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.
Payback is a bitch!This is funny. I remember during Obama's tenure, anytime he and his minions championed the decrease in unemployment, the right wingers would come out and mention things like joblessness rate and the workforce participation rate, saying that "unemployment only dropped cause people gave up looking for jobs!"
Fast forward to now. Trump and his minions are championing the decrease in unemplyment, and the left wingers are coming out and mentioning things like joblessness and the workforce participation rate, saying that "unemployment only dropped cause people gave up looking for jobs!"
Hamsters on the wheel. You'll get there eventually, probably.
Over half a million workers dropped out of the workforce the last 2 months alone.
That is a much faster drop out rate than Obama.
LOLOLOLLOLOLTrump's numbers are only better because the trend which began 8½ years ago is still continuing.geez, how stupid are you. YES, cooked books are fake numbers, but both presidents used the same book cooking and Trump's numbers are better.
Please don't continue to make a fool of yourself on this topic.
And again, the numbers were not "cooked." The methods used for calculating the unemployment rate were never changed under Obama.
more BS, the downward trend started about a year ago
Reality is such a biatch to you, huh?
You're an idiot. This proves it. People who stop looking are counted as not in the workforce. The BLS uses the term, "unemployed," to describe people who ARE looking but are not employed.and yes, they were changed, they no longer counted those who had stopped looking for work as unemployed. That continues today, there just aren't as many of them because companies are hiring and expanding again in this country.
Your ignorance aside, they've always counted those who have stopped looking as not in the workforce. That's what the unemployment rate measures ... the percentage of people who are working out of those, plus those who want to work but are not.
that chart is BS. Here's are real one from the left wing Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/01/05/trumps-first-year-jobs-numbers-were-very-very-good/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7614f601c2d2
Just how retarded are you??
The Washington Post uses the same exact source I did -- the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
So how could my chart be BS but not the Washington Post's??
Moron .... what part of, it's the same source, the BLS, can't you comprehend?LOLOLOLLOLOLTrump's numbers are only better because the trend which began 8½ years ago is still continuing.
And again, the numbers were not "cooked." The methods used for calculating the unemployment rate were never changed under Obama.
more BS, the downward trend started about a year ago
Reality is such a biatch to you, huh?
You're an idiot. This proves it. People who stop looking are counted as not in the workforce. The BLS uses the term, "unemployed," to describe people who ARE looking but are not employed.and yes, they were changed, they no longer counted those who had stopped looking for work as unemployed. That continues today, there just aren't as many of them because companies are hiring and expanding again in this country.
Your ignorance aside, they've always counted those who have stopped looking as not in the workforce. That's what the unemployment rate measures ... the percentage of people who are working out of those, plus those who want to work but are not.
that chart is BS. Here's are real one from the left wing Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/01/05/trumps-first-year-jobs-numbers-were-very-very-good/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7614f601c2d2
Just how retarded are you??
The Washington Post uses the same exact source I did -- the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
So how could my chart be BS but not the Washington Post's??
did you look at them? they paint a completely different picture. anyone can make a graph, someone is lying, since the Obama admin lied to us for 8 years, I suspect them. but I'm sure you disagree, and I am tired of your partisan bullshit.
Moron .... what part of, it's the same source, the BLS, can't you comprehend?LOLOLOLLOLOLmore BS, the downward trend started about a year ago
Reality is such a biatch to you, huh?
You're an idiot. This proves it. People who stop looking are counted as not in the workforce. The BLS uses the term, "unemployed," to describe people who ARE looking but are not employed.and yes, they were changed, they no longer counted those who had stopped looking for work as unemployed. That continues today, there just aren't as many of them because companies are hiring and expanding again in this country.
Your ignorance aside, they've always counted those who have stopped looking as not in the workforce. That's what the unemployment rate measures ... the percentage of people who are working out of those, plus those who want to work but are not.
that chart is BS. Here's are real one from the left wing Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/01/05/trumps-first-year-jobs-numbers-were-very-very-good/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7614f601c2d2
Just how retarded are you??
The Washington Post uses the same exact source I did -- the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
So how could my chart be BS but not the Washington Post's??
did you look at them? they paint a completely different picture. anyone can make a graph, someone is lying, since the Obama admin lied to us for 8 years, I suspect them. but I'm sure you disagree, and I am tired of your partisan bullshit.
If we reduce immigration, such a strong job market should start putting upward pressure on wages.
If we reduce immigration, such a strong job market should start putting upward pressure on wages.
it already is
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLMoron .... what part of, it's the same source, the BLS, can't you comprehend?LOLOLOLLOLOL
Reality is such a biatch to you, huh?
You're an idiot. This proves it. People who stop looking are counted as not in the workforce. The BLS uses the term, "unemployed," to describe people who ARE looking but are not employed.
Your ignorance aside, they've always counted those who have stopped looking as not in the workforce. That's what the unemployment rate measures ... the percentage of people who are working out of those, plus those who want to work but are not.
that chart is BS. Here's are real one from the left wing Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/01/05/trumps-first-year-jobs-numbers-were-very-very-good/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7614f601c2d2
Just how retarded are you??
The Washington Post uses the same exact source I did -- the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
So how could my chart be BS but not the Washington Post's??
did you look at them? they paint a completely different picture. anyone can make a graph, someone is lying, since the Obama admin lied to us for 8 years, I suspect them. but I'm sure you disagree, and I am tired of your partisan bullshit.
I fully comprehend that, moron. why cant you comprehend that they got entirely different conclusions from the same data base? So which one is correctly using the BLS data? in reality probably neither------------------remember figures don't lie but liars figure.
Now THAT ^^^ is fucking hysterical given I'm posting links to the BLS, not to the media, while you're posting links to the media you say is 99% propaganda.99% of what is put out by the media is propaganda for one side or the other, Wake the fuck up, get your head out of Hillary's fat ass and deal with reality.
If we reduce immigration, such a strong job market should start putting upward pressure on wages.
If we reduce immigration, such a strong job market should start putting upward pressure on wages.
It's not happening so far. A low unemployment rate would normally put upward pressure on wages. Again, no signs of it.
They are certainly needed. I read someone suggesting that the low labor force participation rate could have something to do with it also.If we reduce immigration, such a strong job market should start putting upward pressure on wages.
It's not happening so far. A low unemployment rate would normally put upward pressure on wages. Again, no signs of it.
Could be an effect of having such an large pool of illegals, ie sub price supply already here,
or an effect of effectively having access to infinite cheap labor though outsourcing and imports.
Hopefully it is an effect of the laziness and stupidity of the manager class, who have forgotten the idea of offering higher wages to attract good workers.
And it is just a delay to the rise.
They are certainly needed. I read someone suggesting that the low labor force participation rate could have something to do with it also.If we reduce immigration, such a strong job market should start putting upward pressure on wages.
It's not happening so far. A low unemployment rate would normally put upward pressure on wages. Again, no signs of it.
Could be an effect of having such an large pool of illegals, ie sub price supply already here,
or an effect of effectively having access to infinite cheap labor though outsourcing and imports.
Hopefully it is an effect of the laziness and stupidity of the manager class, who have forgotten the idea of offering higher wages to attract good workers.
And it is just a delay to the rise.
Participation has decreased 3 months in a row now.They are certainly needed. I read someone suggesting that the low labor force participation rate could have something to do with it also.If we reduce immigration, such a strong job market should start putting upward pressure on wages.
It's not happening so far. A low unemployment rate would normally put upward pressure on wages. Again, no signs of it.
Could be an effect of having such an large pool of illegals, ie sub price supply already here,
or an effect of effectively having access to infinite cheap labor though outsourcing and imports.
Hopefully it is an effect of the laziness and stupidity of the manager class, who have forgotten the idea of offering higher wages to attract good workers.
And it is just a delay to the rise.
By "They" I assume you mean rising wages.
Mmm, I've heard that labor participation rates were rising, that would be an effective increase in labor supply to partially offset all the jobs being added.
Still, sooner or later something has to give, if the number keep going in the right direction.
GREAT AGAIN!!: Unemployment Rate Hits 3.8% -- Lowest in 18 Years...
Participation has decreased 3 months in a row now.They are certainly needed. I read someone suggesting that the low labor force participation rate could have something to do with it also.If we reduce immigration, such a strong job market should start putting upward pressure on wages.
It's not happening so far. A low unemployment rate would normally put upward pressure on wages. Again, no signs of it.
Could be an effect of having such an large pool of illegals, ie sub price supply already here,
or an effect of effectively having access to infinite cheap labor though outsourcing and imports.
Hopefully it is an effect of the laziness and stupidity of the manager class, who have forgotten the idea of offering higher wages to attract good workers.
And it is just a delay to the rise.
By "They" I assume you mean rising wages.
Mmm, I've heard that labor participation rates were rising, that would be an effective increase in labor supply to partially offset all the jobs being added.
Still, sooner or later something has to give, if the number keep going in the right direction.
It's really hard to pinpoint the problem. Here is a link discussing:Participation has decreased 3 months in a row now.They are certainly needed. I read someone suggesting that the low labor force participation rate could have something to do with it also.It's not happening so far. A low unemployment rate would normally put upward pressure on wages. Again, no signs of it.
Could be an effect of having such an large pool of illegals, ie sub price supply already here,
or an effect of effectively having access to infinite cheap labor though outsourcing and imports.
Hopefully it is an effect of the laziness and stupidity of the manager class, who have forgotten the idea of offering higher wages to attract good workers.
And it is just a delay to the rise.
By "They" I assume you mean rising wages.
Mmm, I've heard that labor participation rates were rising, that would be an effective increase in labor supply to partially offset all the jobs being added.
Still, sooner or later something has to give, if the number keep going in the right direction.
Interesting...
It's really hard to pinpoint the problem. Here is a link discussing:Participation has decreased 3 months in a row now.They are certainly needed. I read someone suggesting that the low labor force participation rate could have something to do with it also.Could be an effect of having such an large pool of illegals, ie sub price supply already here,
or an effect of effectively having access to infinite cheap labor though outsourcing and imports.
Hopefully it is an effect of the laziness and stupidity of the manager class, who have forgotten the idea of offering higher wages to attract good workers.
And it is just a delay to the rise.
By "They" I assume you mean rising wages.
Mmm, I've heard that labor participation rates were rising, that would be an effective increase in labor supply to partially offset all the jobs being added.
Still, sooner or later something has to give, if the number keep going in the right direction.
Interesting...
Jobs Are Booming. Are Wages Next?
The first part of this causal relationship has been working well. The U.S. economy has been one of the most powerful job-creation engines in the world for several years. This has consistently pushed the unemployment rate down; in April, it reached 3.9 percent, a historical low. Meanwhile, vacancy indicators suggest that more companies will have to compete for a dwindling supply of available labor.
Yet, so far, this demand hasn’t been reflected in a consistent improvement in wages, which were growing at a relatively sluggish annual rate of 2.6 percent in April. Nor has there been an increase in the labor participation rate, which was languishing at 62.8 percent, while the employment-population ratio was 60.3 percent.
Economists have yet to come up with a sufficiently precise and convincing explanation for the stagnation. The initial post-crisis emphasis was on cyclical influences that fueled a deficiency in aggregate demand. More recently, however, more attention has been devoted to technological influences, changing sectorial trends, human capital shortfalls and lingering (post Great Recession) risk aversion on the part of employers.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLMoron .... what part of, it's the same source, the BLS, can't you comprehend?LOLOLOLthat chart is BS. Here's are real one from the left wing Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/01/05/trumps-first-year-jobs-numbers-were-very-very-good/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7614f601c2d2
Just how retarded are you??
The Washington Post uses the same exact source I did -- the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
So how could my chart be BS but not the Washington Post's??
did you look at them? they paint a completely different picture. anyone can make a graph, someone is lying, since the Obama admin lied to us for 8 years, I suspect them. but I'm sure you disagree, and I am tired of your partisan bullshit.
I fully comprehend that, moron. why cant you comprehend that they got entirely different conclusions from the same data base? So which one is correctly using the BLS data? in reality probably neither------------------remember figures don't lie but liars figure.
One set of data does not draw multiple conclusions, I don't care how conservative you are.
Again, here are the actual figures, directly from the BLS, which are irrefutable...
Now THAT ^^^ is fucking hysterical given I'm posting links to the BLS, not to the media, while you're posting links to the media you say is 99% propaganda.99% of what is put out by the media is propaganda for one side or the other, Wake the fuck up, get your head out of Hillary's fat ass and deal with reality.
Why assume? The data is from the BLS. You have a better source for employment statistics than the BLS?LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLMoron .... what part of, it's the same source, the BLS, can't you comprehend?LOLOLOL
Just how retarded are you??
The Washington Post uses the same exact source I did -- the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
So how could my chart be BS but not the Washington Post's??
did you look at them? they paint a completely different picture. anyone can make a graph, someone is lying, since the Obama admin lied to us for 8 years, I suspect them. but I'm sure you disagree, and I am tired of your partisan bullshit.
I fully comprehend that, moron. why cant you comprehend that they got entirely different conclusions from the same data base? So which one is correctly using the BLS data? in reality probably neither------------------remember figures don't lie but liars figure.
One set of data does not draw multiple conclusions, I don't care how conservative you are.
Again, here are the actual figures, directly from the BLS, which are irrefutable...
Now THAT ^^^ is fucking hysterical given I'm posting links to the BLS, not to the media, while you're posting links to the media you say is 99% propaganda.99% of what is put out by the media is propaganda for one side or the other, Wake the fuck up, get your head out of Hillary's fat ass and deal with reality.
ok. lets assume for drill that that chart is accurate, what specific Obama policies caused the UE rate to go down? what did your Kenyan messiah do that caused all of those americans to find jobs? you continue to praise him, so tell us exactly what he personally did to cause it.
