Jobs report is not good: it may be as low as 140,000 although

[pinqy]

it's impossible to get a brainwashed left-wing loser to be honest.

how can an idiot post a thousand charts and graphs up here saying all kinds of things; but upon inspection of the talking point that says the ENOURMOUS DECLINE IN LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION is supposedly due to retiring Baby Boomers, it offers NO NUMBERS, but just says "largely due"??????????????????????

The numbers are available and I can do the math. Give me a start point and an end point and I will tell you exactly how much of the change was due to those age 55 and over (or 60 and over or 65 and over). Can't pinpoint retirees, because there's no such specific designation in the numbers (someone can be officially retired but still working)

 

[pinqy]

There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

How do you figure? Who claims that it measures suffering? It measures exactly what it's supposed to....the percent of available labor in a specific month that is not being used. People who aren't trying to work cannot be hired. It's not "cruel" to not include them when discussing how many people could have been hired but weren't: it's common sense.

obama isnt mentioning who hasnt been hired because they dont want to be leftard. he's bragging about the number of people who HAVE BEEN hired WITHOUT taking into account those who have dropped out of the Labor Market altogether and arent being counted. you just admitted they exist, now admit the unemployment number than isnt accurate at all; and when you do that YES you must admit, if you truly are a "caring" Progressive type, that it is cruel to leave LITERALLY MILLIONS out of your numbers, just for politics

I never said the unemployment number wasn't accurate. People not trying to work are not unemployed. Or do you want to start counting infants as unemployed as well?

 

[boedicca]

Worst Labor Force Participation Rate since 1977: 62.4%!

Thanks Obama!

 

[pinqy]

Worst Labor Force Participation Rate since 1977: 62.4%!

Thanks Obama!

But at the time, 62.4% was a record high. The LFPR changes more by demographics than labor market issues.

 

[Dad2three]

Only 140,000 jobs?

I blame the job creators. They are the ones we have entrusted to employ Americans

How about we remove the Reagan tax cuts until they start creating over 200,000 jobs a month again?

yawn'

they are the same people responsible for creating the jobs you idiots and your Leader say HAVE been created



try again...........................................

Why not pay for performance?

You create jobs....you get a low tax rate
You lay off or send jobs overseas.......you pay at a pre-Reagan rate

GOP Blocked Bring Jobs Home Act

Senate Republicans Vote Against American Jobs By Blocking Bill To End Outsourcing Tax Breaks

 

[JakeStarkey]

Worst Labor Force Participation Rate since 1977: 62.4%! Thanks Obama!

A silly statement by a person who does not understand the situation.

 

[boedicca]

Worst Labor Force Participation Rate since 1977: 62.4%!

Thanks Obama!

But at the time, 62.4% was a record high. The LFPR changes more by demographics than labor market issues.

But at that time, that was before women started entering the workforce in large #s.

 

[boedicca]

Worst Labor Force Participation Rate since 1977: 62.4%! Thanks Obama!

A silly statement by a person who does not understand the situation.

Condolences on your lack of economic and historic literacy.

 

[rightwinger]

Worst Labor Force Participation Rate since 1977: 62.4%! Thanks Obama!

A silly statement by a person who does not understand the situation.

Condolences on your lack of economic and historic literacy.

No, actually your statement is silly

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama's goal is to have 100,000,000 out of the labor force and 50,000,000 on food stamps by the time he leaves office.

That's the "fundamental transformation" he promised

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Worst Labor Force Participation Rate since 1977: 62.4%! Thanks Obama!

A silly statement by a person who does not understand the situation.

Enlighten us, Jake

Explain it all

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Obama's goal is to have 100,000,000 out of the labor force and 50,000,000 on food stamps by the time he leaves office.

That's the "fundamental transformation" he promised

The only good news about that is the big eared disaster has failed at everything he's tried

 

[boedicca]

Worst Labor Force Participation Rate since 1977: 62.4%! Thanks Obama!

A silly statement by a person who does not understand the situation.

Condolences on your lack of economic and historic literacy.

No, actually your statement is silly

Which mean it is spot on given how it struck your overly sensitive Prog Noives.

 

[bedowin62]

Only 140,000 jobs?

I blame the job creators. They are the ones we have entrusted to employ Americans

How about we remove the Reagan tax cuts until they start creating over 200,000 jobs a month again?

yawn'

they are the same people responsible for creating the jobs you idiots and your Leader say HAVE been created



try again...........................................

Why not pay for performance?

You create jobs....you get a low tax rate
You lay off or send jobs overseas.......you pay at a pre-Reagan rate

GOP Blocked Bring Jobs Home Act

Senate Republicans Vote Against American Jobs By Blocking Bill To End Outsourcing Tax Breaks

YAWN

an endless stream of moronic talking points from this clown

since when do Democrat "jobs bills" create jobs?

 

[boedicca]

Obama's goal is to have 100,000,000 out of the labor force and 50,000,000 on food stamps by the time he leaves office.

That's the "fundamental transformation" he promised

And don't forget the massive increase in people on SS Disability!

Hopenchange!

 

[Eaglewings]

It is booming for 3 years in the San Francisco bay area with the tech jobs and everything else because of the Hi-Tech .

 

[pinqy]

Worst Labor Force Participation Rate since 1977: 62.4%!

Thanks Obama!

But at the time, 62.4% was a record high. The LFPR changes more by demographics than labor market issues.

But at that time, that was before women started entering the workforce in large #s.

Actually, that had been well underway for a while...which is why the LFPR consistantly went up until the year 2000. It's been going down since then.

But you prove my point...the changes are due to demographics.

 

[bedowin62]

Worst Labor Force Participation Rate since 1977: 62.4%!

Thanks Obama!

But at the time, 62.4% was a record high. The LFPR changes more by demographics than labor market issues.

you're clearly assuming that what causes changes in the LPFR remains the same across eras.
what do you offer to support that?

are the demographic shifts not also a factor of the politics of the era?
can they be?

 

[bedowin62]

Worst Labor Force Participation Rate since 1977: 62.4%!

Thanks Obama!

But at the time, 62.4% was a record high. The LFPR changes more by demographics than labor market issues.

But at that time, that was before women started entering the workforce in large #s.

Actually, that had been well underway for a while...which is why the LFPR consistantly went up until the year 2000. It's been going down since then.

But you prove my point...the changes are due to demographics.

and demographic changes can be due to politics. you arent saying anything

 

[JakeStarkey]

The silliness of the far right reactionaries who is amusing.

I wonder if they realize a world wide recession is developing.

 

[boedicca]

Worst Labor Force Participation Rate since 1977: 62.4%!

Thanks Obama!

But at the time, 62.4% was a record high. The LFPR changes more by demographics than labor market issues.

you're clearly assuming that what causes changes in the LPFR remains the same across eras.
what do you offer to support that?

are the demographic shifts not also a factor of the politics of the era?
can they be?

Funny how the same loon has claimed that the fall in the LFPR is totally due to boomer retirement yet ignores the other demographic trends such as enormous unemployment for young black men in particular and drop of employment levels for prime working age men of all ages. The gains for women are also reversing.