I Decree

[Derideo_Te]

How many boomers reach retirement age each day? Estimates vary between 10k and 11k. That is around 4 million per year leaving the workforce.

Have you factored them into those who have "simply given up even looking"?

Or is that just another stick to use to beat Obama with?

Oh cut the bullshit already. Gawd. You long to suck Obumbler's dick and tickle his asshole with your tongue; and you worry about whether all I'm doing is trying to "stick" it to the poor sot?

How many individuals of work age are there in this nation? How many of them HAVE full time jobs? (I don't even care if it's bullshit "service industry" lower tier jobs.)

Of all that are left, how many are still TRYING to get jobs? And how many of them have fuckin' just given up?

Figures lie and liars figure. The Administration's pencil pushers (and the so-called 'reporters' who just regurgitate the government's line) are full of crap, too. But I'd bet with a bit of digging even you could come up with some roughly valid and mutually acceptable numbers to fill in those variables.

In the meanwhile, the U6 figures (however accurate or inaccurately based they might be) are a better indication of how the nation's economy is doing than the nearly fantasy numbers that routinely get "reported."

It would have been easier of you, and honest of you and even more concise of you if you had simply acknowledged the truth of what I had posted. But I don't expect much honesty from your kind, laughing boi.

Meanwhile, the true unemployment numbers (even the government's own reported figures) -- the U6 figures -- are roughly almost three times higher than the bogus fluff numbers most often quoted by the lap-dog liberal media.

Meanwhile, the true unemployment numbers (even the government's own reported figures) -- the U6 figures -- are roughly almost three times higher than the bogus fluff numbers

Onus is on you to prove your claim. Don't make me use the Jeopardy theme again.

Onus? Ok. Try this on for size:

Data extracted on: January 21, 2015 (4:51:48 PM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS15000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Not in Labor Force
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2004 75319 75648 75606 75907 75903 75735 75730 76113 76526 76399 76259 76581
2005 76808 76677 76846 76514 76409 76673 76721 76642 76739 76958 77138 77394
2006 77339 77122 77161 77318 77359 77317 77535 77451 77757 77634 77499 77376
2007 77506 77851 77982 78818 78810 78671 78904 79461 79047 79532 79105 79238
2008 78554 79156 79087 79429 79102 79314 79395 79466 79790 79736 80189 80380
2009 80529 80374 80953 80762 80705 80938 81367 81780 82495 82766 82865 83813
2010 83349 83304 83206 82707 83409 84075 84199 84014 84347 84895 84590 85240
2011 85390 85624 85623 85580 85821 86140 86395 86125 85986 86335 86351 86624
2012 87824 87696 87839 88195 88066 88068 88427 88840 88713 88491 88870 88797
2013 88838 89432 89969 89774 89801 89791 90124 90430 90620 91766 91263 91698
2014 91429 91398 91077 92019 91993 92114 91975 92210 92601 92414 92442 92898

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Take that last number. It represents 92.8 MILLION possible employees over the age of 16.

What is that as a percentage of the entire United State's population?

Roughly speaking it is: about 29%

There is a MASSIVE number of possible US workers who are NOT employed, many of whom have even given up looking. The economy is not humming. We are looking at a bright shiny surface but not seeing the decay just below the surface.

Just pulling numbers out at random in meaningless. That is a straight line graph to all intents and purposes with almost no variations for economic conditions that we already know occurred. Why is there no fluctuation in employment on 1/1/2009 in that graph?

Here is a hint: Because that data is NOT what you believe it to be.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Oh cut the bullshit already. Gawd. You long to suck Obumbler's dick and tickle his asshole with your tongue; and you worry about whether all I'm doing is trying to "stick" it to the poor sot?

How many individuals of work age are there in this nation? How many of them HAVE full time jobs? (I don't even care if it's bullshit "service industry" lower tier jobs.)

Of all that are left, how many are still TRYING to get jobs? And how many of them have fuckin' just given up?

Figures lie and liars figure. The Administration's pencil pushers (and the so-called 'reporters' who just regurgitate the government's line) are full of crap, too. But I'd bet with a bit of digging even you could come up with some roughly valid and mutually acceptable numbers to fill in those variables.

In the meanwhile, the U6 figures (however accurate or inaccurately based they might be) are a better indication of how the nation's economy is doing than the nearly fantasy numbers that routinely get "reported."

It would have been easier of you, and honest of you and even more concise of you if you had simply acknowledged the truth of what I had posted. But I don't expect much honesty from your kind, laughing boi.

Meanwhile, the true unemployment numbers (even the government's own reported figures) -- the U6 figures -- are roughly almost three times higher than the bogus fluff numbers most often quoted by the lap-dog liberal media.

Meanwhile, the true unemployment numbers (even the government's own reported figures) -- the U6 figures -- are roughly almost three times higher than the bogus fluff numbers

Onus is on you to prove your claim. Don't make me use the Jeopardy theme again.

Onus? Ok. Try this on for size:

Data extracted on: January 21, 2015 (4:51:48 PM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS15000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Not in Labor Force
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2004 75319 75648 75606 75907 75903 75735 75730 76113 76526 76399 76259 76581
2005 76808 76677 76846 76514 76409 76673 76721 76642 76739 76958 77138 77394
2006 77339 77122 77161 77318 77359 77317 77535 77451 77757 77634 77499 77376
2007 77506 77851 77982 78818 78810 78671 78904 79461 79047 79532 79105 79238
2008 78554 79156 79087 79429 79102 79314 79395 79466 79790 79736 80189 80380
2009 80529 80374 80953 80762 80705 80938 81367 81780 82495 82766 82865 83813
2010 83349 83304 83206 82707 83409 84075 84199 84014 84347 84895 84590 85240
2011 85390 85624 85623 85580 85821 86140 86395 86125 85986 86335 86351 86624
2012 87824 87696 87839 88195 88066 88068 88427 88840 88713 88491 88870 88797
2013 88838 89432 89969 89774 89801 89791 90124 90430 90620 91766 91263 91698
2014 91429 91398 91077 92019 91993 92114 91975 92210 92601 92414 92442 92898

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Take that last number. It represents 92.8 MILLION possible employees over the age of 16.

What is that as a percentage of the entire United State's population?

Roughly speaking it is: about 29%

There is a MASSIVE number of possible US workers who are NOT employed, many of whom have even given up looking. The economy is not humming. We are looking at a bright shiny surface but not seeing the decay just below the surface.

Just pulling numbers out at random in meaningless. That is a straight line graph to all intents and purposes with almost no variations for economic conditions that we already know occurred. Why is there no fluctuation in employment on 1/1/2009 in that graph?

Here is a hint: Because that data is NOT what you believe it to be.

Since you don't know what I "think," your assurances about the graph not being what I believe it to be means exactly nothing nothing.

And it means a whole lot more than you seem willing to admit or perhaps you are the one who fails the vision test.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It would have been easier of you, and honest of you and even more concise of you if you had simply acknowledged the truth of what I had posted. But I don't expect much honesty from your kind, laughing boi.

Meanwhile, the true unemployment numbers (even the government's own reported figures) -- the U6 figures -- are roughly almost three times higher than the bogus fluff numbers most often quoted by the lap-dog liberal media.

Meanwhile, the true unemployment numbers (even the government's own reported figures) -- the U6 figures -- are roughly almost three times higher than the bogus fluff numbers

Onus is on you to prove your claim. Don't make me use the Jeopardy theme again.

Onus? Ok. Try this on for size:

Data extracted on: January 21, 2015 (4:51:48 PM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS15000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Not in Labor Force
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2004 75319 75648 75606 75907 75903 75735 75730 76113 76526 76399 76259 76581
2005 76808 76677 76846 76514 76409 76673 76721 76642 76739 76958 77138 77394
2006 77339 77122 77161 77318 77359 77317 77535 77451 77757 77634 77499 77376
2007 77506 77851 77982 78818 78810 78671 78904 79461 79047 79532 79105 79238
2008 78554 79156 79087 79429 79102 79314 79395 79466 79790 79736 80189 80380
2009 80529 80374 80953 80762 80705 80938 81367 81780 82495 82766 82865 83813
2010 83349 83304 83206 82707 83409 84075 84199 84014 84347 84895 84590 85240
2011 85390 85624 85623 85580 85821 86140 86395 86125 85986 86335 86351 86624
2012 87824 87696 87839 88195 88066 88068 88427 88840 88713 88491 88870 88797
2013 88838 89432 89969 89774 89801 89791 90124 90430 90620 91766 91263 91698
2014 91429 91398 91077 92019 91993 92114 91975 92210 92601 92414 92442 92898

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Take that last number. It represents 92.8 MILLION possible employees over the age of 16.

What is that as a percentage of the entire United State's population?

Roughly speaking it is: about 29%

There is a MASSIVE number of possible US workers who are NOT employed, many of whom have even given up looking. The economy is not humming. We are looking at a bright shiny surface but not seeing the decay just below the surface.

Just pulling numbers out at random in meaningless. That is a straight line graph to all intents and purposes with almost no variations for economic conditions that we already know occurred. Why is there no fluctuation in employment on 1/1/2009 in that graph?

Here is a hint: Because that data is NOT what you believe it to be.

Since you don't know what I "think," your assurances about the graph not being what I believe it to be means exactly nothing nothing.

And it means a whole lot more than you seem willing to admit or perhaps you are the one who fails the vision test.

How about we let the ref decide?

Statistikhengst can you please explain to Ilar what those numbers he quoted actually mean?

TYIA.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Onus? Ok. Try this on for size:

Data extracted on: January 21, 2015 (4:51:48 PM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS15000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Not in Labor Force
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2004 75319 75648 75606 75907 75903 75735 75730 76113 76526 76399 76259 76581
2005 76808 76677 76846 76514 76409 76673 76721 76642 76739 76958 77138 77394
2006 77339 77122 77161 77318 77359 77317 77535 77451 77757 77634 77499 77376
2007 77506 77851 77982 78818 78810 78671 78904 79461 79047 79532 79105 79238
2008 78554 79156 79087 79429 79102 79314 79395 79466 79790 79736 80189 80380
2009 80529 80374 80953 80762 80705 80938 81367 81780 82495 82766 82865 83813
2010 83349 83304 83206 82707 83409 84075 84199 84014 84347 84895 84590 85240
2011 85390 85624 85623 85580 85821 86140 86395 86125 85986 86335 86351 86624
2012 87824 87696 87839 88195 88066 88068 88427 88840 88713 88491 88870 88797
2013 88838 89432 89969 89774 89801 89791 90124 90430 90620 91766 91263 91698
2014 91429 91398 91077 92019 91993 92114 91975 92210 92601 92414 92442 92898

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Take that last number. It represents 92.8 MILLION possible employees over the age of 16.

What is that as a percentage of the entire United State's population?

Roughly speaking it is: about 29%

There is a MASSIVE number of possible US workers who are NOT employed, many of whom have even given up looking. The economy is not humming. We are looking at a bright shiny surface but not seeing the decay just below the surface.

Derideo_Te - I was busy writing a thread.

Now, onto Ilar. The numbers are exactly what they say they are, only they are not much more different than in 2004.

Population of the USA, June 2004:

US Population by Year

292.8 million.

Number of people not in the workforce in July, 2004: 75.9 million

75.9 / 292.8 = 26%.

That was the percentage during a year in which the nation was not recovering from a massive recession, known as the great recession.

Back to now:

US Population, January 2015:

U.S. population to top 320 million at start of 2015 Census reports

320.1 million, 29.9 million more than in the middle of 2004.

The BLS number from end of 2014:

92.9 million

92.9 / 320.1 = 29%

Difference in the statistic: 3%

What the statistic does not account for: Seniors who do not work, early retirees, people who never worked to begin with. So, your statement this is US workers who are not employed is bogus.

Not really sure where you are trying to go here, but this is surely the wrong set of numbers to try. And the difference between now and 2004 is not all that much.

Better luck next time.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Onus? Ok. Try this on for size:

Data extracted on: January 21, 2015 (4:51:48 PM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS15000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Not in Labor Force
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2004 75319 75648 75606 75907 75903 75735 75730 76113 76526 76399 76259 76581
2005 76808 76677 76846 76514 76409 76673 76721 76642 76739 76958 77138 77394
2006 77339 77122 77161 77318 77359 77317 77535 77451 77757 77634 77499 77376
2007 77506 77851 77982 78818 78810 78671 78904 79461 79047 79532 79105 79238
2008 78554 79156 79087 79429 79102 79314 79395 79466 79790 79736 80189 80380
2009 80529 80374 80953 80762 80705 80938 81367 81780 82495 82766 82865 83813
2010 83349 83304 83206 82707 83409 84075 84199 84014 84347 84895 84590 85240
2011 85390 85624 85623 85580 85821 86140 86395 86125 85986 86335 86351 86624
2012 87824 87696 87839 88195 88066 88068 88427 88840 88713 88491 88870 88797
2013 88838 89432 89969 89774 89801 89791 90124 90430 90620 91766 91263 91698
2014 91429 91398 91077 92019 91993 92114 91975 92210 92601 92414 92442 92898

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Take that last number. It represents 92.8 MILLION possible employees over the age of 16.

What is that as a percentage of the entire United State's population?

Roughly speaking it is: about 29%

There is a MASSIVE number of possible US workers who are NOT employed, many of whom have even given up looking. The economy is not humming. We are looking at a bright shiny surface but not seeing the decay just below the surface.

Derideo_Te - I was busy writing a thread.

Now, onto Ilar. The numbers are exactly what they say they are, only they are not much more different than in 2004.

Population of the USA, June 2004:

US Population by Year

292.8 million.

Number of people not in the workforce in July, 2004: 75.9 million

75.9 / 292.8 = 26%.

That was the percentage during a year in which the nation was not recovering from a massive recession, known as the great recession.

Back to now:

US Population, January 2015:

U.S. population to top 320 million at start of 2015 Census reports

320.1 million, 29.9 million more than in the middle of 2004.

The BLS number from end of 2014:

92.9 million

92.9 / 320.1 = 29%

Difference in the statistic: 3%

What the statistic does not account for: Seniors who do not work, early retirees, people who never worked to begin with. So, your statement this is US workers who are not employed is bogus.

Not really sure where you are trying to go here, but this is surely the wrong set of numbers to try. And the difference between now and 2004 is not all that much.

Better luck next time.

Your dopey smiley-cons aside, you seem to have grasped SOME of the import of the numbers.

A 3% change is far from insignificant.

I happen to agree that the use of those numbers carries a bit less meaning than say the U6 figures. But they do imply that there is a large portion of the population (and perhaps more than the official U3 and the U6 numbers might suggest) struggling in this economy. Under such circumstances, it is stupid public policy to essentially IMPORT cheap foreign labor.

Yet so long as the lolberal Democratics see some electoral advantage in it, their attitude is 'fuck the American CITIZEN workers.'

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Now, I wonder if anyone can explain this all to laughing boi desidy, in simple terms. Simple enough for even him to dimly grasp.

I doubt it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Onus? Ok. Try this on for size:

Data extracted on: January 21, 2015 (4:51:48 PM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS15000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Not in Labor Force
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2004 75319 75648 75606 75907 75903 75735 75730 76113 76526 76399 76259 76581
2005 76808 76677 76846 76514 76409 76673 76721 76642 76739 76958 77138 77394
2006 77339 77122 77161 77318 77359 77317 77535 77451 77757 77634 77499 77376
2007 77506 77851 77982 78818 78810 78671 78904 79461 79047 79532 79105 79238
2008 78554 79156 79087 79429 79102 79314 79395 79466 79790 79736 80189 80380
2009 80529 80374 80953 80762 80705 80938 81367 81780 82495 82766 82865 83813
2010 83349 83304 83206 82707 83409 84075 84199 84014 84347 84895 84590 85240
2011 85390 85624 85623 85580 85821 86140 86395 86125 85986 86335 86351 86624
2012 87824 87696 87839 88195 88066 88068 88427 88840 88713 88491 88870 88797
2013 88838 89432 89969 89774 89801 89791 90124 90430 90620 91766 91263 91698
2014 91429 91398 91077 92019 91993 92114 91975 92210 92601 92414 92442 92898

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Take that last number. It represents 92.8 MILLION possible employees over the age of 16.

What is that as a percentage of the entire United State's population?

Roughly speaking it is: about 29%

There is a MASSIVE number of possible US workers who are NOT employed, many of whom have even given up looking. The economy is not humming. We are looking at a bright shiny surface but not seeing the decay just below the surface.

Derideo_Te - I was busy writing a thread.

Now, onto Ilar. The numbers are exactly what they say they are, only they are not much more different than in 2004.

Population of the USA, June 2004:

US Population by Year

292.8 million.

Number of people not in the workforce in July, 2004: 75.9 million

75.9 / 292.8 = 26%.

That was the percentage during a year in which the nation was not recovering from a massive recession, known as the great recession.

Back to now:

US Population, January 2015:

U.S. population to top 320 million at start of 2015 Census reports

320.1 million, 29.9 million more than in the middle of 2004.

The BLS number from end of 2014:

92.9 million

92.9 / 320.1 = 29%

Difference in the statistic: 3%

What the statistic does not account for: Seniors who do not work, early retirees, people who never worked to begin with. So, your statement this is US workers who are not employed is bogus.

Not really sure where you are trying to go here, but this is surely the wrong set of numbers to try. And the difference between now and 2004 is not all that much.

Better luck next time.

Your dopey smiley-cons aside, you seem to have grasped SOME of the import of the numbers.

A 3% change is far from insignificant.

I happen to agree that the use of those numbers carries a bit less meaning than say the U6 figures. But they do imply that there is a large portion of the population (and perhaps more than the official U3 and the U6 numbers might suggest) struggling in this economy. Under such circumstances, it is stupid public policy to essentially IMPORT cheap foreign labor.

Yet so long as the lolberal Democratics see some electoral advantage in it, their attitude is 'fuck the American CITIZEN workers.'

Actually, a +/-3 change over a number of years is actually quite normal. That is a 10.5 year time frame. I don't have time to calculate it for you, because, well, wiping so many butts just takes a lot of time. But I am sure you can do the numbers youself. Warning: if you examine the Reagan years, you may be VERY unhappy that you tried to approach this issue this way. Just thought to give you a fair warning.

 

[Ravi]

I can tell by the high pitched whine that every year for IliarWelsher is going to suck and he will blame it on others.

And how sweet that my browser automatically corrected Iliar to IliarWelsher.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Onus? Ok. Try this on for size:

Data extracted on: January 21, 2015 (4:51:48 PM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS15000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Not in Labor Force
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2004 75319 75648 75606 75907 75903 75735 75730 76113 76526 76399 76259 76581
2005 76808 76677 76846 76514 76409 76673 76721 76642 76739 76958 77138 77394
2006 77339 77122 77161 77318 77359 77317 77535 77451 77757 77634 77499 77376
2007 77506 77851 77982 78818 78810 78671 78904 79461 79047 79532 79105 79238
2008 78554 79156 79087 79429 79102 79314 79395 79466 79790 79736 80189 80380
2009 80529 80374 80953 80762 80705 80938 81367 81780 82495 82766 82865 83813
2010 83349 83304 83206 82707 83409 84075 84199 84014 84347 84895 84590 85240
2011 85390 85624 85623 85580 85821 86140 86395 86125 85986 86335 86351 86624
2012 87824 87696 87839 88195 88066 88068 88427 88840 88713 88491 88870 88797
2013 88838 89432 89969 89774 89801 89791 90124 90430 90620 91766 91263 91698
2014 91429 91398 91077 92019 91993 92114 91975 92210 92601 92414 92442 92898

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Take that last number. It represents 92.8 MILLION possible employees over the age of 16.

What is that as a percentage of the entire United State's population?

Roughly speaking it is: about 29%

There is a MASSIVE number of possible US workers who are NOT employed, many of whom have even given up looking. The economy is not humming. We are looking at a bright shiny surface but not seeing the decay just below the surface.

Derideo_Te - I was busy writing a thread.

Now, onto Ilar. The numbers are exactly what they say they are, only they are not much more different than in 2004.

Population of the USA, June 2004:

US Population by Year

292.8 million.

Number of people not in the workforce in July, 2004: 75.9 million

75.9 / 292.8 = 26%.

That was the percentage during a year in which the nation was not recovering from a massive recession, known as the great recession.

Back to now:

US Population, January 2015:

U.S. population to top 320 million at start of 2015 Census reports

320.1 million, 29.9 million more than in the middle of 2004.

The BLS number from end of 2014:

92.9 million

92.9 / 320.1 = 29%

Difference in the statistic: 3%

What the statistic does not account for: Seniors who do not work, early retirees, people who never worked to begin with. So, your statement this is US workers who are not employed is bogus.

Not really sure where you are trying to go here, but this is surely the wrong set of numbers to try. And the difference between now and 2004 is not all that much.

Better luck next time.

Your dopey smiley-cons aside, you seem to have grasped SOME of the import of the numbers.

A 3% change is far from insignificant.

I happen to agree that the use of those numbers carries a bit less meaning than say the U6 figures. But they do imply that there is a large portion of the population (and perhaps more than the official U3 and the U6 numbers might suggest) struggling in this economy. Under such circumstances, it is stupid public policy to essentially IMPORT cheap foreign labor.

Yet so long as the lolberal Democratics see some electoral advantage in it, their attitude is 'fuck the American CITIZEN workers.'

Actually, a +/-3 change over a number of years is actually quite normal. That is a 10.5 year time frame. I don't have time to calculate it for you, because, well, wiping so many butts just takes a lot of time. But I am sure you can do the numbers youself. Warning: if you examine the Reagan years, you may be VERY unhappy that you tried to approach this issue this way. Just thought to give you a fair warning.

OMG. How sad. You imagine that a change of that order is a function of time?

Sad, really.

Wipe your nose. Wipe your ass. But by all means, educate yourself.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Onus? Ok. Try this on for size:

Data extracted on: January 21, 2015 (4:51:48 PM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS15000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Not in Labor Force
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2004 75319 75648 75606 75907 75903 75735 75730 76113 76526 76399 76259 76581
2005 76808 76677 76846 76514 76409 76673 76721 76642 76739 76958 77138 77394
2006 77339 77122 77161 77318 77359 77317 77535 77451 77757 77634 77499 77376
2007 77506 77851 77982 78818 78810 78671 78904 79461 79047 79532 79105 79238
2008 78554 79156 79087 79429 79102 79314 79395 79466 79790 79736 80189 80380
2009 80529 80374 80953 80762 80705 80938 81367 81780 82495 82766 82865 83813
2010 83349 83304 83206 82707 83409 84075 84199 84014 84347 84895 84590 85240
2011 85390 85624 85623 85580 85821 86140 86395 86125 85986 86335 86351 86624
2012 87824 87696 87839 88195 88066 88068 88427 88840 88713 88491 88870 88797
2013 88838 89432 89969 89774 89801 89791 90124 90430 90620 91766 91263 91698
2014 91429 91398 91077 92019 91993 92114 91975 92210 92601 92414 92442 92898

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Take that last number. It represents 92.8 MILLION possible employees over the age of 16.

What is that as a percentage of the entire United State's population?

Roughly speaking it is: about 29%

There is a MASSIVE number of possible US workers who are NOT employed, many of whom have even given up looking. The economy is not humming. We are looking at a bright shiny surface but not seeing the decay just below the surface.

Derideo_Te - I was busy writing a thread.

Now, onto Ilar. The numbers are exactly what they say they are, only they are not much more different than in 2004.

Population of the USA, June 2004:

US Population by Year

292.8 million.

Number of people not in the workforce in July, 2004: 75.9 million

75.9 / 292.8 = 26%.

That was the percentage during a year in which the nation was not recovering from a massive recession, known as the great recession.

Back to now:

US Population, January 2015:

U.S. population to top 320 million at start of 2015 Census reports

320.1 million, 29.9 million more than in the middle of 2004.

The BLS number from end of 2014:

92.9 million

92.9 / 320.1 = 29%

Difference in the statistic: 3%

What the statistic does not account for: Seniors who do not work, early retirees, people who never worked to begin with. So, your statement this is US workers who are not employed is bogus.

Not really sure where you are trying to go here, but this is surely the wrong set of numbers to try. And the difference between now and 2004 is not all that much.

Better luck next time.

Your dopey smiley-cons aside, you seem to have grasped SOME of the import of the numbers.

A 3% change is far from insignificant.

I happen to agree that the use of those numbers carries a bit less meaning than say the U6 figures. But they do imply that there is a large portion of the population (and perhaps more than the official U3 and the U6 numbers might suggest) struggling in this economy. Under such circumstances, it is stupid public policy to essentially IMPORT cheap foreign labor.

Yet so long as the lolberal Democratics see some electoral advantage in it, their attitude is 'fuck the American CITIZEN workers.'

Actually, a +/-3 change over a number of years is actually quite normal. That is a 10.5 year time frame. I don't have time to calculate it for you, because, well, wiping so many butts just takes a lot of time. But I am sure you can do the numbers youself. Warning: if you examine the Reagan years, you may be VERY unhappy that you tried to approach this issue this way. Just thought to give you a fair warning.

OMG. How sad. You imagine that a change of that order is a function of time?

Sad, really.

Wipe your nose. Wipe your ass. But by all means, educate yourself.

Ahhh, so you didn't compare those stats to the past, what?

LOL.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Onus? Ok. Try this on for size:

Data extracted on: January 21, 2015 (4:51:48 PM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS15000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Not in Labor Force
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2004 75319 75648 75606 75907 75903 75735 75730 76113 76526 76399 76259 76581
2005 76808 76677 76846 76514 76409 76673 76721 76642 76739 76958 77138 77394
2006 77339 77122 77161 77318 77359 77317 77535 77451 77757 77634 77499 77376
2007 77506 77851 77982 78818 78810 78671 78904 79461 79047 79532 79105 79238
2008 78554 79156 79087 79429 79102 79314 79395 79466 79790 79736 80189 80380
2009 80529 80374 80953 80762 80705 80938 81367 81780 82495 82766 82865 83813
2010 83349 83304 83206 82707 83409 84075 84199 84014 84347 84895 84590 85240
2011 85390 85624 85623 85580 85821 86140 86395 86125 85986 86335 86351 86624
2012 87824 87696 87839 88195 88066 88068 88427 88840 88713 88491 88870 88797
2013 88838 89432 89969 89774 89801 89791 90124 90430 90620 91766 91263 91698
2014 91429 91398 91077 92019 91993 92114 91975 92210 92601 92414 92442 92898

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Take that last number. It represents 92.8 MILLION possible employees over the age of 16.

What is that as a percentage of the entire United State's population?

Roughly speaking it is: about 29%

There is a MASSIVE number of possible US workers who are NOT employed, many of whom have even given up looking. The economy is not humming. We are looking at a bright shiny surface but not seeing the decay just below the surface.

Derideo_Te - I was busy writing a thread.

Now, onto Ilar. The numbers are exactly what they say they are, only they are not much more different than in 2004.

Population of the USA, June 2004:

US Population by Year

292.8 million.

Number of people not in the workforce in July, 2004: 75.9 million

75.9 / 292.8 = 26%.

That was the percentage during a year in which the nation was not recovering from a massive recession, known as the great recession.

Back to now:

US Population, January 2015:

U.S. population to top 320 million at start of 2015 Census reports

320.1 million, 29.9 million more than in the middle of 2004.

The BLS number from end of 2014:

92.9 million

92.9 / 320.1 = 29%

Difference in the statistic: 3%

What the statistic does not account for: Seniors who do not work, early retirees, people who never worked to begin with. So, your statement this is US workers who are not employed is bogus.

Not really sure where you are trying to go here, but this is surely the wrong set of numbers to try. And the difference between now and 2004 is not all that much.

Better luck next time.

Your dopey smiley-cons aside, you seem to have grasped SOME of the import of the numbers.

A 3% change is far from insignificant.

I happen to agree that the use of those numbers carries a bit less meaning than say the U6 figures. But they do imply that there is a large portion of the population (and perhaps more than the official U3 and the U6 numbers might suggest) struggling in this economy. Under such circumstances, it is stupid public policy to essentially IMPORT cheap foreign labor.

Yet so long as the lolberal Democratics see some electoral advantage in it, their attitude is 'fuck the American CITIZEN workers.'

Actually, a +/-3 change over a number of years is actually quite normal. That is a 10.5 year time frame. I don't have time to calculate it for you, because, well, wiping so many butts just takes a lot of time. But I am sure you can do the numbers youself. Warning: if you examine the Reagan years, you may be VERY unhappy that you tried to approach this issue this way. Just thought to give you a fair warning.

OMG. How sad. You imagine that a change of that order is a function of time?

Sad, really.

Wipe your nose. Wipe your ass. But by all means, educate yourself.

Ahhh, so you didn't compare those stats to the past, what?

LOL.

Ahhh, so you are reduced to declaring your silly "conclusions" despite any hint of support for your would-be "logic."

Color me un-surprised.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Derideo_Te - I was busy writing a thread.

Now, onto Ilar. The numbers are exactly what they say they are, only they are not much more different than in 2004.

Population of the USA, June 2004:

US Population by Year

292.8 million.

Number of people not in the workforce in July, 2004: 75.9 million

75.9 / 292.8 = 26%.

That was the percentage during a year in which the nation was not recovering from a massive recession, known as the great recession.

Back to now:

US Population, January 2015:

U.S. population to top 320 million at start of 2015 Census reports

320.1 million, 29.9 million more than in the middle of 2004.

The BLS number from end of 2014:

92.9 million

92.9 / 320.1 = 29%

Difference in the statistic: 3%

What the statistic does not account for: Seniors who do not work, early retirees, people who never worked to begin with. So, your statement this is US workers who are not employed is bogus.

Not really sure where you are trying to go here, but this is surely the wrong set of numbers to try. And the difference between now and 2004 is not all that much.

Better luck next time.

Your dopey smiley-cons aside, you seem to have grasped SOME of the import of the numbers.

A 3% change is far from insignificant.

I happen to agree that the use of those numbers carries a bit less meaning than say the U6 figures. But they do imply that there is a large portion of the population (and perhaps more than the official U3 and the U6 numbers might suggest) struggling in this economy. Under such circumstances, it is stupid public policy to essentially IMPORT cheap foreign labor.

Yet so long as the lolberal Democratics see some electoral advantage in it, their attitude is 'fuck the American CITIZEN workers.'

Actually, a +/-3 change over a number of years is actually quite normal. That is a 10.5 year time frame. I don't have time to calculate it for you, because, well, wiping so many butts just takes a lot of time. But I am sure you can do the numbers youself. Warning: if you examine the Reagan years, you may be VERY unhappy that you tried to approach this issue this way. Just thought to give you a fair warning.

OMG. How sad. You imagine that a change of that order is a function of time?

Sad, really.

Wipe your nose. Wipe your ass. But by all means, educate yourself.

Ahhh, so you didn't compare those stats to the past, what?

LOL.

Ahhh, so you are reduced to declaring your silly "conclusions" despite any hint of support for your would-be "logic."

Color me un-surprised.

So, as I already said, you didn't compare those stats to the past, what??

lol...

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Your dopey smiley-cons aside, you seem to have grasped SOME of the import of the numbers.

A 3% change is far from insignificant.

I happen to agree that the use of those numbers carries a bit less meaning than say the U6 figures. But they do imply that there is a large portion of the population (and perhaps more than the official U3 and the U6 numbers might suggest) struggling in this economy. Under such circumstances, it is stupid public policy to essentially IMPORT cheap foreign labor.

Yet so long as the lolberal Democratics see some electoral advantage in it, their attitude is 'fuck the American CITIZEN workers.'

Actually, a +/-3 change over a number of years is actually quite normal. That is a 10.5 year time frame. I don't have time to calculate it for you, because, well, wiping so many butts just takes a lot of time. But I am sure you can do the numbers youself. Warning: if you examine the Reagan years, you may be VERY unhappy that you tried to approach this issue this way. Just thought to give you a fair warning.

OMG. How sad. You imagine that a change of that order is a function of time?

Sad, really.

Wipe your nose. Wipe your ass. But by all means, educate yourself.

Ahhh, so you didn't compare those stats to the past, what?

LOL.

Ahhh, so you are reduced to declaring your silly "conclusions" despite any hint of support for your would-be "logic."

Color me un-surprised.

So, as I already said, you didn't compare those stats to the past, what??

lol...

So, as I already noted (correctly) you are reduced to declaring and now stupidly repeating your silly "conclusions" despite any hint of support for your would-be "logic."

Sad. But not surprising coming from you.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I Decree that 2014 generally sucked.

Mercifully, even bad years eventually come to an end. So too, 2014 is drawing to a close.

Accordingly, with high hopes that it may get good again someday, I applaud the passing of 2014 and wish -- for one and all -- a Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year.

Furthermore, to assess prosperity, I decree further that we should avoid using the Administration's phonied-up economic numbers. When we discuss "unemployment" for example, we should use numbers that show not just those who are looking for jobs but can't get work, but also those who have even given up looking. All past numbers should be adjusted to reflect this true nature of unemployment rates so we can have a coherent discussion about the comparisons between liberal-led periods and the slightly less liberal-led periods.

And may Al Sharpton gain a pound and get a non-joke haircut.

Generally speaking, yes, 2014 sucked.
Most matters economically got worse, despite the half truths you hear, especially in the SOTU.
Most matters in foreign affairs certainly got worse.
The corporatocracy is still marching forward, the income gap between the wealthiest and everyone else moved further apart.
The healthcare reform is becoming the bomb for what it is, instead of unemployed people being without insurance - now working people are. How again is that an improvement?
So, no matter what anyone says 2014 was no banner year for the U.S.A.

 

[Ravi]

I Decree that 2014 generally sucked.

Mercifully, even bad years eventually come to an end. So too, 2014 is drawing to a close.

Accordingly, with high hopes that it may get good again someday, I applaud the passing of 2014 and wish -- for one and all -- a Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year.

Furthermore, to assess prosperity, I decree further that we should avoid using the Administration's phonied-up economic numbers. When we discuss "unemployment" for example, we should use numbers that show not just those who are looking for jobs but can't get work, but also those who have even given up looking. All past numbers should be adjusted to reflect this true nature of unemployment rates so we can have a coherent discussion about the comparisons between liberal-led periods and the slightly less liberal-led periods.

And may Al Sharpton gain a pound and get a non-joke haircut.

Generally speaking, yes, 2014 sucked.
Most matters economically got worse, despite the half truths you hear, especially in the SOTU.
Most matters in foreign affairs certainly got worse.
The corporatocracy is still marching forward, the income gap between the wealthiest and everyone else moved further apart.
The healthcare reform is becoming the bomb for what it is, instead of unemployed people being without insurance - now working people are. How again is that an improvement?
So, no matter what anyone says 2014 was no banner year for the U.S.A.

I made more money in 2014 than ever before. What are you doing wrong?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I made more money in 2014 than ever before. What are you doing wrong?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I Decree that 2014 generally sucked.

Mercifully, even bad years eventually come to an end. So too, 2014 is drawing to a close.

Accordingly, with high hopes that it may get good again someday, I applaud the passing of 2014 and wish -- for one and all -- a Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year.

Furthermore, to assess prosperity, I decree further that we should avoid using the Administration's phonied-up economic numbers. When we discuss "unemployment" for example, we should use numbers that show not just those who are looking for jobs but can't get work, but also those who have even given up looking. All past numbers should be adjusted to reflect this true nature of unemployment rates so we can have a coherent discussion about the comparisons between liberal-led periods and the slightly less liberal-led periods.

And may Al Sharpton gain a pound and get a non-joke haircut.

Generally speaking, yes, 2014 sucked.
Most matters economically got worse, despite the half truths you hear, especially in the SOTU.
Most matters in foreign affairs certainly got worse.
The corporatocracy is still marching forward, the income gap between the wealthiest and everyone else moved further apart.
The healthcare reform is becoming the bomb for what it is, instead of unemployed people being without insurance - now working people are. How again is that an improvement?
So, no matter what anyone says 2014 was no banner year for the U.S.A.

I made more money in 2014 than ever before. What are you doing wrong?

The overall state of the Republic and the world is not measured by the instances of some people doing better, you utterly shallow, self important but actually insignificant hypocritical lib fool.

And, by the way, because of certain choice I made, we are (i.e., my family is) doing better in terms of wealth and income and security. Obumbler is busy trying to minimize that, of course. Why would that shithead get any credit for any of any improvement in that area? Your Obamessiah is a fucking leech.

 

[Ravi]

^butthurt

 

[Wry Catcher]

^butthurt

I decree he's not only butthurt (for reasons unknown) but he is the message board

cur·mudg·eon
kərˈməjən/
noun

1. a bad-tempered or surly person.

If I had to guess, I would guess he was employed in the Bush Administration and lost his job when McCain and Palin were rejected by the voters. Given his prose (used as a verb) and syntax, my guess he was a low level bureaucrat.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

^butthurt

I decree he's not only butthurt (for reasons unknown) but he is the message board

cur·mudg·eon
kərˈməjən/
noun

1. a bad-tempered or surly person.

If I had to guess, I would guess he was employed in the Bush Administration and lost his job when McCain and Palin were rejected by the voters. Given his prose (used as a verb) and syntax, my guess he was a low level bureaucrat.

See the problem? Rabid claiming I am the one who is butthurt is laugh out loud projection and the idiot low life Wry pretending that he could possibly be objective is also damn amusing.

The trouble with shit heels like Fly Catcher is that he's far too dim witted to grasp what a complete dullard he is.

True story. The trouble with Rabid is that she is nothing more in life than a miserable skanky twat.