Another Good Month On The Jobs Front...unemployment Drops To 5.9%

[tuhaybey]

What they are "talking about" is the labor force participation rate. The percentage of Americans working is way down under this President! Part of that is simply a lack of jobs...part of it is a massive increase of people going on disability (because they can't find work?) and part of it is the Baby Boomers retiring which was expected.

Yes, and also people spending more years in school. The labor participation rate includes everybody between 16 and 65 years of age, so more people finishing high school, more people going to college and more people getting graduate degrees have all steadily pushed the labor participation rate down.

It's been falling since the 1990s at a fairly steady rate, not just under Obama. Mostly for those two reasons- more people in school and baby boomers retiring before they turn 65.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Even though unemployment number has dropped fewer people are working now than when obama took office in 2009.

Where do you people come up with this bullshit?!!!!!

Not only are there more people working now (146,600,000) then when Obama took office in 2009 (142,152,000), there are more people working now then ever in the history of the USA!!!!!

I've postred the BLS data that calls you a lying misinformed sack of shit.
Less people are working now than when obama took office in 2009
DUMB FUCK.

The BLS shows 142 million working as of Jan 2009.

Employment Situation News Release

The BLS shows 146.6 million working as of Sep 2014

Employment Situation News Release

Dumb ass from the BLS September 2014

65% in January 2009 dropped to 62.7% in september 2014 and has not went up since
WHICH MEANS FEWER PEOPLE ARE WORKING THAN WHEN BUSH WAS PRESIDENT.
No god damn wonder you support obama you are to dumb to breath without guberment help.

I gave you actual numbers that prove you wrong. I can't do any more than that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

65% in January 2009 dropped to 62.7% in september 2014 and has not went up since
WHICH MEANS FEWER PEOPLE ARE WORKING THAN WHEN BUSH WAS PRESIDENT.

No, it does not mean that. There are more people now than there were when Bush was president, so it is 62.7% of a bigger number and the total is higher as a result.

If you can convince him that 146 million is more than 142 million you should get a trophy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

65% in January 2009 dropped to 62.7% in september 2014 and has not went up since
WHICH MEANS FEWER PEOPLE ARE WORKING THAN WHEN BUSH WAS PRESIDENT.

No, it does not mean that. There are more people now than there were when Bush was president, so it is 62.7% of a bigger number and the total is higher as a result.

What is it dumb ass enlighten us

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Even though unemployment number has dropped fewer people are working now than when obama took office in 2009.

Where do you people come up with this bullshit?!!!!!

Not only are there more people working now (146,600,000) then when Obama took office in 2009 (142,152,000), there are more people working now then ever in the history of the USA!!!!!

I've postred the BLS data that calls you a lying misinformed sack of shit.
Less people are working now than when obama took office in 2009
DUMB FUCK.

The BLS shows 142 million working as of Jan 2009.

Employment Situation News Release

The BLS shows 146.6 million working as of Sep 2014

Employment Situation News Release

Dumb ass from the BLS September 2014

65% in January 2009 dropped to 62.7% in september 2014 and has not went up since
WHICH MEANS FEWER PEOPLE ARE WORKING THAN WHEN BUSH WAS PRESIDENT.
No god damn wonder you support obama you are to dumb to breath without guberment help.

I gave you actual numbers that prove you wrong. I can't do any more than that.

And IO gave you the actual fucking BLS chart showing the participation I can't help that you are too fucking stupid to comprehend it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

65% in January 2009 dropped to 62.7% in september 2014 and has not went up since
WHICH MEANS FEWER PEOPLE ARE WORKING THAN WHEN BUSH WAS PRESIDENT.

No, it does not mean that. There are more people now than there were when Bush was president, so it is 62.7% of a bigger number and the total is higher as a result.

If you can convince him that 146 million is more than 142 million you should get a trophy.

62 % participation vs Bushes 66 and above participation

 

[tuhaybey]

What is it dumb ass enlighten us

The number of people working? He already told you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What is it dumb ass enlighten us

The number of people working? He already told you.

bullshit
What is the participation chart you know this chart from the BLS?

you suck at this

 

[pinqy]

Even though unemployment number has dropped fewer people are working now than when obama took office in 2009.

Where do you people come up with this bullshit?!!!!!

Not only are there more people working now (146,600,000) then when Obama took office in 2009 (142,152,000), there are more people working now then ever in the history of the USA!!!!!

I've postred the BLS data that calls you a lying misinformed sack of shit.
Less people are working now than when obama took office in 2009
DUMB FUCK.

The BLS shows 142 million working as of Jan 2009.

Employment Situation News Release

The BLS shows 146.6 million working as of Sep 2014

Employment Situation News Release

Dumb ass from the BLS September 2014

65% in January 2009 dropped to 62.7% in september 2014 and has not went up since
WHICH MEANS FEWER PEOPLE ARE WORKING THAN WHEN BUSH WAS PRESIDENT.
No god damn wonder you support obama you are to dumb to breath without guberment help.

Actually, you're showing the labor force participation rate. The labor force is Employed PLUS Unemployed.
What you wanted was the Employment-population ratio, but let's stick with the labor force participation rate

January 2009 the Labor force was 154,210,000 (consisting of 142,152,000 employed and 12,058,000 unemployed)
The population was 234,739,000. So 154,210,000/234,739,000= .657

September 2014 was labor force of 155,862,000 (146,600,000 employed and 9,262,000 unemployed)
Population was 248,446,000 so 155,862,000/248,446,000 = .627

Bigger labor force, more people working, lower percent of the population

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Even though unemployment number has dropped fewer people are working now than when obama took office in 2009.

Where do you people come up with this bullshit?!!!!!

Not only are there more people working now (146,600,000) then when Obama took office in 2009 (142,152,000), there are more people working now then ever in the history of the USA!!!!!

I've postred the BLS data that calls you a lying misinformed sack of shit.
Less people are working now than when obama took office in 2009
DUMB FUCK.

The BLS shows 142 million working as of Jan 2009.

Employment Situation News Release

The BLS shows 146.6 million working as of Sep 2014

Employment Situation News Release

Dumb ass from the BLS September 2014

65% in January 2009 dropped to 62.7% in september 2014 and has not went up since
WHICH MEANS FEWER PEOPLE ARE WORKING THAN WHEN BUSH WAS PRESIDENT.
No god damn wonder you support obama you are to dumb to breath without guberment help.

Actually, you're showing the labor force participation rate. The labor force is Employed PLUS Unemployed.
What you wanted was the Employment-population ratio, but let's stick with the labor force participation rate

January 2009 the Labor force was 154,210,000 (consisting of 142,152,000 employed and 12,058,000 unemployed)
The population was 234,739,000. So 154,210,000/234,739,000= .657

September 2014 was labor force of 155,862,000 (146,600,000 employed and 9,262,000 unemployed)
Population was 248,446,000 so 155,862,000/248,446,000 = .627

Bigger labor force, more people working, lower percent of the population

Well god damn if you dumb mother fuckers would read what is fucking posted you fucking would see I said participation rate
It's the number of working age adults in the work force it keeps dropping while obama is president

 

[tuhaybey]

bullshit
What is the participation chart you know this chart from the BLS?

You're not following. You are showing the RATE. He is give you the absolute NUMBER OF PEOPLE. Those aren't the same thing. For example 50% of 100 people is more than 70% of 10 people, right? The RATE is lower, but we have more population, so it is 63% of a larger number vs 65% of a small number.

Just slow down and think it through.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bullshit
What is the participation chart you know this chart from the BLS?

You're not following. You are showing the RATE. He is give you the absolute NUMBER OF PEOPLE. Those aren't the same thing. For example 50% of 100 people is more than 70% of 10 people, right? The RATE is lower, but we have more population, so it is 63% of a larger number vs 65% of a small number.

Just slow down and think it through.

The rate is dropping you are done now
Next.

 

[tuhaybey]

The rate is dropping you are done now
Next.

Ok, so I gather you concede that the number of people working increased even though the participation rate fell. Good.

Another factor you may be missing is that unemployed people who are looking for work are counted as participating. The number of unemployment people who are looking for work (the unemployment rate) dropped, so more of that 63% are working than were in that 65%. It's confusing, I know, but that's how they do it. "Participating" means working AND looking for work, so you can have changes in the number of people working without the participation rate changing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The rate is dropping you are done now
Next.

Ok, so I gather you concede that the number of people working increased even though the participation rate fell. Good.

Another factor you may be missing is that unemployed people who are looking for work are counted as participating. The number of unemployment people who are looking for work (the unemployment rate) dropped, so more of that 63% are working than were in that 65%. It's confusing, I know, but that's how they do it. "Participating" means working AND looking for work, so you can have changes in the number of people working without the participation rate changing.

I said you were dismissed the only concession will be from you
Which year had the greatest Participation of working aged Americans 2008 or 2014?
Again you are dismissed

 

[tuhaybey]

I said you were dismissed the only concession will be from you
Which year had the greatest Participation of working aged Americans 2008 or 2014?
Again you are dismissed

You're blurring too many things together and it is confusing the issue. All of the following statements are true:

More Americans are working in 2014 than were in 2008.
More Americans are participating in 2014 than were in 2008.
A higher percentage of Americans are working in 2014 than in 2008.
A lower percentage of Americans are participating in 2014 than in 2008.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I said you were dismissed the only concession will be from you
Which year had the greatest Participation of working aged Americans 2008 or 2014?
Again you are dismissed

You're blurring too many things together and it is confusing the issue. All of the following statements are true:

More Americans are working in 2014 than were in 2008.
More Americans are participating in 2014 than were in 2008.
A higher percentage of Americans are working in 2014 than in 2008.
A lower percentage of Americans are participating in 2014 than in 2008.

I told you were dismissed your idiocy is no longer needed.

 

[Dad2three]

Funny how the far left blasted Bush for having an unemployment rate of 4.6%. Yet praise Obama for numbers like 10.2, 9.6, 8.2, 6.9, and 5.9..

Who 'blasted' Dubya for 4.6 (even if he inherited 4%)? You mean WHY was it 4.6%? Oh right his PONZI scheme where he cheered the Banksters on. It was called a false economy

What was Dubya's final (Jan 2009) unemployment numbers? And who was responsible for the 4+ million jobs lost in Obama's first 9 months?

When Bush left office the unemployment rate was 7.8%. After the Obama Stimulus it went up to 10% and didn't come down below 9% for another TWO AND A HALF YEARS!!!

Well consider that the unemployment ACTUALLY was 8.3% in Feb 2009, since Obama got into office Jan 20th, AND by his 3rd month in, it was 9.4%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Yes, AND we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, remember? The economy contracted over 9%+ the last quarter of Dubya's term remember?

Yes, Dubya/GOP dug a WIDE and deep hole, and have worked as a disloyal opposition party against US!

Even though unemployment number has dropped fewer people are working now than when obama took office in 2009. You keep saying unemployment is down, it's meaningless when you have fewer people in the work force.

Weird, you saying Dubya losing 1,000,000+ jobs in 8 years is OK, but Obama having 10+ million created IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR since Obamacares passed in Feb 2010 is bad? That's a net of over 6.6+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created



I agree though, no reason for the 'job creators' to keep the lowest SUSTAINED effective tax rates in 80+ years when they tended to create MANY more jobs when their tax rates were DOUBLE (EFFECTIVE) than they are today!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Funny how the far left blasted Bush for having an unemployment rate of 4.6%. Yet praise Obama for numbers like 10.2, 9.6, 8.2, 6.9, and 5.9..

Who 'blasted' Dubya for 4.6 (even if he inherited 4%)? You mean WHY was it 4.6%? Oh right his PONZI scheme where he cheered the Banksters on. It was called a false economy

What was Dubya's final (Jan 2009) unemployment numbers? And who was responsible for the 4+ million jobs lost in Obama's first 9 months?

When Bush left office the unemployment rate was 7.8%. After the Obama Stimulus it went up to 10% and didn't come down below 9% for another TWO AND A HALF YEARS!!!

Well consider that the unemployment ACTUALLY was 8.3% in Feb 2009, since Obama got into office Jan 20th, AND by his 3rd month in, it was 9.4%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Yes, AND we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, remember? The economy contracted over 9%+ the last quarter of Dubya's term remember?

Yes, Dubya/GOP dug a WIDE and deep hole, and have worked as a disloyal opposition party against US!

Even though unemployment number has dropped fewer people are working now than when obama took office in 2009. You keep saying unemployment is down, it's meaningless when you have fewer people in the work force.

Weird, you saying Dubya losing 1,000,000+ jobs in 8 years is OK, but Obama having 10+ million created IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR since Obamacares passed in Feb 2010 is bad? That's a net of over 6.6+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created



I agree though, no reason for the 'job creators' to keep the lowest SUSTAINED effective tax rates in 80+ years when they tended to create MANY more jobs when their tax rates were DOUBLE (EFFECTIVE) than they are today!!

I didn't say a fucking thing I posted what the BLS provided got a grip cry to them.

 

[Dad2three]

Where do you people come up with this bullshit?!!!!!

Not only are there more people working now (146,600,000) then when Obama took office in 2009 (142,152,000), there are more people working now then ever in the history of the USA!!!!!

I've postred the BLS data that calls you a lying misinformed sack of shit.
Less people are working now than when obama took office in 2009
DUMB FUCK.

Hey dumb ass, I posted the BLS total number of people working and there are more working now then ever in our history. There are 4,448,000 more people working now then when Obama took office in 2009.

And dumb ass the current BLS data I used showed less people working than was working in 2009

Liar!

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Whose fucking lying you dumb son of a bitch
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

You, as usual. What's with this fascination right wingers have with 'participation rate'?


One point that doesn’t get a lot of airtime in current economic discussions is just how much the US government has cut back on its worforce in recent years. Government employees are still off by 491,000 since the start of 2008.

This is an unprecedented cut in total government employees. No President in the post-war era has presided over two terms in which government employment declined through his Presidency. Not Reagan, not Bush, no one. In general, they were all huge expanders of government employment.

What’s interesting about all of this is the labor force participation rate which is often cited as a sign of structural weakness in the US economy. Which is true to some degree. But how much of this decline in the participation rate is due to the government job cuts since 2008?

I went back and ran the figures and added in the trend growth in government employment since 1950. Rather than cutting half a million jobs since 2008 the US government would have added about 2.4 million jobs. In this scenario the labor force participation is 64% vs today’s actual rate of 62.8%. Since the rate peaked at 67.3% it’s declined by 4.5 points. In other words, the government’s job cuts have accounted for 27% of the decline in the labor force participation rate. And who knows how much all of that lost input and income could have further multiplied growth and employment….

Government Job Cuts are Driving Down the Labor Force Participation Rate Pragmatic Capitalism

DUBYA= LOSE 1,000,00+ PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS= GOOD POLICY


OBAMA 10+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS SINCE PASSING OBAMACARES FEB 2010= BAD POLICY... LOL

Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor
Force.

According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":


But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

Who 'blasted' Dubya for 4.6 (even if he inherited 4%)? You mean WHY was it 4.6%? Oh right his PONZI scheme where he cheered the Banksters on. It was called a false economy

What was Dubya's final (Jan 2009) unemployment numbers? And who was responsible for the 4+ million jobs lost in Obama's first 9 months?

When Bush left office the unemployment rate was 7.8%. After the Obama Stimulus it went up to 10% and didn't come down below 9% for another TWO AND A HALF YEARS!!!

Well consider that the unemployment ACTUALLY was 8.3% in Feb 2009, since Obama got into office Jan 20th, AND by his 3rd month in, it was 9.4%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Yes, AND we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, remember? The economy contracted over 9%+ the last quarter of Dubya's term remember?

Yes, Dubya/GOP dug a WIDE and deep hole, and have worked as a disloyal opposition party against US!

Even though unemployment number has dropped fewer people are working now than when obama took office in 2009. You keep saying unemployment is down, it's meaningless when you have fewer people in the work force.

Weird, you saying Dubya losing 1,000,000+ jobs in 8 years is OK, but Obama having 10+ million created IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR since Obamacares passed in Feb 2010 is bad? That's a net of over 6.6+ million PRIVATE sector jobs created



I agree though, no reason for the 'job creators' to keep the lowest SUSTAINED effective tax rates in 80+ years when they tended to create MANY more jobs when their tax rates were DOUBLE (EFFECTIVE) than they are today!!

I didn't say a fucking thing I posted what the BLS provided got a grip cry to them.

Remember right wingers crying about the number of 'workers' shrinking that will be paying social security taxes? Last decade or so?

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post