Nothing generates unemployment like liberal policy

[P@triot]

Absurdly high? Compared to when? Does MW today buy as much as in the past?

We're clearly dealing with a real Mensa candidate here (insert face palm). Do you know why the value of a dollar continues to decrease? Because the idiots, like you, who keep insisting a hike in minimum wage. Every time you increase labor costs on a business, they have to make that up. Which means the prices for goods and services increases. Which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead after the increase than they were before the increase.

This is basic economics genius.

It's not basic economics at all. We have 80 years of data to compare your theory to and it fails. Your claims are ridiculous.

Yeah - and the 80 years of data proves exactly what I said genius.

Post it up professor.

I've done it a thousand times already chief. You're inability to either accept basic economics or understand basic economics doesn't change reality.

Liberals believe that everything happens in a vacuum. When you raise the price of minimum wage, that's all that happens and utopia is created. Unfortunately, people who live in reality understand that every action creates a shockwave of actions that reverberates throughout. When labor costs go up, the person who pays those costs must cover those costs. There are a few ways to do that. One is to eliminate the labor (which is why left-wing policy always ends with higher unemployment). Another way is to eliminate hours so that although the per hour rate is higher, the actual salary paid out remains the same (which is why left-wing policy always ends with lower hours). And finally, the business can raise the prices of their products and services (leaving the minimum wage employee no further ahead than they were before the increase to minimum wage).

 

[pinqy]

Hey That is NOT the LPR.
Bwahahahahaha!Bwahahahahaha!Bwahahahahaha!Bwahahahahaha!Bwahahahahaha!

That idiot isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, if ya know what I mean.

Not many posters here prove themselves wrong; but he actually did post a chart from the BLS showing the not in labor force increased by 12 million since Obama's been president in the very same post he claimed that number was 96 million.

But he was close... only off by 700% ... or 84 million.

Now....he said 96 million had left...but you're showing 12 million NET change.

Let's look at the gross change: (from Labor Force Flows) From January 2009 to Mar 2016, 555,397,000 people left the Labor Force. So that's a lot more than 96 million. But then, 560,787,000 people entered the Labor Force, for a net change of +12,620,000

I didn't say anything. The Bureau of Labor Statistics said it. The organization run by the government which is run by Barack Obama.

View attachment 72520

No, they are NOT saying that many LEFT the Labor Force. The graph you are showing is the number of people "Not in the Labor Force."

"Not in the Labor Force" does NOT mean "Left the Labor Force."

Yes...it does. Those are the number of people who, at some point, were gainfully employed and now gave up trying to return to that state as their experiences of being unable to find employment have left them hopeless (as left-wing failed policy always does to society).

No, it is not. Nothing at BLS will support you on that claim. Those people do fall into the category of "not in the labor force," but so do 16 year old high school students who don't need a job, and retirees, and disabled, and housewives, and potheads living in Mom's basement etc.

From BLS:
[URL='http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm#N']Not in the labor force (Current Population Survey)[/url]

Includes persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian noninstitutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.

So where are you getting the idea that it is only those who were actively looking for work?

 

[Faun]

Hey That is NOT the LPR.
Bwahahahahaha!Bwahahahahaha!Bwahahahahaha!Bwahahahahaha!Bwahahahahaha!

That idiot isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, if ya know what I mean.

Not many posters here prove themselves wrong; but he actually did post a chart from the BLS showing the not in labor force increased by 12 million since Obama's been president in the very same post he claimed that number was 96 million.

But he was close... only off by 700% ... or 84 million.

Now....he said 96 million had left...but you're showing 12 million NET change.

Let's look at the gross change: (from Labor Force Flows) From January 2009 to Mar 2016, 555,397,000 people left the Labor Force. So that's a lot more than 96 million. But then, 560,787,000 people entered the Labor Force, for a net change of +12,620,000

I didn't say anything. The Bureau of Labor Statistics said it. The organization run by the government which is run by Barack Obama.

View attachment 72520

No, they are NOT saying that many LEFT the Labor Force. The graph you are showing is the number of people "Not in the Labor Force."

"Not in the Labor Force" does NOT mean "Left the Labor Force."

Yes...it does. Those are the number of people who, at some point, were gainfully employed and now gave up trying to return to that state as their experiences of being unable to find employment have left them hopeless (as left-wing failed policy always does to society).

That is NOT the number of people who were employees but lost their job and gave up looking. That is the number of people who are not in the labor force; many of whom were never in the labor force to begin with. So who on Earth knows what you're talking about when you say they lost their job? I doubt even you do.

You're such a fucking rightard.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Absurdly high? Compared to when? Does MW today buy as much as in the past?

We're clearly dealing with a real Mensa candidate here (insert face palm). Do you know why the value of a dollar continues to decrease? Because the idiots, like you, who keep insisting a hike in minimum wage. Every time you increase labor costs on a business, they have to make that up. Which means the prices for goods and services increases. Which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead after the increase than they were before the increase.

This is basic economics genius.

It's not basic economics at all. We have 80 years of data to compare your theory to and it fails. Your claims are ridiculous.

Yeah - and the 80 years of data proves exactly what I said genius.

Post it up professor.

I've done it a thousand times already chief. You're inability to either accept basic economics or understand basic economics doesn't change reality.

Liberals believe that everything happens in a vacuum. When you raise the price of minimum wage, that's all that happens and utopia is created. Unfortunately, people who live in reality understand that every action creates a shockwave of actions that reverberates throughout. When labor costs go up, the person who pays those costs must cover those costs. There are a few ways to do that. One is to eliminate the labor (which is why left-wing policy always ends with higher unemployment). Another way is to eliminate hours so that although the per hour rate is higher, the actual salary paid out remains the same (which is why left-wing policy always ends with lower hours). And finally, the business can raise the prices of their products and services (leaving the minimum wage employee no further ahead than they were before the increase to minimum wage).

So you've got nothing just as I thought. It's basic economics you say but you can't show it. It's OK. I already know your proof doesn't exist.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That idiot isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, if ya know what I mean.

Not many posters here prove themselves wrong; but he actually did post a chart from the BLS showing the not in labor force increased by 12 million since Obama's been president in the very same post he claimed that number was 96 million.

But he was close... only off by 700% ... or 84 million.

Now....he said 96 million had left...but you're showing 12 million NET change.

Let's look at the gross change: (from Labor Force Flows) From January 2009 to Mar 2016, 555,397,000 people left the Labor Force. So that's a lot more than 96 million. But then, 560,787,000 people entered the Labor Force, for a net change of +12,620,000

I didn't say anything. The Bureau of Labor Statistics said it. The organization run by the government which is run by Barack Obama.

View attachment 72520

No, they are NOT saying that many LEFT the Labor Force. The graph you are showing is the number of people "Not in the Labor Force."

"Not in the Labor Force" does NOT mean "Left the Labor Force."

Yes...it does. Those are the number of people who, at some point, were gainfully employed and now gave up trying to return to that state as their experiences of being unable to find employment have left them hopeless (as left-wing failed policy always does to society).

No, it is not. Nothing at BLS will support you on that claim. Those people do fall into the category of "not in the labor force," but so do 16 year old high school students who don't need a job, and retirees, and disabled, and housewives, and potheads living in Mom's basement etc.

From BLS:
Not in the labor force (Current Population Survey)

Includes persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian noninstitutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.

So where are you getting the idea that it is only those who were actively looking for work?

He's a graduate of conservative media university with a degree in rube-onomics.

 

[AceRothstein]

Rottweiler is the male version of Stephanie, as dumb as a box of Republicans.

 

[P@triot]

We're clearly dealing with a real Mensa candidate here (insert face palm). Do you know why the value of a dollar continues to decrease? Because the idiots, like you, who keep insisting a hike in minimum wage. Every time you increase labor costs on a business, they have to make that up. Which means the prices for goods and services increases. Which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead after the increase than they were before the increase.

This is basic economics genius.

It's not basic economics at all. We have 80 years of data to compare your theory to and it fails. Your claims are ridiculous.

Yeah - and the 80 years of data proves exactly what I said genius.

Post it up professor.

I've done it a thousand times already chief. You're inability to either accept basic economics or understand basic economics doesn't change reality.

Liberals believe that everything happens in a vacuum. When you raise the price of minimum wage, that's all that happens and utopia is created. Unfortunately, people who live in reality understand that every action creates a shockwave of actions that reverberates throughout. When labor costs go up, the person who pays those costs must cover those costs. There are a few ways to do that. One is to eliminate the labor (which is why left-wing policy always ends with higher unemployment). Another way is to eliminate hours so that although the per hour rate is higher, the actual salary paid out remains the same (which is why left-wing policy always ends with lower hours). And finally, the business can raise the prices of their products and services (leaving the minimum wage employee no further ahead than they were before the increase to minimum wage).

So you've got nothing just as I thought. It's basic economics you say but you can't show it. It's OK. I already know your proof doesn't exist.

Again, you're inability to understand basic economics or accept reality is your issue to deal with. I've destroyed you with facts. You can't deal with it. Oh well...

 

[P@triot]

Now....he said 96 million had left...but you're showing 12 million NET change.

Let's look at the gross change: (from Labor Force Flows) From January 2009 to Mar 2016, 555,397,000 people left the Labor Force. So that's a lot more than 96 million. But then, 560,787,000 people entered the Labor Force, for a net change of +12,620,000

I didn't say anything. The Bureau of Labor Statistics said it. The organization run by the government which is run by Barack Obama.

View attachment 72520

No, they are NOT saying that many LEFT the Labor Force. The graph you are showing is the number of people "Not in the Labor Force."

"Not in the Labor Force" does NOT mean "Left the Labor Force."

Yes...it does. Those are the number of people who, at some point, were gainfully employed and now gave up trying to return to that state as their experiences of being unable to find employment have left them hopeless (as left-wing failed policy always does to society).

No, it is not. Nothing at BLS will support you on that claim. Those people do fall into the category of "not in the labor force," but so do 16 year old high school students who don't need a job, and retirees, and disabled, and housewives, and potheads living in Mom's basement etc.

From BLS:
Not in the labor force (Current Population Survey)

Includes persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian noninstitutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.

So where are you getting the idea that it is only those who were actively looking for work?

He's a graduate of conservative media university with a degree in rube-onomics.

Having never run a company and been completely unemployable your entire life due to your very limited education and your horrible work ethic, I wouldn't expect you to understand basic economics or how business works.

But....everyone else here is laughing at you as even the dumbest of idiots realizes that labor costs results in layoffs, less hours, and increase cost to products and services.

The fact that you don't realize that much (or can't bring yourself to admit the truth) speaks volumes. You've been destroyed in this debate junior.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's not basic economics at all. We have 80 years of data to compare your theory to and it fails. Your claims are ridiculous.

Yeah - and the 80 years of data proves exactly what I said genius.

Post it up professor.

I've done it a thousand times already chief. You're inability to either accept basic economics or understand basic economics doesn't change reality.

Liberals believe that everything happens in a vacuum. When you raise the price of minimum wage, that's all that happens and utopia is created. Unfortunately, people who live in reality understand that every action creates a shockwave of actions that reverberates throughout. When labor costs go up, the person who pays those costs must cover those costs. There are a few ways to do that. One is to eliminate the labor (which is why left-wing policy always ends with higher unemployment). Another way is to eliminate hours so that although the per hour rate is higher, the actual salary paid out remains the same (which is why left-wing policy always ends with lower hours). And finally, the business can raise the prices of their products and services (leaving the minimum wage employee no further ahead than they were before the increase to minimum wage).

So you've got nothing just as I thought. It's basic economics you say but you can't show it. It's OK. I already know your proof doesn't exist.

Again, you're inability to understand basic economics or accept reality is your issue to deal with. I've destroyed you with facts. You can't deal with it. Oh well...

The only thing you destroyed was any chance of credibility you had.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I didn't say anything. The Bureau of Labor Statistics said it. The organization run by the government which is run by Barack Obama.

View attachment 72520

No, they are NOT saying that many LEFT the Labor Force. The graph you are showing is the number of people "Not in the Labor Force."

"Not in the Labor Force" does NOT mean "Left the Labor Force."

Yes...it does. Those are the number of people who, at some point, were gainfully employed and now gave up trying to return to that state as their experiences of being unable to find employment have left them hopeless (as left-wing failed policy always does to society).

No, it is not. Nothing at BLS will support you on that claim. Those people do fall into the category of "not in the labor force," but so do 16 year old high school students who don't need a job, and retirees, and disabled, and housewives, and potheads living in Mom's basement etc.

From BLS:
Not in the labor force (Current Population Survey)

Includes persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian noninstitutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.

So where are you getting the idea that it is only those who were actively looking for work?

He's a graduate of conservative media university with a degree in rube-onomics.

Having never run a company and been completely unemployable your entire life due to your very limited education and your horrible work ethic, I wouldn't expect you to understand basic economics or how business works.

But....everyone else here is laughing at you as even the dumbest of idiots realizes that labor costs results in layoffs, less hours, and increase cost to products and services.

The fact that you don't realize that much (or can't bring yourself to admit the truth) speaks volumes. You've been destroyed in this debate junior.

See, that's the thing about education. You don't know what you don't know until you realize that you didn't know.
You don't know. You're a fraud. That much is apparent to anyone who is educated.

 

[Faun]

It's not basic economics at all. We have 80 years of data to compare your theory to and it fails. Your claims are ridiculous.

Yeah - and the 80 years of data proves exactly what I said genius.

Post it up professor.

I've done it a thousand times already chief. You're inability to either accept basic economics or understand basic economics doesn't change reality.

Liberals believe that everything happens in a vacuum. When you raise the price of minimum wage, that's all that happens and utopia is created. Unfortunately, people who live in reality understand that every action creates a shockwave of actions that reverberates throughout. When labor costs go up, the person who pays those costs must cover those costs. There are a few ways to do that. One is to eliminate the labor (which is why left-wing policy always ends with higher unemployment). Another way is to eliminate hours so that although the per hour rate is higher, the actual salary paid out remains the same (which is why left-wing policy always ends with lower hours). And finally, the business can raise the prices of their products and services (leaving the minimum wage employee no further ahead than they were before the increase to minimum wage).

So you've got nothing just as I thought. It's basic economics you say but you can't show it. It's OK. I already know your proof doesn't exist.

Again, you're inability to understand basic economics or accept reality is your issue to deal with. I've destroyed you with facts. You can't deal with it. Oh well...

LOLOLOLOL

In reality, you destroyed yourself with your "facts."

 

[P@triot]

Another prime example...

No, the most devastating aspect of the financial meltdown is that central planning alchemy lost no credibility. Policymakers around the world are still turning to Keynesian and socialist interventionism to address problems caused by Keynesians and socialists.

A once genuinely productive and innovative nation has, over the years, slowly succumbed to the cancerous rot of interventionism.

This explosive growth, described as a “miracle,” was no such thing. Japan’s new-found prosperity was simply what happens when markets are allowed to function. Unfortunately, the central planners in banking and government couldn’t resist the statist urge of heavy-handed interventionism. If there’s anything the political elite hate, its free people making voluntary decisions without their forceful input.

How Central Planners Crippled Japan’s Economy

 

[Faun]

Another prime example...

No, the most devastating aspect of the financial meltdown is that central planning alchemy lost no credibility. Policymakers around the world are still turning to Keynesian and socialist interventionism to address problems caused by Keynesians and socialists.

A once genuinely productive and innovative nation has, over the years, slowly succumbed to the cancerous rot of interventionism.

This explosive growth, described as a “miracle,” was no such thing. Japan’s new-found prosperity was simply what happens when markets are allowed to function. Unfortunately, the central planners in banking and government couldn’t resist the statist urge of heavy-handed interventionism. If there’s anything the political elite hate, its free people making voluntary decisions without their forceful input.

How Central Planners Crippled Japan’s Economy

Alex Jones??

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Did the public sector begin to cut part time hours due to Obamacare, making it more difficult on those individuals who would face a cut in their paycheck.

Yet another proven GOP scripted Right-wing lie!

When Obamacare passed there were 9,126,000 working PT for economic reasons, and there are 6,032,000 now, a DECLINE of over 3 million!!!!!!!

Face it, everything you know is WRONG!

Everything I know is wrong?!? LMAO

My.. my .. my .. edthecynic. Maybe you should try getting more in touch with what's actually going on in this country, before you start boating how "knowledgeable" you and the left are with regards to the economy. Either you're shown to be completely ignorant of it, or you hold onto what little bits of small glimmers of hope you have in showing how much of an improvement the economy has been under Obama. When you finally are able to put ALL the pieces together, rather than focusing just one piece of the information .... let me know


"Cities, counties, public schools and community colleges around the country have limited or reduced the work hours of part-time employees to avoid having to provide them with health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, state and local officials say.

The cuts to public sector employment, which has failed to rebound since the recession, could serve as a powerful political weapon for Republican critics of the health care law, who claim that it is creating a drain on the economy."

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/2...me-shifts-to-duck-insurance-law.html?referer=

Restaurateurs, wary of health care costs, eye workers’ hours

Dave & Buster’s (D&B) is now facing a class-action lawsuit claiming the company reduced its full-time employees’ hours as a direct result of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Landmark Obamacare suit filed: Does cutting workers’ hours violate ERISA?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The author was making mention to the fact that agriculture made up a greater segment of our nation's economy than we find it today. Having greatly depleted much of our nation's agriculture to developers as well as the insistence of democrats for the need of an inheritance or "death tax". A tax which has made it more difficult for older generations to pass down much of their hard earned acquired farm land to the next generation, in order to meet the government's insatiable need to extract even further additional revenue. Gotta love those democrats for that one.

The article makes no mention of that. Your lie aside, the article does mention that farmers are not included in the unemployment rate. That's complete nonsense and serves only to reveal how ignorant the author of that claim is.

"Williams points out that a much larger number of workers were agricultural workers in the 1930s. These farm workers are not included in today's statistics. So, by his estimates, nonfarm unemployment was at 35 percent in 1933)".

If you knew your American history you would recall that a larger segment of our nation utilized agriculture in the 1930s, a lot more than we do today.

You're an idiot. I said nothing to the contrary.

What I did say, and I'll repeat since you don't seem to understand.... is that the author of that article said nothing about the death tax, as you falsely claimed; and the economist he quoted who said farmers are not included in the unemployment rate lost all credibility since it's not true. Farmers are not counted in CES data (employment), which is non-farm payroll data. But the unemployment rate is calculated from CPS data (population) which includes everyone age 16 and over.

Faun, please pay attention. I quoted the author as saying a large segment of our economy was agricultural back in the 1930s, compared to today. He was commenting on where our nation stood economically between the 1930s and now, he even said there was more agricultural farms back in the time of the 1930s. Our nation has lost a lot of that farm land over the years since the time in our nation's history - FACT.

Why is that the case? Why is it the United States doesn't have the vast amount of farmland they once had in the 1930s exactly Faun? If you have ever lived long enough in a rural area made up of its share of farms, you already know the answer. Over the years the land has been sold and used by developers for communities as well as establishing businesses. Yes absolutely, the inheritance tax played a part in farm owners having to sell acreage in order to accommodate a government inheritance tax when they tried to pass that land they owned down to the next generation in line. Do a little research and educate yourself as to what an "inheritance tax" is and how it can have an effect on land ownership.

You remain deranged. I never denied some farmers lost their farms due to the inheritance tax. Perhaps you need to re-read my posts a few more times?

Faun, then you would not have questioned why the author was making reference in his article to there being more agriculture in the 1930s ... would you? That's why I had to explain his article three times to you because you just couldn't quite figure that piece out on your own.

 

[edthecynic]

"Cities, counties, public schools and community colleges around the country have limited or reduced the work hours of part-time employees to avoid having to provide them with health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, state and local officials say.

The Right just can't stop themselves from lying. No matter how many times this lie is debunked with the actual data, the worthless lying scum Right will just keep repeating lt.

When the ACA was passed there were 9,126,000 working PT who wanted FT work. There are 6,032,000 now, a DECLINE of over 3 million since Obamacare was signed into law. But the Right will continue to tout their gossip from UNNAMED "officials."

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

"Cities, counties, public schools and community colleges around the country have limited or reduced the work hours of part-time employees to avoid having to provide them with health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, state and local officials say.

The Right just can't stop themselves from lying. No matter how many times this lie is debunked with the actual data, the worthless lying scum Right will just keep repeating lt.

When the ACA was passed there were 9,126,000 working PT who wanted FT work. There are 6,032,000 now, a DECLINE of over 3 million since Obamacare was signed into law. But the Right will continue to tout their gossip from UNNAMED "officials."

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Notice how the left always has to continue going on with these BROAD one source posts that are devoid of any specific pieces of information, while steering clear of those very specifics of how real world workers are having to cope. A source, by the way, you said are found to be "a completely worthless economic indicator" the same as the CNN poll, and now you're putting all your chips on this very source? Seriously?

Let me ask you.... have you EVER in your life done any research papers in school? Ever by chance .. Investigated and utilized several pieces of information to attain more of an accurate picture that leads to strong reliable solid conclusion, rather than just always going by just ONE piece of information? Are you simply too lazy, do you not understand what actual "research" is comprised of?

I utilized very specific areas (departments) where workers are having to face cuts into their part time hours - the public sector facing cut backs in schools, college campuses, community colleges ... as well as how the private sector is dealing with ACA through restaurants, the article of pending litigation against Dave and Busters.

Do you even care about these people, or is a quick click of a copy and paste from a single broad data source all you have time for? Do you honestly know what's going on in this economy and WHO specifically is being effected by it? College students, high school graduates, waitresses, ... or are they just numbers to you ( in the broad sense of the term produced ) covered under one convenient data site?

Seriously, if you are going to call right wingers "liars" at lest show you have enough intelligence to produce a well researched though out argument. You are great at knowing where to find some of these general statistical pieces of information, but don't know shit about how it's impacting various classes of people (whether young or old, hard working single moms or government employees, unskilled workers or entrepreneurs).

Take the time to conduct some real research beyond just one set of numbers and let me know what you find. Chances are you'll be too lazy to live up to that challenge.

 

[Norman]

"Cities, counties, public schools and community colleges around the country have limited or reduced the work hours of part-time employees to avoid having to provide them with health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, state and local officials say.

The Right just can't stop themselves from lying. No matter how many times this lie is debunked with the actual data, the worthless lying scum Right will just keep repeating lt.

When the ACA was passed there were 9,126,000 working PT who wanted FT work. There are 6,032,000 now, a DECLINE of over 3 million since Obamacare was signed into law. But the Right will continue to tout their gossip from UNNAMED "officials."

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Notice how the left always has to continue going on with these BROAD one source posts that are devoid of any specific pieces of information, while steering clear of those very specifics of how real world workers are having to cope. A source, by the way, you said are found to be "a completely worthless economic indicator" the same as the CNN poll, and now you're putting all your chips on this very source? Seriously?

Let me ask you.... have you EVER in your life done any research papers in school? Ever by chance .. Investigated and utilized several pieces of information to attain more of an accurate picture that leads to strong reliable solid conclusion, rather than just always going by just ONE piece of information? Are you simply too lazy, do you not understand what actual "research" is comprised of?

I utilized very specific areas (departments) where workers are having to face cuts into their part time hours - the public sector facing cut backs in schools, college campuses, community colleges ... as well as how the private sector is dealing with ACA through restaurants, the article of pending litigation against Dave and Busters.

Do you even care about these people, or is a quick click of a copy and paste from a single broad data source all you have time for? Do you honestly know what's going on in this economy and WHO specifically is being effected by it? College students, high school graduates, waitresses, ... or are they just numbers to you ( in the broad sense of the term produced ) covered under one convenient data site?

Seriously, if you are going to call right wingers "liars" at lest show you have enough intelligence to produce a well researched though out argument. You are great at knowing where to find some of these general statistical pieces of information, but don't know shit about how it's impacting various classes of people (whether young or old, hard working single moms or government employees, unskilled workers or entrepreneurs).

Take the time to conduct some real research beyond just one set of numbers and let me know what you find. Chances are you'll be too lazy to live up to that challenge.

You are assuming that this person is interested in truth, which I can guarantee you he is not. He is primarily interested in access to your pocket book.

No one can possibly claim that making it illegal for poor people to work (min wage), or paying people not to work (myriad of liberal programs) improves the job situation. Not surprisingly, this is painfully evident by comparing countries with different policies. Free markets produce wealth and employment... liberal regressives mainly produce theft and scarcity. Just kidding, those items can't be considered production at all by anyone sensible.

 

[Norman]

Unemployment rate of Singapore, the free market capital of the world: 1.9%.

Unemployment rate of Greece, the ultimate liberal regressive paradise: 25.6%. (EU average: 9.6%, Switzerland, the free market country of EU: 3.6%).

Questions?

 

[edthecynic]

"Cities, counties, public schools and community colleges around the country have limited or reduced the work hours of part-time employees to avoid having to provide them with health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, state and local officials say.

The Right just can't stop themselves from lying. No matter how many times this lie is debunked with the actual data, the worthless lying scum Right will just keep repeating lt.

When the ACA was passed there were 9,126,000 working PT who wanted FT work. There are 6,032,000 now, a DECLINE of over 3 million since Obamacare was signed into law. But the Right will continue to tout their gossip from UNNAMED "officials."

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Notice how the left always has to continue going on with these BROAD one source posts that are devoid of any specific pieces of information, while steering clear of those very specifics of how real world workers are having to cope. A source, by the way, you said are found to be "a completely worthless economic indicator" the same as the CNN poll, and now you're putting all your chips on this very source? Seriously?

Again we see what worthless lying scum the Right is.
I said the LABOR PARTICIPATION RATE was a worthless economic indicator because it is not corrected for demographics which undeniable affect it. Only completely worthless lying scum would pervert that into an attack on the BLS. Be proud of yourself.

The fact remains you are rejecting the national numbers on the unproven allegations of a very few based entirely on speculation and rumor.