90,609,000 not included in work force

[JRK]

90,609,000: Americans Not in Labor Force Climbs to Another Record | CNS News

that is nuts

were allmost to 1 in 3

Yeah, stoke up the furnaces for all these "useless eaters."

How dare a child stay in school past 16 years old!
How dare a spouse stay home and care for their children!
How dare a senior retire, they must work until the drop dead on the job!
How dare a person become disabled, they are all just faking it anyway!
How dare an adult stay home to care for a sick or aging family member!
Yeah, death to the useless eaters!!!

October 15, 2013
RUSH: We've got a lot of people -- look, 90 million Americans -- I love to put it this way 'cause I think it's the proper perspective. Ninety million Americans are not working, Donna, but they're eating. What does that mean? That's over 10 New York Cities that are not working. But they're eating, which means somebody's buying their sustenance, and that somebody is somebody else, is the government. They are eating.

HUH?
what does that have to do with the UE number and the way it is now being effected by this in a huge way?
You libs just freak on the damdest things
no-one said retiring was a bad thing
90 million?

 

[g5000]

Guess what started happening in 2011.

The first of the baby boom generation (1946-1964) reached the retirement age of 65.

That would be important if retirees were counted as part of the labor force.

They are not.

And this topic is about the number of people who are NOT counted as part of the labor force. So that number INCLUDES retirees.

So the number of retirees is important.

 

[JRK]

Are you kidding me?
The gov'ts actions directly caused the crash, as the Fed kept interest rates too low too long, raising incentives for mortgage lending i a real estate bubble.
The gov'ts actions after 2009 directly caused the slow recovery, as dysincentives for hiring and wealth accumulation kicked in.
This is Econ 101. A subject most libs are completely ignorant of.

The govt keeping intrest rates low had nothing to do with people making bad loans.
that was a choice made in the free market, not in Washington
do a root cause and you will agree
easy money was only easy because people in the free market made bad choices
I agree there has been little effort to help the economy get back to where it was from 80s to late 07 sense 2009
Obama spent his first 2 year 100% focused on ACA

It had everything to do with it.
Low interest rates by the Feds made it immensely profitable to make mortgage loans (difference between interest rate on mortgage loan and rate on fed funds equals profit), which were packaged and sold. Only way to increase borrower pool is to lower cost and/or lower credit quality. They did both. Eventually lower credit quality caught up.
Easy money was easy because the Fed sets monetary policy.
Obama spent his first year focused on the Porkulus Bill, Cash for Clunkers, and Dodd-Frank. ACA was in there somewhere.

So the federal govt sit down with mr John Q public and his wife Jane and made all of those bad loans?
Banks and hedge funds had no part in it?, investment banking?
It was GWB all along who made those bad loans on inflated assets?

So what did those bills do to help the economy?

 

[g5000]

Not in the labor force
Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. See also Labor force and Discouraged workers.

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

 

[JRK]

Guess what started happening in 2011.

The first of the baby boom generation (1946-1964) reached the retirement age of 65.

That would be important if retirees were counted as part of the labor force.

They are not.

And this topic is about the number of people who are NOT counted as part of the labor force. So that number INCLUDES retirees.

So the number of retirees is important.

No
The thread is about those not being counted in the UE rate
you libs need to look at this
Making 9 Million Jobless Vanish: How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

an extraordinarily cynical act, the government is effectively saying that because the job situation has been so bad for many millions of unemployed people in their 40s, 30s, 20s and teens, they can no longer be considered to be potential participants in the work force at all. Because there is no hope for them - they no longer need to be counted. And it is this steady statistical cleansing from the workforce of the worst of the economic casualties - of these very real millions of individual tragedies - that is being presented as a rapidly improving jobs picture.

What the government's statistical deception is hiding is a catastrophic degree of change in generational employment levels, with the situation being much worse for the young and middle-aged than what is publicly presented. As the fundamental force of aging Boomers increasingly collides with the fundamental force of an employment disaster among younger Americans, the results may change everything that we think we know about economic growth, budget deficits, Social Security and Medicare, as well as all categories of investments.

 

[g5000]

Nearly 63 million people receiving SS or SSI as of August.

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, August 2013

 

[JRK]

an extraordinarily cynical act, the government is effectively saying that because the job situation has been so bad for many millions of unemployed people in their 40s, 30s, 20s and teens, they can no longer be considered to be potential participants in the work force at all. Because there is no hope for them - they no longer need to be counted. And it is this steady statistical cleansing from the workforce of the worst of the economic casualties - of these very real millions of individual tragedies - that is being presented as a rapidly improving jobs picture.

What the government's statistical deception is hiding is a catastrophic degree of change in generational employment levels, with the situation being much worse for the young and middle-aged than what is publicly presented. As the fundamental force of aging Boomers increasingly collides with the fundamental force of an employment disaster among younger Americans, the results may change everything that we think we know about economic growth, budget deficits, Social Security and Medicare, as well as all categories of investments.
Making 9 Million Jobless Vanish: How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

 

[JRK]

Nearly 63 million people receiving SS or SSI as of August.

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, August 2013

so 27 million who are not counted is a good thing?

 

[Spoonman]

Guess what started happening in 2011.

The first of the baby boom generation (1946-1964) reached the retirement age of 65.

and now they can't afford to retire thanks to obama

 

[g5000]

an extraordinarily cynical act, the government is effectively saying that because the job situation has been so bad for many millions of unemployed people in their 40s, 30s, 20s and teens, they can no longer be considered to be potential participants in the work force at all.

The BLS has been doing this since before Bush's economic crash. They have placed "discourage workers", retirees, etc. in the "not in the labor force" column for a long time.

 

[g5000]

Nearly 63 million people receiving SS or SSI as of August.

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, August 2013

so 27 million who are not counted is a good thing?

You cannot make a judgement based on a single shapshot, and that is what this figure is.

You need to show trend lines. Is that number going up or down? If it is higher, is it going up because there are more retirees due to the boomer generation hitting 65, or is it because more people are giving up looking for work? Are things getting better or worse?

I think partisans are afraid to find out and won't look. They prefer to make all kinds of assumptions about better or worse based on snapshots.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

There's about ten million less in the workforce now than when Obama took office.
Some of that is due to retirement, but not all.
If at least some of these millions were counted the unemplyment rate would be higher.

 

[JakeStarkey]

what does that have to do with the UE number and the way it is now being effected by this in a huge way?
You libs just freak on the damdest things
no-one said retiring was a bad thing
90 million?

JRK, you are a reactionary so we know your mouth moves you lie.

The numbers mean nothing until they are put into context.

Please do so instead of going buh buh buh.

 

[The Rabbi]

The govt keeping intrest rates low had nothing to do with people making bad loans.
that was a choice made in the free market, not in Washington
do a root cause and you will agree
easy money was only easy because people in the free market made bad choices
I agree there has been little effort to help the economy get back to where it was from 80s to late 07 sense 2009
Obama spent his first 2 year 100% focused on ACA

It had everything to do with it.
Low interest rates by the Feds made it immensely profitable to make mortgage loans (difference between interest rate on mortgage loan and rate on fed funds equals profit), which were packaged and sold. Only way to increase borrower pool is to lower cost and/or lower credit quality. They did both. Eventually lower credit quality caught up.
Easy money was easy because the Fed sets monetary policy.
Obama spent his first year focused on the Porkulus Bill, Cash for Clunkers, and Dodd-Frank. ACA was in there somewhere.

So the federal govt sit down with mr John Q public and his wife Jane and made all of those bad loans?
Banks and hedge funds had no part in it?, investment banking?
It was GWB all along who made those bad loans on inflated assets?

So what did those bills do to help the economy?

The loans of course were not bad when they were being made. RIsing real estate values and low rates made the deals look reasonable at the time. Gov't set the stage for it. People simply followed the incentives given.

 

[JRK]

an extraordinarily cynical act, the government is effectively saying that because the job situation has been so bad for many millions of unemployed people in their 40s, 30s, 20s and teens, they can no longer be considered to be potential participants in the work force at all.

The BLS has been doing this since before Bush's economic crash. They have placed "discourage workers", retirees, etc. in the "not in the labor force" column for a long time.

no-one said anything different
it is the number that is glaring
From 2003 through 2008 we then go back to watching paint dry for six straight years, as the annual average labor force participation rate stayed within the narrow 0.2% band of 66.2% to 66.0%.

Then the biggest employment crisis since the 1930s hits in late 2008 - and by some mysterious coincidence, the labor force participation rate instantly becomes a fast moving statistic. It drops 0.6% in the year 2009 alone - and in the process, just happens to remove 1.4 million people without jobs from both the labor force and the unemployment numbers. There are drops of 0.7% and 0.6% in 2010 and 2011, making another 3.1 million people without jobs entirely disappear from view.

2012 workforce participation started with a sizzling 0.4% decline, removing a million people without jobs from the labor force statistics in one month - as the band played on, and the cheerful labor statistics helped the stock market indexes climb.

The last column, "Constant Workforce Participation" (CWP) unemployment rate shows what unemployment statistics would have been in each year if the government did not keep permanently removing millions of jobless people from the unemployment rate calculations. This is a modified U-6 full unemployment calculation, that includes the officially unemployed, involuntary part-time workers, and the 9 million people without jobs who have been cumulatively defined out of the workforce.
Making 9 Million Jobless Vanish: How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics

 

[The Rabbi]

Nearly 63 million people receiving SS or SSI as of August.

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, August 2013

so 27 million who are not counted is a good thing?

You cannot make a judgement based on a single shapshot, and that is what this figure is.

You need to show trend lines. Is that number going up or down? If it is higher, is it going up because there are more retirees due to the boomer generation hitting 65, or is it because more people are giving up looking for work? Are things getting better or worse?

I think partisans are afraid to find out and won't look. They prefer to make all kinds of assumptions about better or worse based on snapshots.

The workforce participation rate is the worst its been since the early 1980s.

 

[francoHFW]

ManY thanks to the brainwashed TP for screwing up the recovery with phony debt crises 3 straight years. Ooops, there's the D word- watch the hater dupes trigger a stroke. Idiots.

This is Raygun's way of figuring UE...HOW ABOUT A GD JOBS BILL- A REAL ONE FCS...

 

[g5000]

There's about ten million less in the workforce now than when Obama took office.
Some of that is due to retirement, but not all.
If at least some of these millions were counted the unemplyment rate would be higher.

I think the only number that really tells us anything is the number of jobs created month by month.

When that number is over 125,000 we are creating more jobs than population growth. Less than that, we are falling behind.

So that is the only trend that really matters to me as far as employment numbers goes.

After that, what matters most is the wages people are receiving for the new jobs. Are they part time, low wage jobs, or are higher paying jobs rising?

If you look, you will find that job growth has been sluggish since before Obama. It has been sluggish since 2000. Under Bush, only 3 million jobs were created in 8 years, where 25 million were created during Clinton's two terms.

I believe a big reason for that is that in 2000 total public and private debt crossed 260% of GDP. Studies have shown that when that happens, excessive debt blocks the main channel of monetary influence on economic activity.

 

[JRK]

There's about ten million less in the workforce now than when Obama took office.
Some of that is due to retirement, but not all.
If at least some of these millions were counted the unemplyment rate would be higher.

I think the only number that really tells us anything is the number of jobs created month by month.

When that number is over 125,000 we are creating more jobs than population growth. Less than that, we are falling behind.

So that is the only trend that really matters to me as far as employment numbers goes.

After that, what matters most is the wages people are receiving for the new jobs. Are they part time, low wage jobs, or are higher paying jobs rising?

If you look, you will find that job growth has been sluggish since before Obama. It has been sluggish since 2000. Under Bush, only 3 million jobs were created in 8 years, where 25 million were created during Clinton's two terms.

I believe a big reason for that is that in 2000 total public and private debt crossed 260% of GDP. Studies have shown that when that happens, excessive debt blocks the main channel of monetary influence on economic activity.

Not sure where you are getting your info
Under Clinton there was 22 milion created with a GOP congress for 6 of those years
In fact while we had a GOP congress (excpet 00-02) we created 30 million jobs
Under GWB while we had a GOP congress we created 8 million
in the last year we lost most all of those of course (2008)
we are still below those numbers
Dec 6, 2012 - The proof is in the pudding over the Bush tax cuts. They were followed by a record 52 straight months of job creation, producing 8 million new ...
Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts - Forbes
Problem is that the media as well as the Dem. party blamed GWB for the 08 melt-down
well not sure how many bad loans GWB or for that matter BHO gave out, but it sure was not the problem(either of them making bad loans or mis representing asset value)

At the end of the day Job creation would be a big negaitive if not for Fracking
Fracking Brings Employment And Economic Revival - Paul Driessen - Page full
Hydraulic fracturing has created 1.7 million new direct and indirect jobs in the United States, with the total likely to rise to 3 million jobs over the next seven years, IHS Global Insight reports. It has injected billions into North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas and other state economies. It’s added $62 billion to federal and state treasuries, with that total expected to rise to $111 billion by 2020. By 2035, U.S. oil and natural gas operations could provide over $5 trillion in cumulative capital expenditures into the economy, while generating over $2.5 trillion in cumulative additional government revenues.

GWB did all he could to create wealth
and did for 6 of his 8 years

If Obama would put as much focus on the same as he has destroying the GOP and his ACA, he would get the same respect from me

 

[edthecynic]

90,609,000: Americans Not in Labor Force Climbs to Another Record | CNS News

that is nuts

were allmost to 1 in 3

Yeah, stoke up the furnaces for all these "useless eaters."

How dare a child stay in school past 16 years old!
How dare a spouse stay home and care for their children!
How dare a senior retire, they must work until the drop dead on the job!
How dare a person become disabled, they are all just faking it anyway!
How dare an adult stay home to care for a sick or aging family member!
Yeah, death to the useless eaters!!!

October 15, 2013
RUSH: We've got a lot of people -- look, 90 million Americans -- I love to put it this way 'cause I think it's the proper perspective. Ninety million Americans are not working, Donna, but they're eating. What does that mean? That's over 10 New York Cities that are not working. But they're eating, which means somebody's buying their sustenance, and that somebody is somebody else, is the government. They are eating.

HUH?
what does that have to do with the UE number and the way it is now being effected by this in a huge way?
You libs just freak on the damdest things
no-one said retiring was a bad thing
90 million?

According to your MessiahRushie, all 90 million are useless eaters. And he says if they are eating they are mooching off the government. Now he's dead wrong, but you'll never admit it.

Not all students over 16 are mooching off the government, some are mooching off their parents. And with the decline of feminism many more moms stay home while hubby works. They are part of the 90 million useless eaters who are out of the workforce that you want to count as unemployed. Now you never counted students and stay at home moms as unemployed during any Republican president in the past and you will not count them as unemployed for any Republican president in the future, but something about this president id different that makes you invent new ways to inflate the unemployment number.
I wonder what that difference is????