies.
However, the fact is that the Democrats had a super majority for a total of 60 days, which is no where near the two years that Republicans are always claiming. On top of that, the period of Super Majority was split into short sessions, none of which was longer than five days. In addition, the special session time was entirely devoted to budget issues and Republican amendments to the ACA.
Given the glacial pace that business takes place in the Senate, this was way too little time for the Democrats pass any meaningful legislation, let alone get bills through committees and past all the obstructionistic tactics the Republicans were using to block legislation. No one can seriously expect that the Democrats could undo in 60 days all the damage that Republicans created in six years.
Further, these Super Majorities count Joe Lieberman as a Democrat even though he was by this time an Independent. Even though he was Liberal on some legislation, he was very conservative on other issues and opposed many of the key pieces of legislation the Democrats and Obama wanted to pass. For example, he was adamantly opposed to “Single Payer” health care and vowed to support a Republican Filibuster if it ever came to the floor. He even threatened to caucus with the Republicans if legislation came to the floor that he didn’t like.
Summary:
1. 1/07 – 12/08 – 51-49 – Ordinary Majority.
2. 1/09 – 7/14/09 – 59-41 – Ordinary Majority. (Coleman/Franklin Recount.)
3. 7/09 – 8/09 - 60-40 – Technical Super Majority, but since Kennedy is unable to vote, the Democrats can’t overcome a filibuster
4. 8/09 – 9/09 - 59-40 – Ordinary Majority. (Kennedy dies)
5. 9/09 – 12/24- 60-40 – Super Majority for 47 working days.
6. 1/10 – 2/10 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 13 working days
Total Time of the Democratic Super Majority: 60 Working days.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_111_1.htm
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/resources/pdf/2009_calendar.pdfhttp://www.senate.gov/legislative/resources/pdf/2010_calendar.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Minnesota,_2008http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

The Repubs have been shameless with the use of the filibuster.
3 Charts Explain Why Democrats Went Nuclear on the Filibuster Mother Jones

 

[rightwinger]

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

In the collective delusional mind of the partisan right.

Record 93,770,000 Americans Not in Labor Force...

Participation Rate 38-Year Low...

Record 56,209,000 Women Not Working...

Who cares about the Labor Participation Rate?

Republicans sure didn't when it dropped all during the Bush administration

 

[pinqy]

If you had bothered to click on my link, you would have seen I was talking gross flows of just outside population to Not in the Labor Force. Citing the net change of all variables doesn't contradict me

If you had bothered to look at mine you'd see that I calculated the total change in the Civilian population. Your figures are incorrect.

I gave my link, I was NOT showing total (net) change to the population,

The Civilian Population Not In The Labor Force DID NOT increase by 658K in July alone..

Good thing I didn't claim that, then. 743.000 entered the population, 658k of whom entered as not in the labor force.
At the same time, 530,000 left the population.. Net change +213,000

My point was that if 658k entered as not in the labor force they clearly did not "drop out" of the labor force as claimed.

That is bunk math. The total Civilian Population (Labor Force plus Not In Labor Force) increased by 213K. 530K did not LEAVE the population.

743,000 entered the population. 530, 000 left. Net change is 213,000
I showed the link: other total inflows - other total outflows.
So how is my math bunk when we both get +213,000?

You are wrong. The Civilian Population, which include the Labor Force, and those who are not in the Labor Force increased by 213K. The Labor Force increased by by 69K. Not in the Labor Force increased by 144K. 69K plus 144K = 213K.

View attachment 46882

Correct: those are NET changes. I am giving GROSS inflows and outflows. Surely you don't think nobody at all left the labor force???


Look again at the flows: it all adds up.

If you had bothered to click on my link, you would have seen I was talking gross flows of just outside population to Not in the Labor Force. Citing the net change of all variables doesn't contradict me

If you had bothered to look at mine you'd see that I calculated the total change in the Civilian population. Your figures are incorrect.

I gave my link, I was NOT showing total (net) change to the population,

The Civilian Population Not In The Labor Force DID NOT increase by 658K in July alone..

Good thing I didn't claim that, then. 743.000 entered the population, 658k of whom entered as not in the labor force.
At the same time, 530,000 left the population.. Net change +213,000

My point was that if 658k entered as not in the labor force they clearly did not "drop out" of the labor force as claimed.

That is bunk math. The total Civilian Population (Labor Force plus Not In Labor Force) increased by 213K. 530K did not LEAVE the population.

743,000 entered the population. 530, 000 left. Net change is 213,000
I showed the link: other total inflows - other total outflows.
So how is my math bunk when we both get +213,000?

You are wrong. The Civilian Population, which include the Labor Force, and those who are not in the Labor Force increased by 213K.

yes, that's what I said, population increased 213,000
It was 250,663,000. 743,000 joined the population( some as in the labor force, some as not in the labor force) and 530,000 left (again some from in and some from not in labor force)
Total change +213,000
(And of course there were internal changes as well.

So why do you keep saying it's not 213k but really 213k?

Read the tables at Labor force status flows by sex current month

 

[NYcarbineer]

Black unemployment rate falls to lowest in 7 years

Black unemployment rate falls to lowest in 7 years - Aug. 7 2015

 

[boedicca]

If you had bothered to look at mine you'd see that I calculated the total change in the Civilian population. Your figures are incorrect.

I gave my link, I was NOT showing total (net) change to the population,

The Civilian Population Not In The Labor Force DID NOT increase by 658K in July alone..

Good thing I didn't claim that, then. 743.000 entered the population, 658k of whom entered as not in the labor force.
At the same time, 530,000 left the population.. Net change +213,000

My point was that if 658k entered as not in the labor force they clearly did not "drop out" of the labor force as claimed.

That is bunk math. The total Civilian Population (Labor Force plus Not In Labor Force) increased by 213K. 530K did not LEAVE the population.

743,000 entered the population. 530, 000 left. Net change is 213,000
I showed the link: other total inflows - other total outflows.
So how is my math bunk when we both get +213,000?

You are wrong. The Civilian Population, which include the Labor Force, and those who are not in the Labor Force increased by 213K. The Labor Force increased by by 69K. Not in the Labor Force increased by 144K. 69K plus 144K = 213K.

View attachment 46882

Correct: those are NET changes. I am giving GROSS inflows and outflows. Surely you don't think nobody at all left the labor force???


Look again at the flows: it all adds up.

If you had bothered to look at mine you'd see that I calculated the total change in the Civilian population. Your figures are incorrect.

I gave my link, I was NOT showing total (net) change to the population,

The Civilian Population Not In The Labor Force DID NOT increase by 658K in July alone..

Good thing I didn't claim that, then. 743.000 entered the population, 658k of whom entered as not in the labor force.
At the same time, 530,000 left the population.. Net change +213,000

My point was that if 658k entered as not in the labor force they clearly did not "drop out" of the labor force as claimed.

That is bunk math. The total Civilian Population (Labor Force plus Not In Labor Force) increased by 213K. 530K did not LEAVE the population.

743,000 entered the population. 530, 000 left. Net change is 213,000
I showed the link: other total inflows - other total outflows.
So how is my math bunk when we both get +213,000?

You are wrong. The Civilian Population, which include the Labor Force, and those who are not in the Labor Force increased by 213K.

yes, that's what I said, population increased 213,000
It was 250,663,000. 743,000 joined the population( some as in the labor force, some as not in the labor force) and 530,000 left (again some from in and some from not in labor force)
Total change +213,000
(And of course there were internal changes as well.

So why do you keep saying it's not 213k but really 213k?

Read the tables at Labor force status flows by sex current month

You are math challenged. I've shown you the stats - you are making up shit.

 

[Papageorgio]

People who start small businesses or who are entrepreneurs tend to not show up on the books cause they don't pay taxes.

I'm calling bullshit. Get me proof for your accusation because I have worked with, for and around small businesses and entrepreneurs and they all register legally and pay taxes and local fees and stay with in federal and state guidelines.

Again, you got proof show it or I am considering your accusation a bunch of bullshit.

 

[pinqy]

I gave my link, I was NOT showing total (net) change to the population,

Good thing I didn't claim that, then. 743.000 entered the population, 658k of whom entered as not in the labor force.
At the same time, 530,000 left the population.. Net change +213,000

My point was that if 658k entered as not in the labor force they clearly did not "drop out" of the labor force as claimed.

That is bunk math. The total Civilian Population (Labor Force plus Not In Labor Force) increased by 213K. 530K did not LEAVE the population.

743,000 entered the population. 530, 000 left. Net change is 213,000
I showed the link: other total inflows - other total outflows.
So how is my math bunk when we both get +213,000?

You are wrong. The Civilian Population, which include the Labor Force, and those who are not in the Labor Force increased by 213K. The Labor Force increased by by 69K. Not in the Labor Force increased by 144K. 69K plus 144K = 213K.

View attachment 46882

Correct: those are NET changes. I am giving GROSS inflows and outflows. Surely you don't think nobody at all left the labor force???


Look again at the flows: it all adds up.

I gave my link, I was NOT showing total (net) change to the population,

Good thing I didn't claim that, then. 743.000 entered the population, 658k of whom entered as not in the labor force.
At the same time, 530,000 left the population.. Net change +213,000

My point was that if 658k entered as not in the labor force they clearly did not "drop out" of the labor force as claimed.

That is bunk math. The total Civilian Population (Labor Force plus Not In Labor Force) increased by 213K. 530K did not LEAVE the population.

743,000 entered the population. 530, 000 left. Net change is 213,000
I showed the link: other total inflows - other total outflows.
So how is my math bunk when we both get +213,000?

You are wrong. The Civilian Population, which include the Labor Force, and those who are not in the Labor Force increased by 213K.

yes, that's what I said, population increased 213,000
It was 250,663,000. 743,000 joined the population( some as in the labor force, some as not in the labor force) and 530,000 left (again some from in and some from not in labor force)
Total change +213,000
(And of course there were internal changes as well.

So why do you keep saying it's not 213k but really 213k?

Read the tables at Labor force status flows by sex current month

You are math challenged. I've shown you the stats - you are making up shit.

My math in no way conflicts with yours, and especially since we're getting the same answer I'm at a loss as to what you think is wrong. Especially since I gave you my BLS source. You can check my math

 

[boedicca]

That is bunk math. The total Civilian Population (Labor Force plus Not In Labor Force) increased by 213K. 530K did not LEAVE the population.

743,000 entered the population. 530, 000 left. Net change is 213,000
I showed the link: other total inflows - other total outflows.
So how is my math bunk when we both get +213,000?

You are wrong. The Civilian Population, which include the Labor Force, and those who are not in the Labor Force increased by 213K. The Labor Force increased by by 69K. Not in the Labor Force increased by 144K. 69K plus 144K = 213K.

View attachment 46882

Correct: those are NET changes. I am giving GROSS inflows and outflows. Surely you don't think nobody at all left the labor force???


Look again at the flows: it all adds up.

That is bunk math. The total Civilian Population (Labor Force plus Not In Labor Force) increased by 213K. 530K did not LEAVE the population.

743,000 entered the population. 530, 000 left. Net change is 213,000
I showed the link: other total inflows - other total outflows.
So how is my math bunk when we both get +213,000?

You are wrong. The Civilian Population, which include the Labor Force, and those who are not in the Labor Force increased by 213K.

yes, that's what I said, population increased 213,000
It was 250,663,000. 743,000 joined the population( some as in the labor force, some as not in the labor force) and 530,000 left (again some from in and some from not in labor force)
Total change +213,000
(And of course there were internal changes as well.

So why do you keep saying it's not 213k but really 213k?

Read the tables at Labor force status flows by sex current month

You are math challenged. I've shown you the stats - you are making up shit.

My math in no way conflicts with yours, and especially since we're getting the same answer I'm at a loss as to what you think is wrong. Especially since I gave you my BLS source. You can check my math

Then do the math - your link doesn't show the gross change that you say you are netting out.

The U.S. population of those 16 years and older does not increase 700K+ in a month. That is pure nonsense.

 

[pinqy]

743,000 entered the population. 530, 000 left. Net change is 213,000
I showed the link: other total inflows - other total outflows.
So how is my math bunk when we both get +213,000?

You are wrong. The Civilian Population, which include the Labor Force, and those who are not in the Labor Force increased by 213K. The Labor Force increased by by 69K. Not in the Labor Force increased by 144K. 69K plus 144K = 213K.

View attachment 46882

Correct: those are NET changes. I am giving GROSS inflows and outflows. Surely you don't think nobody at all left the labor force???


Look again at the flows: it all adds up.

743,000 entered the population. 530, 000 left. Net change is 213,000
I showed the link: other total inflows - other total outflows.
So how is my math bunk when we both get +213,000?

You are wrong. The Civilian Population, which include the Labor Force, and those who are not in the Labor Force increased by 213K.

yes, that's what I said, population increased 213,000
It was 250,663,000. 743,000 joined the population( some as in the labor force, some as not in the labor force) and 530,000 left (again some from in and some from not in labor force)
Total change +213,000
(And of course there were internal changes as well.

So why do you keep saying it's not 213k but really 213k?

Read the tables at Labor force status flows by sex current month

You are math challenged. I've shown you the stats - you are making up shit.

My math in no way conflicts with yours, and especially since we're getting the same answer I'm at a loss as to what you think is wrong. Especially since I gave you my BLS source. You can check my math

Then do the math - your link doesn't show the gross change that you say you are netting out.

The U.S. population of those 16 years and older does not increase 700K+ in a month. That is pure nonsense.

I didn't say it did. It went up 213k
743k entered, 530k left. Go to my link, the total for "other inflows" clearly says 743k (last column, 4th row)
Total for "other outflows" is 530k (next to last column, 5th row.

Other inflows are people Who were not employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force the previous month bu are now

 

[boedicca]

You are wrong. The Civilian Population, which include the Labor Force, and those who are not in the Labor Force increased by 213K. The Labor Force increased by by 69K. Not in the Labor Force increased by 144K. 69K plus 144K = 213K.

View attachment 46882

Correct: those are NET changes. I am giving GROSS inflows and outflows. Surely you don't think nobody at all left the labor force???


Look again at the flows: it all adds up.

You are wrong. The Civilian Population, which include the Labor Force, and those who are not in the Labor Force increased by 213K.

yes, that's what I said, population increased 213,000
It was 250,663,000. 743,000 joined the population( some as in the labor force, some as not in the labor force) and 530,000 left (again some from in and some from not in labor force)
Total change +213,000
(And of course there were internal changes as well.

So why do you keep saying it's not 213k but really 213k?

Read the tables at Labor force status flows by sex current month

You are math challenged. I've shown you the stats - you are making up shit.

My math in no way conflicts with yours, and especially since we're getting the same answer I'm at a loss as to what you think is wrong. Especially since I gave you my BLS source. You can check my math

Then do the math - your link doesn't show the gross change that you say you are netting out.

The U.S. population of those 16 years and older does not increase 700K+ in a month. That is pure nonsense.

I didn't say it did. It went up 213k
743k entered, 530k left. Go to my link, the total for "other inflows" clearly says 743k (last column, 4th row)
Total for "other outflows" is 530k (next to last column, 5th row.

Other inflows are people Who were not employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force the previous month bu are now

And the footnote for that is:

(2) Includes persons just turning 16 and adjustments to estimated population totals.

Which proves my point that the whose who are younger age cohorts are not entering the workforce, hence they are significant components of the drop in the LFPR. It's NOT JUST BOOMERS.

 

[pinqy]

Correct: those are NET changes. I am giving GROSS inflows and outflows. Surely you don't think nobody at all left the labor force???


Look again at the flows: it all adds up.
yes, that's what I said, population increased 213,000
It was 250,663,000. 743,000 joined the population( some as in the labor force, some as not in the labor force) and 530,000 left (again some from in and some from not in labor force)
Total change +213,000
(And of course there were internal changes as well.

So why do you keep saying it's not 213k but really 213k?

Read the tables at Labor force status flows by sex current month

You are math challenged. I've shown you the stats - you are making up shit.

My math in no way conflicts with yours, and especially since we're getting the same answer I'm at a loss as to what you think is wrong. Especially since I gave you my BLS source. You can check my math

Then do the math - your link doesn't show the gross change that you say you are netting out.

The U.S. population of those 16 years and older does not increase 700K+ in a month. That is pure nonsense.

I didn't say it did. It went up 213k
743k entered, 530k left. Go to my link, the total for "other inflows" clearly says 743k (last column, 4th row)
Total for "other outflows" is 530k (next to last column, 5th row.

Other inflows are people Who were not employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force the previous month bu are now

And the footnote for that is:

(2) Includes persons just turning 16 and adjustments to estimated population totals.

Sure. Proves my point that not in the labor force does not mean dropped out.

Which proves my point that the whose who are younger age cohorts are not entering the workforce, hence they are significant components of the drop in the LFPR. It's NOT JUST BOOMERS.

Who said it was just boomers? Not I.

So why are you bringing it up except to change the topic?

 

[boedicca]

You are math challenged. I've shown you the stats - you are making up shit.

My math in no way conflicts with yours, and especially since we're getting the same answer I'm at a loss as to what you think is wrong. Especially since I gave you my BLS source. You can check my math

Then do the math - your link doesn't show the gross change that you say you are netting out.

The U.S. population of those 16 years and older does not increase 700K+ in a month. That is pure nonsense.

I didn't say it did. It went up 213k
743k entered, 530k left. Go to my link, the total for "other inflows" clearly says 743k (last column, 4th row)
Total for "other outflows" is 530k (next to last column, 5th row.

Other inflows are people Who were not employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force the previous month bu are now

And the footnote for that is:

(2) Includes persons just turning 16 and adjustments to estimated population totals.

Sure. Proves my point that not in the labor force does not mean dropped out.

Which proves my point that the whose who are younger age cohorts are not entering the workforce, hence they are significant components of the drop in the LFPR. It's NOT JUST BOOMERS.

Who said it was just boomers? Not I.

So why are you bringing it up except to change the topic?

I'm not changing the topic. I provided LFPR by age group information earlier in this thread in response to a poster claiming that the drop was due to boomer retirement. That is only part of the reason. The bigger issue is dropping participation by younger cohorts. The economy is not generating enough jobs to keep up with population growth.

Spin it however you wish, but your inflows and outflows source doesn't address the thread topic at all.

 

[francoHFW]

62.6% Labor participation Rate.

Worse Recovery Ever.

Just compare Obama's job performance to Reagan's:

View attachment 46799

Hey dumbass dupe, would that have anything to do with Pubs obstructing all reform and threatening shutdowns for four years? The best of the recovery was the first Obama year with congressional control and the last 2 years since the last shutdown bs. Duh.

You dummy

Nobody cares about your opinion............and this is a "politics" forum!!!

A huge majority of Americans think the economy blows...........and that's the only thing that matters in 2015!!!

Gallup economic confidence poll July 26 - Business Insider

And nobody cares about George Bush except the k00ks.



[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/mustang-burnout-o.gif.html'][/URL]

http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket..../baldaltima/mustang-burnout-o.gif[/IMG][/URL]
No dumbass ignorant Pub dupes care, you mean, fool. Forget the biggest catastrophe ever, who we'll be paying for for years? Amazing shytteheads, who want to do it AGAIN.

 

[francoHFW]

No they haven't, they have been ACCUSED by lying deniers using fake data, and you know it. Spencer and Christy got caught and had to admit it and when their data was corrected it matched NOAA and NASA.

You're an idiot, nothing more and nothing less

Yeah, an idiot armed with the facts! So what does that make you?

Your superior in every way. You don't state facts you spew the party line. Typical left loon

Sorry, but the fact is that Spencer and Christy at UAH got caught red handed using the OPPOSITE sign to calculate diurnal satellite drift, and by using that opposite sign they turned global warming into global cooling. Based on the cooked UAH data, deniers then accused Hasnen and everyone else of fudging any data that did not match UAH's.

Yawn....go try and snow one of your fellow loons, loon

Jeebus what a brainwashed moron. "Obama had 4 years of total control" -The dupes are on another planet. The world's laughingstock and horror. All those laws Obama passed to wreck the economy IDIOCY.