Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Spits the imbecile who thinks just because he can't understand what I'm saying, means "nobody" can.No one is saying that. Just how fucking rightarded are you??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?
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!
(leftard cries and sucks thumb; all butt-hurt nobody understands him)
In the Current Population Survey, for those not working, they are asked if they want a job, if they could start a job if offered, and if they actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks. A "no" answer to any of those means not unemployed, and therefore not in the labor force. They are not asked if they receive (or applied for or are eligble for) benefits.Actually, any longer than 4 weeks is not in the labor force.Because they do. If someone hasn't looked for a job for a year, they are 'not in the labor force.'
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.
that's sort of true, in that that probably does happen, but since benefits are not asked about or known about by BLS, benefits play no part in the calculation. Again, Reciept or eligibilty for benefits play no part and never have in the calculations.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.
No, what changed was that they stopped looking for work. The job search is the criterion. Or, as you say, they stop claiming they want a job. Desire for a job is another criterion.Meanwhile, all that really changed is that their unemployment benefits expired.
There were many on the Right who used to say that Stay-At-Home Moms were a good thing, and they used to encourage students over 16 to stay in school. When did those things become bad??? And what is wrong with retiring?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.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.
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?
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.
Thanks for the world depression and 4 1/2 years of mindless obstruction and phony crises, and now blaming our economic problems on Obama policy, none of which has been passed lol...
Spits the imbecile who thinks just because he can't understand what I'm saying, means "nobody" can.No one is saying that. Just how fucking rightarded are you??
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!
(leftard cries and sucks thumb; all butt-hurt nobody understands him)
I would ask you to stop pounding yourself in the head with your shoe, but it's kind of fun watching you do it.
The economy still sucks little puppy. Did you miss the memo?
EVERYONE on UE wants a good job, just not the crap jobs Pub policy leaves us with....how about some investment in training for those millions of tech jobs going begging? Oh right, can't do that either...
There were many on the Right who used to say that Stay-At-Home Moms were a good thing, and they used to encourage students over 16 to stay in school. When did those things become bad??? And what is wrong with retiring?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?
EVERYONE on UE wants a good job, just not the crap jobs Pub policy leaves us with....how about some investment in training for those millions of tech jobs going begging? Oh right, can't do that either...
For many people collecting those benefits, the only reason they stopped is because the benefits stopped. Nothing else changed.In the Current Population Survey, for those not working, they are asked if they want a job, if they could start a job if offered, and if they actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks. A "no" answer to any of those means not unemployed, and therefore not in the labor force. They are not asked if they receive (or applied for or are eligble for) benefits.Actually, any longer than 4 weeks is not in the labor force.
Absolutely untrue. Please read the Employment Situation Technical Note
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.
that's sort of true, in that that probably does happen, but since benefits are not asked about or known about by BLS, benefits play no part in the calculation. Again, Reciept or eligibilty for benefits play no part and never have in the calculations.
No, what changed was that they stopped looking for work. The job search is the criterion. Or, as you say, they stop claiming they want a job. Desire for a job is another criterion.Meanwhile, all that really changed is that their unemployment benefits expired.
Spits the imbecile who thinks just because he can't understand what I'm saying, means "nobody" can.waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!
(leftard cries and sucks thumb; all butt-hurt nobody understands him)
I would ask you to stop pounding yourself in the head with your shoe, but it's kind of fun watching you do it.
yawn
wake me when you're done crying
EVERYONE on UE wants a good job, just not the crap jobs Pub policy leaves us with....how about some investment in training for those millions of tech jobs going begging? Oh right, can't do that either...
So how many years would Obama need to be President exactly for you to hold him responsible instead of W for the economy?
EVERYONE on UE wants a good job, just not the crap jobs Pub policy leaves us with....how about some investment in training for those millions of tech jobs going begging? Oh right, can't do that either...
So how many years would Obama need to be President exactly for you to hold him responsible instead of W for the economy?
I hold him responsible now.
We've had 50 consecutive months of job growth in the private sector. The record is 51 months. Two more months and Obama owns that prestigious record.
Thanks, Obama!
Spits the imbecile who thinks just because he can't understand what I'm saying, means "nobody" can.
I would ask you to stop pounding yourself in the head with your shoe, but it's kind of fun watching you do it.
yawn
wake me when you're done crying
No worries. That sure was some tantrum you threw just to avoid answering my initial question ... How is that [the drop in the LFPR] bad for the economy?
Think anyone else noticed?
So how many years would Obama need to be President exactly for you to hold him responsible instead of W for the economy?
I hold him responsible now.
We've had 50 consecutive months of job growth in the private sector. The record is 51 months. Two more months and Obama owns that prestigious record.
Thanks, Obama!
And do you hold him responsible for the weakest GDP recovery since WWII and for labor participation being at record lows? Or does holding him responsible for you just mean cherry picking stats you like?
For many people collecting those benefits, the only reason they stopped is because the benefits stopped. Nothing else changed.In the Current Population Survey, for those not working, they are asked if they want a job, if they could start a job if offered, and if they actively looked for work in the previous 4 weeks. A "no" answer to any of those means not unemployed, and therefore not in the labor force. They are not asked if they receive (or applied for or are eligble for) benefits.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.
that's sort of true, in that that probably does happen, but since benefits are not asked about or known about by BLS, benefits play no part in the calculation. Again, Reciept or eligibilty for benefits play no part and never have in the calculations.
No, what changed was that they stopped looking for work. The job search is the criterion. Or, as you say, they stop claiming they want a job. Desire for a job is another criterion.Meanwhile, all that really changed is that their unemployment benefits expired.
