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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Nope, during Obama we were told they all dropped out of the workforce because they were discouraged.how many of those are retired, children, physically or mentally unable to work, or just don't want to work?
figures don't lie, but liars figure.
"We have 93 million people out of work. They look for jobs, they give up, and all of a sudden, statistically, they're considered employed."
- Donald J Trump Aug. 28, 2015, On Point With Sarah Palin
geez, grow up. the 93 million number does not include retired, children, sick, and lazy.
the real numbers, used by both obozo and Trump have the current rate at about 4.5%. You were happy with that calculation under Obama, but now it isn't correct? I get it, you are a disingenuous partisan hack.
The 4.5 percent number is a hoax perpetrated by the department of labor
Even Trump will tell you that
The REAL unemployment rate is 53 percent
lol. only the right wing would claim, fossil fuels are, "self sustaining".Bingo!with fossil fuels? lol.Up here we prefer to be self-sustaining for power needs… lolthe opportunity cost is a Manhattan Project for fusion (an energy with a future).An all of the above strategy is best... we have nothing to lose up here by exploiting fossil fuels. All of our power for our grid in the northern plains comes from coal fired power plants. It's here so we might as well use it. Plus it pays damn good to work in the fossil fuel industry. And guess what? Roughnecks/coal miners Buy lots of firearms and ammo....sink more costs, baby, sink more costs into fossil fuels; i am hoping to establish a petty cash fund, to learn how to short-sell.
I would call this self sustaining energy… LOL
The cranksters I mention are a reference to how the right on this board responded to positive employment data during Oblama, compared to how they react now that one of their paragons are elected.Really no surprise to see the crankers playing against their own ruse..Nope, during Obama we were told they all dropped out of the workforce because they were discouraged.how many of those are retired, children, physically or mentally unable to work, or just don't want to work?
figures don't lie, but liars figure.
"We have 93 million people out of work. They look for jobs, they give up, and all of a sudden, statistically, they're considered employed."
- Donald J Trump Aug. 28, 2015, On Point With Sarah Palin
how is it a ruse to use the same calculation methods that were used by Obama?
Except for minors, if they need government assistance, why are they not employed? we have a capital gains tax preference to help ensure venture capital employs labor.Nope, during Obama we were told they all dropped out of the workforce because they were discouraged.how many of those are retired, children, physically or mentally unable to work, or just don't want to work?
figures don't lie, but liars figure.
"We have 93 million people out of work. They look for jobs, they give up, and all of a sudden, statistically, they're considered employed."
- Donald J Trump Aug. 28, 2015, On Point With Sarah Palin
geez, grow up. the 93 million number does not include retired, children, sick, and lazy.
the real numbers, used by both obozo and Trump have the current rate at about 4.5%. You were happy with that calculation under Obama, but now it isn't correct? I get it, you are a disingenuous partisan hack.
The 4.5 percent number is a hoax perpetrated by the department of labor
Even Trump will tell you that
The REAL unemployment rate is 53 percent
unemployed people are people who are looking for work but cannot find any. retired people are not unemployed, neither are children, the sick, or the perpetually lazy.
You are making a fool of yourself on this thread, but you are very good at that.
Only a tiny fraction of the worlds fossil fuel's have been found, and only a tiny fraction of those have been used… Factlol. only the right wing would claim, fossil fuels are, "self sustaining".Bingo!with fossil fuels? lol.Up here we prefer to be self-sustaining for power needs… lolthe opportunity cost is a Manhattan Project for fusion (an energy with a future).An all of the above strategy is best... we have nothing to lose up here by exploiting fossil fuels. All of our power for our grid in the northern plains comes from coal fired power plants. It's here so we might as well use it. Plus it pays damn good to work in the fossil fuel industry. And guess what? Roughnecks/coal miners Buy lots of firearms and ammo....
I would call this self sustaining energy… LOL
lol. only the right wing would claim, fossil fuels are, "self sustaining".Bingo!with fossil fuels? lol.Up here we prefer to be self-sustaining for power needs… lolthe opportunity cost is a Manhattan Project for fusion (an energy with a future).An all of the above strategy is best... we have nothing to lose up here by exploiting fossil fuels. All of our power for our grid in the northern plains comes from coal fired power plants. It's here so we might as well use it. Plus it pays damn good to work in the fossil fuel industry. And guess what? Roughnecks/coal miners Buy lots of firearms and ammo....
I would call this self sustaining energy… LOL
Except for minors, if they need government assistance, why are they not employed? we have a capital gains tax preference to help ensure venture capital employs labor.Nope, during Obama we were told they all dropped out of the workforce because they were discouraged.how many of those are retired, children, physically or mentally unable to work, or just don't want to work?
figures don't lie, but liars figure.
"We have 93 million people out of work. They look for jobs, they give up, and all of a sudden, statistically, they're considered employed."
- Donald J Trump Aug. 28, 2015, On Point With Sarah Palin
geez, grow up. the 93 million number does not include retired, children, sick, and lazy.
the real numbers, used by both obozo and Trump have the current rate at about 4.5%. You were happy with that calculation under Obama, but now it isn't correct? I get it, you are a disingenuous partisan hack.
The 4.5 percent number is a hoax perpetrated by the department of labor
Even Trump will tell you that
The REAL unemployment rate is 53 percent
unemployed people are people who are looking for work but cannot find any. retired people are not unemployed, neither are children, the sick, or the perpetually lazy.
You are making a fool of yourself on this thread, but you are very good at that.
Basically all of the northern plains have Unfound fossil fuel's underneath them there for the taking. And they are only going to be more accessible overtime because of modern technology.Bingo!with fossil fuels? lol.Up here we prefer to be self-sustaining for power needs… lolthe opportunity cost is a Manhattan Project for fusion (an energy with a future).An all of the above strategy is best... we have nothing to lose up here by exploiting fossil fuels. All of our power for our grid in the northern plains comes from coal fired power plants. It's here so we might as well use it. Plus it pays damn good to work in the fossil fuel industry. And guess what? Roughnecks/coal miners Buy lots of firearms and ammo....sink more costs, baby, sink more costs into fossil fuels; i am hoping to establish a petty cash fund, to learn how to short-sell.
I would call this self sustaining energy… LOL
Not according to our PresidentNope, during Obama we were told they all dropped out of the workforce because they were discouraged.how many of those are retired, children, physically or mentally unable to work, or just don't want to work?
figures don't lie, but liars figure.
"We have 93 million people out of work. They look for jobs, they give up, and all of a sudden, statistically, they're considered employed."
- Donald J Trump Aug. 28, 2015, On Point With Sarah Palin
geez, grow up. the 93 million number does not include retired, children, sick, and lazy.
the real numbers, used by both obozo and Trump have the current rate at about 4.5%. You were happy with that calculation under Obama, but now it isn't correct? I get it, you are a disingenuous partisan hack.
The 4.5 percent number is a hoax perpetrated by the department of labor
Even Trump will tell you that
The REAL unemployment rate is 53 percent
unemployed people are people who are looking for work but cannot find any. retired people are not unemployed, neither are children, the sick, or the perpetually lazy.
You are making a fool of yourself on this thread, but you are very good at that.
The cranksters I mention are a reference to how the right on this board responded to positive employment data during Oblama, compared to how they react now that one of their paragons are elected.Really no surprise to see the crankers playing against their own ruse..Nope, during Obama we were told they all dropped out of the workforce because they were discouraged.how many of those are retired, children, physically or mentally unable to work, or just don't want to work?
figures don't lie, but liars figure.
"We have 93 million people out of work. They look for jobs, they give up, and all of a sudden, statistically, they're considered employed."
- Donald J Trump Aug. 28, 2015, On Point With Sarah Palin
how is it a ruse to use the same calculation methods that were used by Obama?
Not according to our PresidentNope, during Obama we were told they all dropped out of the workforce because they were discouraged.how many of those are retired, children, physically or mentally unable to work, or just don't want to work?
figures don't lie, but liars figure.
"We have 93 million people out of work. They look for jobs, they give up, and all of a sudden, statistically, they're considered employed."
- Donald J Trump Aug. 28, 2015, On Point With Sarah Palin
geez, grow up. the 93 million number does not include retired, children, sick, and lazy.
the real numbers, used by both obozo and Trump have the current rate at about 4.5%. You were happy with that calculation under Obama, but now it isn't correct? I get it, you are a disingenuous partisan hack.
The 4.5 percent number is a hoax perpetrated by the department of labor
Even Trump will tell you that
The REAL unemployment rate is 53 percent
unemployed people are people who are looking for work but cannot find any. retired people are not unemployed, neither are children, the sick, or the perpetually lazy.
You are making a fool of yourself on this thread, but you are very good at that.
He has taught us not to trust the BLS statistics because they are doctored. Trump has indicated that he prefers we use the raw employment numbers to evaluate the economy
In this case, Trumps numbers are 170 million unemployed or 53%
A disgrace, a national disgrace......believe me
Well, if one isn't seeking a job, it stands to reason it's not a problem that one doesn't have a job because people who want/need a job, look for a job.people give up looking. No longer counted.
Yes, but after a length of time "they do not exist". They fall off the books. This subject has been beat to death. You have someone 55 years old, lost his job. He may be 57 years old now. Still searching the internet for work. BUT HE DOES NOT EXIST. He is on no list. He does not count. There are millions of these that have fallen off the books each month since 2009 crash. Where am I wrong on that?
POST SAVING EDIT: why did ADP report closer to ~250K private jobs added?
The difference is that in 2017, were starting to see labor shortages. Employers are starting to have difficulty finding workers. It may be that many, especially in the baby boom generation have essentially moved into retirement. The rapid and continuing loss of people from the baby boom generation going into retirement is a large part of the reason the labor force participation rate has dropped so much. 4.3% is a low unemployment rate and its unlikely to drop much more than that. It does not appear that there is going to be some large return to the labor force by all these people that have dropped off the list for whatever the reason. When employers start to struggle to find workers broadly across the economy, that means the economy is near full employment. In fact, a new threat to the economy may in fact be "not enough workers to sustain economic growth at higher levels".
When employers start to struggle to find workers broadly across the economy, that means the economy is near full employment. In fact, a new threat to the economy may in fact be "not enough workers to sustain economic growth at higher levels".
Please tell me you posted that to be funny.Nope, according to Tramp there are nearly 95 million now.The people you've been "on about" are called "discouraged workers." There were approximately 540K of them in May 2016. There are now about 355K of them.
"We have 93 million people out of work. They look for jobs, they give up, and all of a sudden, statistically, they're considered employed."
- Donald J Trump Aug. 28, 2015, On Point With Sarah Palin
it still won't last forever, and it is dirtier and will be more expensive than fusion (an energy with a future).Only a tiny fraction of the worlds fossil fuel's have been found, and only a tiny fraction of those have been used… Factlol. only the right wing would claim, fossil fuels are, "self sustaining".Bingo!with fossil fuels? lol.Up here we prefer to be self-sustaining for power needs… lolthe opportunity cost is a Manhattan Project for fusion (an energy with a future).
I would call this self sustaining energy… LOL
Shale oil has hardly even been touched…
Not according to our PresidentNope, during Obama we were told they all dropped out of the workforce because they were discouraged.
"We have 93 million people out of work. They look for jobs, they give up, and all of a sudden, statistically, they're considered employed."
- Donald J Trump Aug. 28, 2015, On Point With Sarah Palin
geez, grow up. the 93 million number does not include retired, children, sick, and lazy.
the real numbers, used by both obozo and Trump have the current rate at about 4.5%. You were happy with that calculation under Obama, but now it isn't correct? I get it, you are a disingenuous partisan hack.
The 4.5 percent number is a hoax perpetrated by the department of labor
Even Trump will tell you that
The REAL unemployment rate is 53 percent
unemployed people are people who are looking for work but cannot find any. retired people are not unemployed, neither are children, the sick, or the perpetually lazy.
You are making a fool of yourself on this thread, but you are very good at that.
He has taught us not to trust the BLS statistics because they are doctored. Trump has indicated that he prefers we use the raw employment numbers to evaluate the economy
In this case, Trumps numbers are 170 million unemployed or 53%
A disgrace, a national disgrace......believe me
the national disgrace was 8 years of incompetence and lying under Obama.
As an addendum to my comments above...Numbers are real if it's Trump, not if it's Obama's.
We are still under Obama's economy. It's still his budget for the fiscal year. Jobs have been added under Obama's policies, and Trump is taking credit for it.
Trickle down does not create jobs. Period.
That is so, and people who pay attention to details and rightly consider them when forming their opinions take that into consideration when remarking on the performance of the Trump Administration's actions and policies. Perfunctory and/or purely partisan "pundits," observers and "arm chair" analysts merely go by what they observe in relation to the calendar, unless of course, the results are unfavorable, in which case they attribute the observed performance to "the other guy."
Case in point. When did the "Great Recession" begin to ebb? Summer of 2009, with some peeks in its effects, most notably for this discussion, unemployment, reversing in 2010.
It's worth noting that the labor force participation rate, as it has for mearly the last decade, will decrease over lustrum to decade so no matter who's POTUS. It will do so until Millennials, who actually outnumber Baby Boomers, fully ensconced in the workplace/-force, thereby replacing retiring/dying Baby Boomers. (That is to say having a job that corresponds to whatever is their career, not merely being employed at "some job." It won't be until 2028 that enough Baby Boomers will have retired and/or died so that Gen X-ers outnumber them.)
The number of Boomers has peaked in 2015?.......10 million more will "die off" during the next 10 years. Interesting. 1 million per year or 2739/day? Looks like a boon for dead body handlers.
With Trumps' Job Boom will there become a shortage of workers? Will the younger Boomers find a way back into the Labor Force? note: Many boomers would continue to work but employers discriminate due to health care costs IMVHO.
If Trump runs off 10million working age Illegals........whatever will he do? Bring in Euros? Euros do not want to landscape or clean Motel 6 rooms..........ahhhh I am getting ahead of myself. tsk tsk.Do you mean peaked as in "the largest quantity of Boomers to be alive at a given point in time?" Or do you mean "the the time when Boomers represented the largest quantity of people in the workforce/-place?"The number of Boomers has peaked in 2015?
The answer to the first question is that Boomers' numbers peaked in 1964, the last year of the Baby Boom and the time when the Baby Boomer generation had suffered the least impact from deaths and infirmity that it possibly could and ever will.
The answer to the second question, I think with regard to the context I've given -- people working at their "career job" rather just at "a job" - is that Boomers still are the largest group in the workforce/-place, but with our aging and dying, we won't, as a generation group, for much longer hold that status. I'm soon to be 60 and I'll retire at some point between 60 and 62, assuming I don't first die.
With Trumps' Job Boom will there become a shortage of workers?
Strictly/macroeconomically speaking a worker "shortage" is what happens when an economy is at or below what's called "structural unemployment," (see also: Unemployment types and Making Sense of Unemployment Data - Page One Economics - St. Louis Fed) which, at the national level, economists put variously between 4% and 6%. Structural unemployment that exists due to a host of short-term factors, but the short of it, simply put, is that it's the rate of unemployment that is unavoidable. Accordingly, the U.S. economy has, in essence, had a worker shortage, i.e., been at structural unemployment levels, for quite some time.
What the structural unemployment rate should be at any given period of time can vary depending on where certain numerically significant industries are in their life cycle with regard to the economy in question. (The industry life cycle is not the same thing as the business cycle. Coal, for example, is reaching the end of its industry life cycle, whereas bioengineering is likely still in its nascence.) It's normal and perfectly fine that industries appear, grow, exist in a mature phase, decline and eventually disappear so long as something -- one or several other industries -- come about to replace the ones that cease to exist. As workers and creators of future workers, it's our "job" to notice what be the emergent industries and guide our children to develop the skills needed by employers in those industries, or, with regard to ourselves, ensure we possess or obtain while we still have "good jobs/careers" the requisite skills that will, at worst, remain in demand by industries that are currently in a mature state. Having the skills needed to work in a declining industry is only useful if one already has a job in that industry and one can be sure their job won't disappear before they no longer want/need to work in that industry.
Correction: that should have said "long term" or "unalterably enduring," or something other than "short term." "Short term" accidentally got left behind when I "slice and dice" deleted segments of the longer discussion I initially (and partially) composed to post. I chose to link-to the substantive content that I was going to write rather than write and here post my own didactic prose discussing it.short-term
But they're available now and we have not even touched the potential, and they are only going to get cleaner. Reliable affordable Renewable energy which I have no problem with is still decades away...it still won't last forever, and it is dirtier and will be more expensive than fusion (an energy with a future).Only a tiny fraction of the worlds fossil fuel's have been found, and only a tiny fraction of those have been used… Factlol. only the right wing would claim, fossil fuels are, "self sustaining".Bingo!with fossil fuels? lol.Up here we prefer to be self-sustaining for power needs… lol
I would call this self sustaining energy… LOL
Shale oil has hardly even been touched…
it will still be getting more expensive to reclaim. And, we are making progress with energy efficiency. We simply need better energy infrastructure with improved capacitance.But they're available now and we have not even touched the potential, and they are only going to get cleaner. Reliable affordable Renewable energy which I have no problem with is still decades away...it still won't last forever, and it is dirtier and will be more expensive than fusion (an energy with a future).Only a tiny fraction of the worlds fossil fuel's have been found, and only a tiny fraction of those have been used… Factlol. only the right wing would claim, fossil fuels are, "self sustaining".Bingo!with fossil fuels? lol.
I would call this self sustaining energy… LOL
Shale oil has hardly even been touched…
Slant drilling for oil has made resources that were thought to be unattainable, attainable recently. And new technology to deal with Shale oil is a lot cheaper than ever thought to be.it will still be getting more expensive to reclaim. And, we are making progress with energy efficiency. We simply need better energy infrastructure with improved capacitance.But they're available now and we have not even touched the potential, and they are only going to get cleaner. Reliable affordable Renewable energy which I have no problem with is still decades away...it still won't last forever, and it is dirtier and will be more expensive than fusion (an energy with a future).Only a tiny fraction of the worlds fossil fuel's have been found, and only a tiny fraction of those have been used… Factlol. only the right wing would claim, fossil fuels are, "self sustaining".Bingo!
I would call this self sustaining energy… LOL
Shale oil has hardly even been touched…
