Economic BAD News.....more people LEFT the job market than jobs created in April

[pinqy]

Not in the labor force went up. But of those in that group, the ones who want to work, did not

Correct. But that's not what a t you wrote earlier: you said does not want a job stayed the same.

.
Probably. But the question Ian' t asked. BLS has no idea who is or is not collecting benefits.

Unless they meet the BLS definition for those 'in the labor force' when their unemployment benefits expire, they are no longer counted among those who are 'in the labor force.'

The expiration of benefits is irrelevant. If you wan to work, could start if offered, and have looked in last 4 weeks you're unemployed, doesn't matter if you ever received benefits. Again,it's not asked. . If you worked, you're employed. Labor Force is employed plus unemployed.

And again, those who want a job did not grow. And if I didn't say specifically that I'm talking about those within the ' not in labor force' , it was implied since that is what the discussion is about and since the number if people not in the labor force who want to work remained unchanged in April.

Correct. Therefore the total number who want jobs went down (since unemployment went down).

I don't know why you brought up benefits at all since they play no part in the calculations.

 

[Faun]

i dont have time for morons; who do you think pays for welfare and food stamps?
or are you one of the complete idiots that actually tries to make a case they are good for the economy?

Then who knows how you make time for yourself. Again, the reason you can't answer is because it doesn't indicate a bad economy. That's why you're now talking about people paying taxes help support those who don't, which is actually good for the economy, instead of demonstrating how the drop in the LFPR is bad for the economy.

it DOES
indicate a bad economy you mindless idiot

unless you really think RECORD WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS; and the lowest rate of labor market participation in over 30 years is a good ting

and you losers claim to care about people

you dont give a crap if they arent working; as long as they remain brainwashed and vote for PROGRESSIVE FAILURE

Sadly, your tired rants do not substitute coherent rebuttal. About half of the people who dropped out of the labor force, did so because they retired. Most of the rest did so out of choice. Roughly 93% of the who are not in the labor force don't want to be in the labor force. That in no way indicates a bad economy. That's why you can't answer the question with a lucid response. If a lower LFPR was an indicator of the economy, and it's not as your failure to answer confirms, then that would mean the economy in the 1950's when we had 3% unemployment was an even worse economy than today since the LFPR was much lower then.

As far as people collecting welfare and disability checks, that's good for the economy since it's feeding the economy money, some of which, would not have been spent otherwise.

 

[bedowin62]

Then who knows how you make time for yourself. Again, the reason you can't answer is because it doesn't indicate a bad economy. That's why you're now talking about people paying taxes help support those who don't, which is actually good for the economy, instead of demonstrating how the drop in the LFPR is bad for the economy.

it DOES
indicate a bad economy you mindless idiot

unless you really think RECORD WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS; and the lowest rate of labor market participation in over 30 years is a good ting

and you losers claim to care about people

you dont give a crap if they arent working; as long as they remain brainwashed and vote for PROGRESSIVE FAILURE

Sadly, your tired rants do not substitute coherent rebuttal. About half of the people who dropped out of the labor force, did so because they retired. Most of the rest did so out of choice. Roughly 93% of the who are not in the labor force don't want to be in the labor force. That in no way indicates a bad economy. That's why you can't answer the question with a lucid response. If a lower LFPR was an indicator of the economy, and it's not as your failure to answer confirms, then that would mean the economy in the 1950's when we had 3% unemployment was an even worse economy than today since the LFPR was much lower then.

As far as people collecting welfare and disability checks, that's good for the economy since it's feeding the economy money, some of which, would not have been spent otherwise.

yawn
LIKE i every considered you would do anything but deny facts put in your face

you are simply laughable

 

[bedowin62]

Then who knows how you make time for yourself. Again, the reason you can't answer is because it doesn't indicate a bad economy. That's why you're now talking about people paying taxes help support those who don't, which is actually good for the economy, instead of demonstrating how the drop in the LFPR is bad for the economy.

it DOES
indicate a bad economy you mindless idiot

unless you really think RECORD WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS; and the lowest rate of labor market participation in over 30 years is a good ting

and you losers claim to care about people

you dont give a crap if they arent working; as long as they remain brainwashed and vote for PROGRESSIVE FAILURE

Sadly, your tired rants do not substitute coherent rebuttal. About half of the people who dropped out of the labor force, did so because they retired. Most of the rest did so out of choice. Roughly 93% of the who are not in the labor force don't want to be in the labor force. That in no way indicates a bad economy. That's why you can't answer the question with a lucid response. If a lower LFPR was an indicator of the economy, and it's not as your failure to answer confirms, then that would mean the economy in the 1950's when we had 3% unemployment was an even worse economy than today since the LFPR was much lower then.

As far as people collecting welfare and disability checks, that's good for the economy since it's feeding the economy money, some of which, would not have been spent otherwise.

is it good for PEOPLE to be on welfare and food stamps?

arent you the sanctimonius morons that claim to "care"? when it comes down to it regarding welfare and food stamps the best defense you have for the record welfare and food stamps on the Progressive watch is an absurd economic claim that these are good for the economy?

do you generally have more money to "put back into the economy" when you are on welfare and/or food stamps or unemployment; ow when you have an actual job?


geeesh left-wingers are stupid

 

[Faun]

Correct. But that's not what a t you wrote earlier: you said does not want a job stayed the same.

.
Probably. But the question Ian' t asked. BLS has no idea who is or is not collecting benefits.

The expiration of benefits is irrelevant. If you wan to work, could start if offered, and have looked in last 4 weeks you're unemployed, doesn't matter if you ever received benefits. Again,it's not asked. . If you worked, you're employed. Labor Force is employed plus unemployed.

And again, those who want a job did not grow. And if I didn't say specifically that I'm talking about those within the ' not in labor force' , it was implied since that is what the discussion is about and since the number if people not in the labor force who want to work remained unchanged in April.

Correct. Therefore the total number who want jobs went down (since unemployment went down).

I don't know why you brought up benefits at all since they play no part in the calculations.

Because they do. If someone hasn't looked for a job for a year, they are 'not in the labor force.' However, that same individual would be 'in the labor force' if they were collecting uneployment benefits. Once their benifits expire, they might still be considered 'in the labor force' for a brief period, but since they are not looking for work, their status will quickly change to 'not in the labor force,' even though the onky chsnge is that they are no longer collecting unemployment benefits.

 

[Faun]

it DOES
indicate a bad economy you mindless idiot

unless you really think RECORD WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS; and the lowest rate of labor market participation in over 30 years is a good ting

and you losers claim to care about people

you dont give a crap if they arent working; as long as they remain brainwashed and vote for PROGRESSIVE FAILURE

Sadly, your tired rants do not substitute coherent rebuttal. About half of the people who dropped out of the labor force, did so because they retired. Most of the rest did so out of choice. Roughly 93% of the who are not in the labor force don't want to be in the labor force. That in no way indicates a bad economy. That's why you can't answer the question with a lucid response. If a lower LFPR was an indicator of the economy, and it's not as your failure to answer confirms, then that would mean the economy in the 1950's when we had 3% unemployment was an even worse economy than today since the LFPR was much lower then.

As far as people collecting welfare and disability checks, that's good for the economy since it's feeding the economy money, some of which, would not have been spent otherwise.

is it good for PEOPLE to be on welfare and food stamps?

Holyfuckingshit! that's not even close to what I said. I said good for the "economy", not good for "people" to be on them. Clearly, you have one of those rightarded brains which can read words, but not understand them.Unfortunately, that leads to embarrassing moments for you like this one where you leap to erroneous conlusions because your defective brain can't comprehend that when I said, welfare checks and disability checks being fed into the economy are good for the "economy", that doesn't mean it's good for them to be on those programs.

Dayam. Just dayam.

 

[bedowin62]

Sadly, your tired rants do not substitute coherent rebuttal. About half of the people who dropped out of the labor force, did so because they retired. Most of the rest did so out of choice. Roughly 93% of the who are not in the labor force don't want to be in the labor force. That in no way indicates a bad economy. That's why you can't answer the question with a lucid response. If a lower LFPR was an indicator of the economy, and it's not as your failure to answer confirms, then that would mean the economy in the 1950's when we had 3% unemployment was an even worse economy than today since the LFPR was much lower then.

As far as people collecting welfare and disability checks, that's good for the economy since it's feeding the economy money, some of which, would not have been spent otherwise.

is it good for PEOPLE to be on welfare and food stamps?

Holyfuckingshit! that's not even close to what I said. I said good for the "economy", not good for "people" to be on them. Clearly, you have one of those rightarded brains which can read words, but not understand them.Unfortunately, that leads to embarrassing moments for you like this one where you leap to erroneous conlusions because your defective brain can't comprehend that when I said, welfare checks and disability checks being fed into the economy are good for the "economy", that doesn't mean it's good for them to be on those programs.

Dayam. Just dayam.

it IS what you said when you repeated the idiotic talking point that welfare and food stamps are good for the economy

you're a JOKE
and i dont take you seriously

ok keep on crying now..............

 

[Faun]

it DOES
indicate a bad economy you mindless idiot

unless you really think RECORD WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS; and the lowest rate of labor market participation in over 30 years is a good ting

and you losers claim to care about people

you dont give a crap if they arent working; as long as they remain brainwashed and vote for PROGRESSIVE FAILURE

Sadly, your tired rants do not substitute coherent rebuttal. About half of the people who dropped out of the labor force, did so because they retired. Most of the rest did so out of choice. Roughly 93% of the who are not in the labor force don't want to be in the labor force. That in no way indicates a bad economy. That's why you can't answer the question with a lucid response. If a lower LFPR was an indicator of the economy, and it's not as your failure to answer confirms, then that would mean the economy in the 1950's when we had 3% unemployment was an even worse economy than today since the LFPR was much lower then.

As far as people collecting welfare and disability checks, that's good for the economy since it's feeding the economy money, some of which, would not have been spent otherwise.

yawn
LIKE i every considered you would do anything but deny facts put in your face

you are simply laughable

Is it really my problem that you confuse your nonsensical rightwingnut talking points with facts?

 

[Faun]

is it good for PEOPLE to be on welfare and food stamps?

Holyfuckingshit! that's not even close to what I said. I said good for the "economy", not good for "people" to be on them. Clearly, you have one of those rightarded brains which can read words, but not understand them.Unfortunately, that leads to embarrassing moments for you like this one where you leap to erroneous conlusions because your defective brain can't comprehend that when I said, welfare checks and disability checks being fed into the economy are good for the "economy", that doesn't mean it's good for them to be on those programs.

Dayam. Just dayam.

it IS what you said when you repeated the idiotic talking point that welfare and food stamps are good for the economy

you're a JOKE
and i dont take you seriously

ok keep on crying now..............

No, it's not what I said. It's what your defective rightarded brain thinks I said.

 

[pinqy]

And again, those who want a job did not grow. And if I didn't say specifically that I'm talking about those within the ' not in labor force' , it was implied since that is what the discussion is about and since the number if people not in the labor force who want to work remained unchanged in April.

Correct. Therefore the total number who want jobs went down (since unemployment went down).

I don't know why you brought up benefits at all since they play no part in the calculations.

Because they do. If someone hasn't looked for a job for a year, they are 'not in the labor force.'

Actually, any longer than 4 weeks is not in the labor force.

However, that same individual would be 'in the labor force' if they were collecting uneployment benefits.

Absolutely untrue. Please read the Employment Situation Technical Note

People are classified as employed if they did any work at all as paid employees
during the reference week; worked in their own business, profession, or on their
own farm; or worked without pay at least 15 hours in a family business or farm.
People are also counted as employed if they were temporarily absent from their jobs
because of illness, bad weather, vacation, labor-management disputes, or personal
reasons.

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at
that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the
4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and
expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The
unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the
eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

The civilian labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons.
Those persons not classified as employed or unemployed are not in the labor
force. The unemployment rate is the number unemployed as a percent of the
labor force. The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a
percent of the population, and the employment-population ratio is the
employed as a percent of the population.

 

[bedowin62]

Holyfuckingshit! that's not even close to what I said. I said good for the "economy", not good for "people" to be on them. Clearly, you have one of those rightarded brains which can read words, but not understand them.Unfortunately, that leads to embarrassing moments for you like this one where you leap to erroneous conlusions because your defective brain can't comprehend that when I said, welfare checks and disability checks being fed into the economy are good for the "economy", that doesn't mean it's good for them to be on those programs.

Dayam. Just dayam.

it IS what you said when you repeated the idiotic talking point that welfare and food stamps are good for the economy

you're a JOKE
and i dont take you seriously

ok keep on crying now..............

No, it's not what I said. It's what your defective rightarded brain thinks I said.

again; you cry as if on cue

it's funny!

 

[Faun]

I also note that you have still failed (miserably, might I add) to show how the drop in the labor force participation rate is bad for the economy. You tried to rant, hoping no one would notice you couldn't actually answer that. But it remains unanswered. Which of course, is by design, since it doesn't actually inidicate the economy is bad.

 

[bedowin62]

I also note that you have still failed (miserably, might I add) to show how the drop in the labor force participation rate is bad for the economy. You tried to rant, hoping no one would notice you couldn't actually answer that. But it remains unanswered. Which of course, is by design, since it doesn't actually inidicate the economy is bad.

well then it must be good for the economy right leftard?

and following your logic to its extent we can conclude that since unemployment comp, welfare and food stamps are so great for the eoconomy; and the percentage of Americans not participating in the labor market doesnt matter either; then all the more unemployed and on welfare we have the better America will be right?
ur a joke

 

[Faun]

I also note that you have still failed (miserably, might I add) to show how the drop in the labor force participation rate is bad for the economy. You tried to rant, hoping no one would notice you couldn't actually answer that. But it remains unanswered. Which of course, is by design, since it doesn't actually inidicate the economy is bad.

well then it must be good for the economy right leftard?

and following your logic to its extent we can conclude that since unemployment comp, welfare and food stamps are so great for the eoconomy; and the percentage of Americans not participating in the labor market doesnt matter either; then all the more unemployed and on welfare we have the better America will be right?
ur a joke

Sorry, but infringing on the absurd doesn't help you. That argument of yours is no different than the absurd argument that if raising taxes from 35 to 39 percent among the highest income earners is good for the economy, then raising their taxes to 100% should be even better.

That's like saying if an obese person losing a few pounds is good, than losing 100% of their weight should be even better.

 

[Faun]

it IS what you said when you repeated the idiotic talking point that welfare and food stamps are good for the economy

you're a JOKE
and i dont take you seriously

ok keep on crying now..............

No, it's not what I said. It's what your defective rightarded brain thinks I said.

again; you cry as if on cue

it's funny!

First you confuse facts from fiction, now you confuse facts with crying. C'est la vie.

 

[edthecynic]

I also note that you have still failed (miserably, might I add) to show how the drop in the labor force participation rate is bad for the economy. You tried to rant, hoping no one would notice you couldn't actually answer that. But it remains unanswered. Which of course, is by design, since it doesn't actually inidicate the economy is bad.

well then it must be good for the economy right leftard?

and following your logic to its extent we can conclude that since unemployment comp, welfare and food stamps are so great for the eoconomy; and the percentage of Americans not participating in the labor market doesnt matter either; then all the more unemployed and on welfare we have the better America will be right?
ur a joke

Sorry, but infringing on the absurd doesn't help you. That argument of yours is no different than the absurd argument that if raising taxes from 35 to 39 percent among the highest income earners is good for the economy, then raising their taxes to 100% should be even better.

That's like saying if an obese person losing a few pounds is good, than losing 100% of their weight should be even better.

You have to understand that his MessiahRushie told him that everyone not in the labor force is a useless eater living off the government teat.
Next the Right will stoke up the furnaces!

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.

 

[Faun]

Correct. Therefore the total number who want jobs went down (since unemployment went down).

I don't know why you brought up benefits at all since they play no part in the calculations.

Because they do. If someone hasn't looked for a job for a year, they are 'not in the labor force.'

Actually, any longer than 4 weeks is not in the labor force.

However, that same individual would be 'in the labor force' if they were collecting uneployment benefits.

Absolutely untrue. Please read the Employment Situation Technical Note

People are classified as employed if they did any work at all as paid employees
during the reference week; worked in their own business, profession, or on their
own farm; or worked without pay at least 15 hours in a family business or farm.
People are also counted as employed if they were temporarily absent from their jobs
because of illness, bad weather, vacation, labor-management disputes, or personal
reasons.

People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at
that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the
4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and
expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The
unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the
eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

The civilian labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons.
Those persons not classified as employed or unemployed are not in the labor
force. The unemployment rate is the number unemployed as a percent of the
labor force. The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a
percent of the population, and the employment-population ratio is the
employed as a percent of the population.

It is not untrue. People collecting employment benefits are considered 'unemployed' because even though many of them don't want a job, technically, they still have to claim they are looking for work in order to receive the benefit. But many of those people don't want to work. Once their benefits expire, they either do continue looking for work because they actually want a job -- in those cases, they remain 'in the labor force' or they stop pretending they are interested in a job since there are no more unemployment checks coming -- in those cases, they soon fall out of 'in the labor force' once they no longer meet the criteria to remain in that status. Meanwhile, all that really changed is that their unemployment benefits expired.

 

[bedowin62]

well then it must be good for the economy right leftard?

and following your logic to its extent we can conclude that since unemployment comp, welfare and food stamps are so great for the eoconomy; and the percentage of Americans not participating in the labor market doesnt matter either; then all the more unemployed and on welfare we have the better America will be right?
ur a joke

Sorry, but infringing on the absurd doesn't help you. That argument of yours is no different than the absurd argument that if raising taxes from 35 to 39 percent among the highest income earners is good for the economy, then raising their taxes to 100% should be even better.

That's like saying if an obese person losing a few pounds is good, than losing 100% of their weight should be even better.

You have to understand that his MessiahRushie told him that everyone not in the labor force is a useless eater living off the government teat.
Next the Right will stoke up the furnaces!

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.

good one stupid; so you really are saying that people out of work is a good thing arent you?

good for them personally and good for the economy???

they are "free to pursue" other things. isnt that how you clowns are selling not having a job now?

 

[Faun]

Sorry, but infringing on the absurd doesn't help you. That argument of yours is no different than the absurd argument that if raising taxes from 35 to 39 percent among the highest income earners is good for the economy, then raising their taxes to 100% should be even better.

That's like saying if an obese person losing a few pounds is good, than losing 100% of their weight should be even better.

You have to understand that his MessiahRushie told him that everyone not in the labor force is a useless eater living off the government teat.
Next the Right will stoke up the furnaces!

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.

good one stupid; so you really are saying that people out of work is a good thing arent you?

good for them personally and good for the economy???

they are "free to pursue" other things. isnt that how you clowns are selling not having a job now?

No one is saying that. Just how fucking rightarded are you??

 

[bedowin62]

You have to understand that his MessiahRushie told him that everyone not in the labor force is a useless eater living off the government teat.
Next the Right will stoke up the furnaces!

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.

good one stupid; so you really are saying that people out of work is a good thing arent you?

good for them personally and good for the economy???

they are "free to pursue" other things. isnt that how you clowns are selling not having a job now?

No one is saying that. Just how fucking rightarded are you??

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!

(leftard cries and sucks thumb; all butt-hurt nobody understands him)