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

[pinqy]

The [January] 1994 redesign a number of changes made to the questionnaire and overall survey methodology affected the measure of employment, unemployment, and persons not in the labor force; and second, several definitional changes were introduced, employed part-time for economic reasons. The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey, as respondents were explicitly asked about their desire and availability for full-time work. …

So once again the far left made changes in order to downgrade the unemployment numbers and it has been that way since 1994.

You didn't show the changes were intended to or did "downgrade" the unemployment numbers.

Your only example was part time for economic reasons. So let's look at that: why do you think those changes in definition were bad?

All I had to show that it was more than some wording changes that meant nothing, like you posted and I did.

but you didn't show that for the unemployment number.

" The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey."

Just deal with the fact that it got changed and on the lower side.

The important part is which is more accurate.

Considerable tightening of the requirements for discouraged worker status reduced the number of persons so classified by about half. …

And was that justified or not?

Effects on indicator U-5 [which became U-3 in the new numbering system] … the official unemployment rate … marginally higher - an estimated 0.2 percentage point - under the redesigned CPS

Ah, so the actual unemployment rate was made HIGHER under the changes.

… effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one.

well, of course... The U-7 included part time for economic reasons and discouraged.

Once again the far left goes down in flames..

I'm hardly the far left..I voted McCain and Romney.
But you claim was that the changes were intended to make the unemployment rate lower, but your source shows it actually went up after the changes.

No it shows it went down based on what we use today.

Did you not read your own source:

Effects on indicator U-5 [which became U-3 in the new numbering system] … the official unemployment rate … marginally higher - an estimated 0.2 percentage point - under the redesigned CPS

The official rate was made worse.

"under the redesigned CPS … effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one."

Well, yeah. I d on' t know w by you think that's important.

[Quoute]And you are far left if you believe that it is higher now than before 1994. It is shown from the BLS site itself that is lower based ion the new rules being used..[/quote]
What is the "it?" Of course the U-6 would be lower than the old U-7. Who says otherwise?
The official rate, on the other hand, was higher due to the changes.

The old survey was higher than the new one. What does that mean? The new is lower than the old one by design.

The official rate was lower. Are you claiming that was intentional?

Here is the real unemployment numbers:

It looks like it is between 10 and 15%..

What is between 10 an 15%?

The [January] 1994 redesign a number of changes made to the questionnaire and overall survey methodology affected the measure of employment, unemployment, and persons not in the labor force; and second, several definitional changes were introduced, employed part-time for economic reasons. The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey, as respondents were explicitly asked about their desire and availability for full-time work. …

So once again the far left made changes in order to downgrade the unemployment numbers and it has been that way since 1994.

You didn't show the changes were intended to or did "downgrade" the unemployment numbers.

Your only example was part time for economic reasons. So let's look at that: why do you think those changes in definition were bad?

All I had to show that it was more than some wording changes that meant nothing, like you posted and I did.

but you didn't show that for the unemployment number.

" The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey."

Just deal with the fact that it got changed and on the lower side.

The important part is which is more accurate.

Considerable tightening of the requirements for discouraged worker status reduced the number of persons so classified by about half. …

And was that justified or not?

Effects on indicator U-5 [which became U-3 in the

The [January] 1994 redesign a number of changes made to the questionnaire and overall survey methodology affected the measure of employment, unemployment, and persons not in the labor force; and second, several definitional changes were introduced, employed part-time for economic reasons. The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey, as respondents were explicitly asked about their desire and availability for full-time work. …

So once again the far left made changes in order to downgrade the unemployment numbers and it has been that way since 1994.

You didn't show the changes were intended to or did "downgrade" the unemployment numbers.

Your only example was part time for economic reasons. So let's look at that: why do you think those changes in definition were bad?

All I had to show that it was more than some wording changes that meant nothing, like you posted and I did.

but you didn't show that for the unemployment number.

" The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey."

Just deal with the fact that it got changed and on the lower side.

The important part is which is more accurate.

Considerable tightening of the requirements for discouraged worker status reduced the number of persons so classified by about half. …

And was that justified or not?

Effects on indicator U-5 [which became U-3 in the new numbering system] … the official unemployment rate … marginally higher - an estimated 0.2 percentage point - under the redesigned CPS

Ah, so the actual unemployment rate was made HIGHER under the changes.

… effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one.

well, of course... The U-7 included part time for economic reasons and discouraged.

Once again the far left goes down in flames..

I'm hardly the far left..I voted McCain and Romney.
But you claim was that the changes were intended to make the unemployment rate lower, but your source shows it actually went up after the changes.

No it shows it went down based on what we use today.

"under the redesigned CPS … effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one."

And you are far left if you believe that it is higher now than before 1994. It is shown from the BLS site itself that is lower based ion the new rules being used..

The old survey was higher than the new one. What does that mean? The new is lower than the old one by design.

Here is the real unemployment numbers:

It looks like it is between 10 and 15%..

...

you really have no idea what that means.

Actually yes I do, but obviously you do not..

So explain again why changes were made to intentionally m as me the unemployment rate worse? Why would "they" manipulate things to look worse?

Because that's what you're claiming.

WOW! Far left thinking at i's best so low unemployment numbers are a bad thing?

The unemployment rate was HIGHER, NOT LOWER after the change a new. You said you understood that part.

Oh my the far left is really dense today, but it is hard to beat through that programmed mantra.

"under the redesigned CPS … effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one."

Right. What does that have to do with

So explain again why changes were made to intentionally m as me the unemployment rate worse? Why would "they" manipulate things to look worse?

Because that's what you're claiming.

WOW! Far left thinking at i's best so low unemployment numbers are a bad thing?

The unemployment rate was HIGHER, NOT LOWER after the change a new. You said you understood that part.

Oh my the far left is really dense today, but it is hard to beat through that programmed mantra.

"under the redesigned CPS … effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one."

That's speaking of the U6 rate, not the U3 rate. The U3 rate is what effective changes were to the U5 rate.

Once again you show the A typical far left wanting to argue just to argue because you got caught in yet another one of your far left lies.

And it all adds up to the total unemployment right? [/quot]
Wrong. They don't add up. That makes no sense

 

[Faun]

So explain again why changes were made to intentionally m as me the unemployment rate worse? Why would "they" manipulate things to look worse?

Because that's what you're claiming.

WOW! Far left thinking at i's best so low unemployment numbers are a bad thing?

The unemployment rate was HIGHER, NOT LOWER after the change a new. You said you understood that part.

Oh my the far left is really dense today, but it is hard to beat through that programmed mantra.

"under the redesigned CPS … effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one."

That's speaking of the U6 rate, not the U3 rate. The U3 rate is what effective changes were to the U5 rate.

Once again you show the A typical far left wanting to argue just to argue because you got caught in yet another one of your far left lies.

And it all adds up to the total unemployment right? So if one area is .02 higher and the other area is .5 lower, will the over all numbers be lower or higher?

Sorry, but you don't get to switch your argument just because it was shot down. The U3 rate is now higher than it was prior to 1994.

 

[Kosh]

The [January] 1994 redesign a number of changes made to the questionnaire and overall survey methodology affected the measure of employment, unemployment, and persons not in the labor force; and second, several definitional changes were introduced, employed part-time for economic reasons. The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey, as respondents were explicitly asked about their desire and availability for full-time work. …

So once again the far left made changes in order to downgrade the unemployment numbers and it has been that way since 1994.

You didn't show the changes were intended to or did "downgrade" the unemployment numbers.

Your only example was part time for economic reasons. So let's look at that: why do you think those changes in definition were bad?

All I had to show that it was more than some wording changes that meant nothing, like you posted and I did.

but you didn't show that for the unemployment number.

" The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey."

Just deal with the fact that it got changed and on the lower side.

The important part is which is more accurate.

Considerable tightening of the requirements for discouraged worker status reduced the number of persons so classified by about half. …

And was that justified or not?

Effects on indicator U-5 [which became U-3 in the new numbering system] … the official unemployment rate … marginally higher - an estimated 0.2 percentage point - under the redesigned CPS

Ah, so the actual unemployment rate was made HIGHER under the changes.

… effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one.

well, of course... The U-7 included part time for economic reasons and discouraged.

Once again the far left goes down in flames..

I'm hardly the far left..I voted McCain and Romney.
But you claim was that the changes were intended to make the unemployment rate lower, but your source shows it actually went up after the changes.

No it shows it went down based on what we use today.

Did you not read your own source:

Effects on indicator U-5 [which became U-3 in the new numbering system] … the official unemployment rate … marginally higher - an estimated 0.2 percentage point - under the redesigned CPS

The official rate was made worse.

"under the redesigned CPS … effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one."

Well, yeah. I d on' t know w by you think that's important.

[Quoute]And you are far left if you believe that it is higher now than before 1994. It is shown from the BLS site itself that is lower based ion the new rules being used..

What is the "it?" Of course the U-6 would be lower than the old U-7. Who says otherwise?
The official rate, on the other hand, was higher due to the changes.

The old survey was higher than the new one. What does that mean? The new is lower than the old one by design.

The official rate was lower. Are you claiming that was intentional?

Here is the real unemployment numbers:

It looks like it is between 10 and 15%..

What is between 10 an 15%?

The [January] 1994 redesign a number of changes made to the questionnaire and overall survey methodology affected the measure of employment, unemployment, and persons not in the labor force; and second, several definitional changes were introduced, employed part-time for economic reasons. The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey, as respondents were explicitly asked about their desire and availability for full-time work. …

So once again the far left made changes in order to downgrade the unemployment numbers and it has been that way since 1994.

You didn't show the changes were intended to or did "downgrade" the unemployment numbers.

Your only example was part time for economic reasons. So let's look at that: why do you think those changes in definition were bad?

All I had to show that it was more than some wording changes that meant nothing, like you posted and I did.

but you didn't show that for the unemployment number.

" The figure was sharply lower under the redesigned survey."

Just deal with the fact that it got changed and on the lower side.

The important part is which is more accurate.

Considerable tightening of the requirements for discouraged worker status reduced the number of persons so classified by about half. …

And was that justified or not?

Effects on indicator U-5 [which became U-3 in the

but you didn't show that for the unemployment number.

The important part is which is more accurate.

And was that justified or not?

Ah, so the actual unemployment rate was made HIGHER under the changes.

well, of course... The U-7 included part time for economic reasons and discouraged.

I'm hardly the far left..I voted McCain and Romney.
But you claim was that the changes were intended to make the unemployment rate lower, but your source shows it actually went up after the changes.

No it shows it went down based on what we use today.

"under the redesigned CPS … effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one."

And you are far left if you believe that it is higher now than before 1994. It is shown from the BLS site itself that is lower based ion the new rules being used..

The old survey was higher than the new one. What does that mean? The new is lower than the old one by design.

Here is the real unemployment numbers:

It looks like it is between 10 and 15%..

...Actually yes I do, but obviously you do not..

So explain again why changes were made to intentionally m as me the unemployment rate worse? Why would "they" manipulate things to look worse?

Because that's what you're claiming.

WOW! Far left thinking at i's best so low unemployment numbers are a bad thing?

The unemployment rate was HIGHER, NOT LOWER after the change a new. You said you understood that part.

Oh my the far left is really dense today, but it is hard to beat through that programmed mantra.

"under the redesigned CPS … effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one."

Right. What does that have to do with

WOW! Far left thinking at i's best so low unemployment numbers are a bad thing?

The unemployment rate was HIGHER, NOT LOWER after the change a new. You said you understood that part.

Oh my the far left is really dense today, but it is hard to beat through that programmed mantra.

"under the redesigned CPS … effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one."

That's speaking of the U6 rate, not the U3 rate. The U3 rate is what effective changes were to the U5 rate.

Once again you show the A typical far left wanting to argue just to argue because you got caught in yet another one of your far left lies.

And it all adds up to the total unemployment right? [/quot]
Wrong. They don't add up. That makes no sense

[/QUOTE]

Once again the far left mentally is at play here.

Once they are shown they are wrong they will refuse to admit and continue to drone on..

 

[Kosh]

WOW! Far left thinking at i's best so low unemployment numbers are a bad thing?

The unemployment rate was HIGHER, NOT LOWER after the change a new. You said you understood that part.

Oh my the far left is really dense today, but it is hard to beat through that programmed mantra.

"under the redesigned CPS … effects on indicator U-7 [the most comprehensive, roughly corresponding to U-6 now] … markedly higher in the old survey than under the new one."

That's speaking of the U6 rate, not the U3 rate. The U3 rate is what effective changes were to the U5 rate.

Once again you show the A typical far left wanting to argue just to argue because you got caught in yet another one of your far left lies.

And it all adds up to the total unemployment right? So if one area is .02 higher and the other area is .5 lower, will the over all numbers be lower or higher?

Sorry, but you don't get to switch your argument just because it was shot down. The U3 rate is now higher than it was prior to 1994.

Once again the far left will not admit they are wrong and we have to do the endless posting dance until they can admit they.

 

[Geaux4it]

Remember stretch Pelosi.. UE benefits create jobs. What a nut job

-Geaux

 

[Faun]

Once again the far left mentally is at play here.

Once they are shown they are wrong they will refuse to admit and continue to drone on..

The official rate (U3) rate is measured lower than it was before the 1994 changes.

 

[edthecynic]

FACTS behind the Obama economy
( according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics )



Of 266,000 jobs created in July, 35 percent or 92,000 jobs were full-time positions

Of the 953,000 jobs created through the first seven months of this year, only 23 percent, or 222,000, were full time.

That means 731,000 part-time jobs were created over the last 12 months.


When the recession began, 16.9 percent worked part time. Today, the share of workers with part-time jobs is 19.2 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Acording to the Bureau of Labor Statistics - the average work week has gone from over 38 hours in 1964 to under 34 hours in 2013 — a drop of almost 12 percent. These are labor facts that show the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may be effecting employment.


A STAGNANT ECONOMY

In September, 2.2 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier.

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in September at 7.1 million.


Where is the improvement? Where is this growing stronger economy? The facts from the Department of Labor just don't show evidence of one.... sorry liberals.



http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Part-time employment rising as full-time jobs decline - TheGazette

Oh, the typical Right wing dishonesty by giving misleading stats to prove a lie.

As any honest person knows there are TWO (2) kinds of part-time workers, those who only want to work PT, and those who would rather work full-time. It is, of course, the workers who only want to work PT who are increasing since Obama, mainly Boomers who want to keep working but want to cut back their hours. The workers who would rather work FT are on their way down from its peak in the Bush Depression of 9,216,000 (before Obamacare was signed, BTW) to 7,103,000 now!!!!!!

So in reality the Obama economy has been very, very good to PT workers who would rather work FT, over 2 million no longer have to work PT. Even if you dishonestly want to blame the effects of the Bush Depression that carried over into the beginning of Obama's first term on Obama, as the Right always does, PT for economic reasons is still down over a million!!!!!!! So no matter how you spin it, Obama has been very, very good to PT workers who want to work FT.

That is why the Right has NO CHOICE but to be dishonest and deliberately mislead the gullible by including PT workers who ONLY want to work PT in their deliberately misleading stats.

 

[edthecynic]

Once again the far left shows they can not understand simple things, even with charts.

But then you can not defeat programmed far left religious dogma..

Once again the Right dishonestly includes PT workers who ONLY want to work PT to deliberately mislead the gullible into believing a lie.

 

[pinqy]

Once again the far left mentally is at play here.

Once they are shown they are wrong they will refuse to admit and continue to drone on..

The official rate (U3) rate is measured lower than it was before the 1994 changes.

What are you talking about? No it's not.

 

[Kosh]

Once again the far left mentally is at play here.

Once they are shown they are wrong they will refuse to admit and continue to drone on..

The official rate (U3) rate is measured lower than it was before the 1994 changes.

Yes the far left Congress would change the rules to show that Unemployment numbers will be higher under Clinton..

I am sure you will believe that one.

 

[Kosh]

Once again the far left shows they can not understand simple things, even with charts.

But then you can not defeat programmed far left religious dogma..

Once again the Right dishonestly includes PT workers who ONLY want to work PT to deliberately mislead the gullible into believing a lie.

And once again the far left will believe any propaganda downloaded to them.

So now the far left Congress wanted higher unemployment numbers under the Clinton years, that is why they changed them..

Is that what you really believe?

 

[edthecynic]

Once again the far left shows they can not understand simple things, even with charts.

But then you can not defeat programmed far left religious dogma..

Once again the Right dishonestly includes PT workers who ONLY want to work PT to deliberately mislead the gullible into believing a lie.

And once again the far left will believe any propaganda downloaded to them.

So now the far left Congress wanted higher unemployment numbers under the Clinton years, that is why they changed them..

Is that what you really believe?

What the hell does the lie about PT workers have to do with Clinton????
Your desperate attempt to change the subject away from the Right's PT lie is an admission you know the Right is lying but you are too dishonest to admit it.
Thank you.

 

[Kosh]

Once again the far left shows they can not understand simple things, even with charts.

But then you can not defeat programmed far left religious dogma..

Once again the Right dishonestly includes PT workers who ONLY want to work PT to deliberately mislead the gullible into believing a lie.

And once again the far left will believe any propaganda downloaded to them.

So now the far left Congress wanted higher unemployment numbers under the Clinton years, that is why they changed them..

Is that what you really believe?

What the hell does the lie about PT workers have to do with Clinton????
Your desperate attempt to change the subject away from the Right's PT lie is an admission you know the Right is lying but you are too dishonest to admit it.
Thank you.

Once again the far left shows why they are more dangerous than ISIS.

who was president in 1994 when the far left Congress changed this?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dumb ass they haven't retired and those who left the work force came back
Ass hat.

They haven't retired?? Imbecile, there were almost 3 million baby boomers who retired last year alone. You really are as dumb as they come. But then again, you are a Bush voter.

You're really stupid to keep coming back for this ass beating you're getting. MOST have not retired link was posted dumb ass. you are dismissed.

You posted no such link that said "MOST" Boomers have not retired. It actually said "A quarter of Boomers postponed their plans to retire during the past year." A QUATER/25% is hardly "MOST", in fact it isn't even "MOST" of half, it is exactly half of half. You seem to have trouble with thew meaning of very simple words like "MORE" and "MOST."

This was the link YOU posted:
Baby Boomer Retirement Confidence Slips Again Signs of Optimism Spotted newsroom IRI

We've been through this before dumb ass bitch, You have been proven wrong
Yada yada yada yada yada so on and so forth You are dead ass wrong. the end.

You're not capable of proving anyone wrong. The claim you failed to prove wrong is that there are more people working now than when Bush left office. All you have posted in rebuttal is the LFPR, which in no way, disproves that claim. While at the same time, that claim was proven with BLS employment stats. At this point, you're nothing but entertainment value.

More percentage wise with the same unemployment rate are that came from the BLS link
2006 bush had a 5.8 with 66% participation in the work force
obama September 2014 5.9 with only 62.7% participation in the work force That's from the BLS. dumb ass.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Says the one that can not prove their original comments that started all this.

I have just proven that you posted a lie, as you should have been able to easily prove your comments.

You are liar and a far left hack..

It's well established that Hoover lost private sector jobs as the Great Depression saw unemployment skyrocket on his watch from 3% to over 20%. But you're right in that BLS data only goes as far back as 1948. So according to BLS stats, George Bush is the only president recorded to lose private sector jobs.

Ain't ya proud? LOL

Also the way we count unemployment is different now then back in those days, you can thank the far left Congress and Clinton for that one.

See all this to get you admit the truth..

Why do the far left insist on doing this?

Did this make FDR president in 1948? Did it make any other president lose private sector jobs by the time they left office?

You're sinking lol

I am? I showed how Duhbya (your guy) is the only president to leave office with fewer private sector jobs than when he started.

You mean the obama democratic control congress had fewer jobs?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Of 266,000 jobs created in July, 35 percent or 92,000 jobs were full-time positions

Of the 953,000 jobs created through the first seven months of this year, only 23 percent, or 222,000, were full time.

That means 731,000 part-time jobs were created over the last 12 months.

731,000 were part time jobs? Where do you come up with this nonsense?

July/2013: 28,184,000
July/2014: 28,070,000

That's a DECREASE of 114,000 private sector job over the 12 month period ending in July.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

I provided the source, it came straight from the bureau of labor statistics, I rather just go straight for the numbers without the fancy graphs or ideological commentary.

 

[Faun]

Once again the far left mentally is at play here.

Once they are shown they are wrong they will refuse to admit and continue to drone on..

The official rate (U3) rate is measured lower than it was before the 1994 changes.

What are you talking about? No it's not.

My mistake ... I meant higher.

 

[Faun]

Once again the far left mentally is at play here.

Once they are shown they are wrong they will refuse to admit and continue to drone on..

The official rate (U3) rate is measured lower than it was before the 1994 changes.

Yes the far left Congress would change the rules to show that Unemployment numbers will be higher under Clinton..

I am sure you will believe that one.

The link you posted earlier said that. So either you don't understand your own link or you don't believe it ... which is it?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

FACTS behind the Obama economy
( according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics )



Of 266,000 jobs created in July, 35 percent or 92,000 jobs were full-time positions

Of the 953,000 jobs created through the first seven months of this year, only 23 percent, or 222,000, were full time.

That means 731,000 part-time jobs were created over the last 12 months.


When the recession began, 16.9 percent worked part time. Today, the share of workers with part-time jobs is 19.2 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Acording to the Bureau of Labor Statistics - the average work week has gone from over 38 hours in 1964 to under 34 hours in 2013 — a drop of almost 12 percent. These are labor facts that show the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may be effecting employment.


A STAGNANT ECONOMY

In September, 2.2 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier.

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in September at 7.1 million.


Where is the improvement? Where is this growing stronger economy? The facts from the Department of Labor just don't show evidence of one.... sorry liberals.



http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Part-time employment rising as full-time jobs decline - TheGazette

Oh, the typical Right wing dishonesty by giving misleading stats to prove a lie.

As any honest person knows there are TWO (2) kinds of part-time workers, those who only want to work PT, and those who would rather work full-time. It is, of course, the workers who only want to work PT who are increasing since Obama, mainly Boomers who want to keep working but want to cut back their hours. The workers who would rather work FT are on their way down from its peak in the Bush Depression of 9,216,000 (before Obamacare was signed, BTW) to 7,103,000 now!!!!!!

So in reality the Obama economy has been very, very good to PT workers who would rather work FT, over 2 million no longer have to work PT. Even if you dishonestly want to blame the effects of the Bush Depression that carried over into the beginning of Obama's first term on Obama, as the Right always does, PT for economic reasons is still down over a million!!!!!!! So no matter how you spin it, Obama has been very, very good to PT workers who want to work FT.

That is why the Right has NO CHOICE but to be dishonest and deliberately mislead the gullible by including PT workers who ONLY want to work PT in their deliberately misleading stats.

If you wanted to say the part time facts were dishonest, you would actually HAVE the exact numbers of those "choosing" part time over what the Bureau of Labor Statistics themselves call "part time for economic reasons". It's that simple.

Show me those numbers, those are the only facts that matter here

 

[Faun]

They haven't retired?? Imbecile, there were almost 3 million baby boomers who retired last year alone. You really are as dumb as they come. But then again, you are a Bush voter.

You're really stupid to keep coming back for this ass beating you're getting. MOST have not retired link was posted dumb ass. you are dismissed.

You posted no such link that said "MOST" Boomers have not retired. It actually said "A quarter of Boomers postponed their plans to retire during the past year." A QUATER/25% is hardly "MOST", in fact it isn't even "MOST" of half, it is exactly half of half. You seem to have trouble with thew meaning of very simple words like "MORE" and "MOST."

This was the link YOU posted:
Baby Boomer Retirement Confidence Slips Again Signs of Optimism Spotted newsroom IRI

We've been through this before dumb ass bitch, You have been proven wrong
Yada yada yada yada yada so on and so forth You are dead ass wrong. the end.

You're not capable of proving anyone wrong. The claim you failed to prove wrong is that there are more people working now than when Bush left office. All you have posted in rebuttal is the LFPR, which in no way, disproves that claim. While at the same time, that claim was proven with BLS employment stats. At this point, you're nothing but entertainment value.

More percentage wise with the same unemployment rate are that came from the BLS link
2006 bush had a 5.8 with 66% participation in the work force
obama September 2014 5.9 with only 62.7% participation in the work force That's from the BLS. dumb ass.

So what? You're still mindlessly posting LF rates as though it indicates employment. It still doesn't and you're still an imbecile for thinking it does.