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.
Spits the rightard who said retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation.yes i'm out of your league; i'm a man and you're a loser lying to himself
Yes, you did say that just before you said retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate.You need to look to know?? How dumb are you? Oh well, here ya go...You fucking rightard. You said they're not a factor in the labor force participation rate. You really can't get any dumber.ok here is the Bureau of Labor Statistics own website; show me where retirees are counted genius. then; if you're a man. come back and apologize ok?
www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
may i direct your attention about halfway down the page leftard? to the paragraph titled "Who is Not Counted In The Labor Force"???
3rd sentence
you wont look huh?
Labor Force Participation Rate
labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.
BLS Glossary
... now then. .. do you think retired folks are, or are not, counted in the civilian noninstitutional population?
If you answer no, you are an imbecile. If you answer yes, you are calling yourself an imbecile for claiming earlier that retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate.
So which is it?
YAWN; i said and is still say retirees arent counted in the labor force; because they arent
i said and i stil say retiring workers arent responsible for the 40-year low in LFPR; because they arent
you're going to have to do better than that
And that would have been due to the real estate bubble which fueled the economy before it burst. That says a lot about Republicans too.That's hardly a simple question since there are many factors and even opinions which contribute to such an answer.LOLThe not in labor force category grew by 13 million under Obama. There have been over 7 million baby boomers retire over that same period.they arent the reason the labor market participation rate is down
because unlike you; i'm a man and not a coward; i'll tell you that they are less than 1/4 of the reason for the 40-year low in labor market participation
Suffice it to say, the word of an imbecile who actually thinks retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate is the last person whose word I would accept.
You say you're a man ... are ya man enough yet to admit you're a fucking retard? Whether you comprehend this or not -- retired folks are absolutely a factor in the labor force participation rate.
simple question there sparky,is the economy clicking away in a good fashion or are we still slogging along,with many ups and downs.
Its a simple question even for you.
I leave the answer to the Conference Board's consumer confidence index which is above 100 and the highest it's been since 2007, before the Great Recession.
which means you proved things have not been this good since republicans ran things; including all of the last 6 years
wow genius; you said a mouthful!!
lol
Yes, you did say that just before you said retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate.You need to look to know?? How dumb are you? Oh well, here ya go...You fucking rightard. You said they're not a factor in the labor force participation rate. You really can't get any dumber.may i direct your attention about halfway down the page leftard? to the paragraph titled "Who is Not Counted In The Labor Force"???
3rd sentence
you wont look huh?
Labor Force Participation Rate
labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.
BLS Glossary
... now then. .. do you think retired folks are, or are not, counted in the civilian noninstitutional population?
If you answer no, you are an imbecile. If you answer yes, you are calling yourself an imbecile for claiming earlier that retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate.
So which is it?
YAWN; i said and is still say retirees arent counted in the labor force; because they arent
i said and i stil say retiring workers arent responsible for the 40-year low in LFPR; because they arent
you're going to have to do better than that
So answer the question I actually asked...
... do you think retired folks are, or are not, counted in the civilian noninstitutional population?
If you answer no, you are an imbecile. If you answer yes, you are calling yourself an imbecile for claiming earlier that retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate.
Again, you're even dumber than I claim you are if you think numbers thrown out by the forum retard who actually claimed retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate, have any value at all.Yet more lies. Sad how you are reduced to lying after you're shown to be a complete fucking retard. At any rate, I never said baby boomers are "the reason" that rate is as low as it is. I said it's a big factor of it. I also pointed out that over the course of Obama's presidency, 13 million have been added to the not in labor force category and 7 million are baby boomers who retired and are now in that category.The not in labor force category grew by 13 million under Obama. There have been over 7 million baby boomers retire over that same period.they arent the reason the labor market participation rate is down
because unlike you; i'm a man and not a coward; i'll tell you that they are less than 1/4 of the reason for the 40-year low in labor market participation
Suffice it to say, the word of an imbecile who actually thinks retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate is the last person whose word I would accept.
You say you're a man ... are ya man enough yet to admit you're a fucking retard? Whether you comprehend this or not -- retired folks are absolutely a factor in the labor force participation rate.
yes you arent a man leftard; because you cant admit retiring boomers arent the reason for a 40-year low in the LFPR
YAWN; demographic changes account for less than half of the change in labor market participation.
you are going to have to do better
try again
Again, you're even dumber than I claim you are if you think numbers thrown out by the forum retard who actually claimed retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate, have any value at all.Yet more lies. Sad how you are reduced to lying after you're shown to be a complete fucking retard. At any rate, I never said baby boomers are "the reason" that rate is as low as it is. I said it's a big factor of it. I also pointed out that over the course of Obama's presidency, 13 million have been added to the not in labor force category and 7 million are baby boomers who retired and are now in that category.The not in labor force category grew by 13 million under Obama. There have been over 7 million baby boomers retire over that same period.they arent the reason the labor market participation rate is down
because unlike you; i'm a man and not a coward; i'll tell you that they are less than 1/4 of the reason for the 40-year low in labor market participation
Suffice it to say, the word of an imbecile who actually thinks retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate is the last person whose word I would accept.
You say you're a man ... are ya man enough yet to admit you're a fucking retard? Whether you comprehend this or not -- retired folks are absolutely a factor in the labor force participation rate.
yes you arent a man leftard; because you cant admit retiring boomers arent the reason for a 40-year low in the LFPR
YAWN; demographic changes account for less than half of the change in labor market participation.
you are going to have to do better
try again
Again, you're even dumber than I claim you are if you think numbers thrown out by the forum retard who actually claimed retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate, have any value at all.Yet more lies. Sad how you are reduced to lying after you're shown to be a complete fucking retard. At any rate, I never said baby boomers are "the reason" that rate is as low as it is. I said it's a big factor of it. I also pointed out that over the course of Obama's presidency, 13 million have been added to the not in labor force category and 7 million are baby boomers who retired and are now in that category.The not in labor force category grew by 13 million under Obama. There have been over 7 million baby boomers retire over that same period.they arent the reason the labor market participation rate is down
because unlike you; i'm a man and not a coward; i'll tell you that they are less than 1/4 of the reason for the 40-year low in labor market participation
Suffice it to say, the word of an imbecile who actually thinks retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate is the last person whose word I would accept.
You say you're a man ... are ya man enough yet to admit you're a fucking retard? Whether you comprehend this or not -- retired folks are absolutely a factor in the labor force participation rate.
yes you arent a man leftard; because you cant admit retiring boomers arent the reason for a 40-year low in the LFPR
YAWN; demographic changes account for less than half of the change in labor market participation.
you are going to have to do better
try again
And that would have been due to the real estate bubble which fueled the economy before it burst. That says a lot about Republicans too.That's hardly a simple question since there are many factors and even opinions which contribute to such an answer.LOLThe not in labor force category grew by 13 million under Obama. There have been over 7 million baby boomers retire over that same period.they arent the reason the labor market participation rate is down
because unlike you; i'm a man and not a coward; i'll tell you that they are less than 1/4 of the reason for the 40-year low in labor market participation
Suffice it to say, the word of an imbecile who actually thinks retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate is the last person whose word I would accept.
You say you're a man ... are ya man enough yet to admit you're a fucking retard? Whether you comprehend this or not -- retired folks are absolutely a factor in the labor force participation rate.
simple question there sparky,is the economy clicking away in a good fashion or are we still slogging along,with many ups and downs.
Its a simple question even for you.
I leave the answer to the Conference Board's consumer confidence index which is above 100 and the highest it's been since 2007, before the Great Recession.
which means you proved things have not been this good since republicans ran things; including all of the last 6 years
wow genius; you said a mouthful!!
lol
Since we agree they are counted in the civilian noninstitutional population number and since we agree the civilian noninstitutional population number IS a factor in the labor force participation rate -- do you understand now how fucking retarded you sounded when you idiotically claimed retired folks are NOT a factor in the labor force participation rate?Yes, you did say that just before you said retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate.You need to look to know?? How dumb are you? Oh well, here ya go...You fucking rightard. You said they're not a factor in the labor force participation rate. You really can't get any dumber.
you wont look huh?
Labor Force Participation Rate
labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.
BLS Glossary
... now then. .. do you think retired folks are, or are not, counted in the civilian noninstitutional population?
If you answer no, you are an imbecile. If you answer yes, you are calling yourself an imbecile for claiming earlier that retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate.
So which is it?
YAWN; i said and is still say retirees arent counted in the labor force; because they arent
i said and i stil say retiring workers arent responsible for the 40-year low in LFPR; because they arent
you're going to have to do better than that
So answer the question I actually asked...
... do you think retired folks are, or are not, counted in the civilian noninstitutional population?
If you answer no, you are an imbecile. If you answer yes, you are calling yourself an imbecile for claiming earlier that retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate.
YAWN
again; what a boring loser; they are counted in the "civilian noninstitutional population"
they arent conted in the Labor Force
um no leftard; it wont sink in until you admit retirees arent counted in the labor force; hence not a signifigant reason for the low LFPRSince we agree they are counted in the civilian noninstitutional population number and since we agree the civilian noninstitutional population number IS a factor in the labor force participation rate -- do you understand now how fucking retarded you sounded when you idiotically claimed retired folks are NOT a factor in the labor force participation rate?Yes, you did say that just before you said retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate.You need to look to know?? How dumb are you? Oh well, here ya go...you wont look huh?
Labor Force Participation Rate
labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.
BLS Glossary
... now then. .. do you think retired folks are, or are not, counted in the civilian noninstitutional population?
If you answer no, you are an imbecile. If you answer yes, you are calling yourself an imbecile for claiming earlier that retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate.
So which is it?
YAWN; i said and is still say retirees arent counted in the labor force; because they arent
i said and i stil say retiring workers arent responsible for the 40-year low in LFPR; because they arent
you're going to have to do better than that
So answer the question I actually asked...
... do you think retired folks are, or are not, counted in the civilian noninstitutional population?
If you answer no, you are an imbecile. If you answer yes, you are calling yourself an imbecile for claiming earlier that retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate.
YAWN
again; what a boring loser; they are counted in the "civilian noninstitutional population"
they arent conted in the Labor Force
Is any of this sinking in yet, dumbfuck?
That thanks to their policies, home ownership was at an all time high. Of course, that was before that bubble burst.And that would have been due to the real estate bubble which fueled the economy before it burst. That says a lot about Republicans too.That's hardly a simple question since there are many factors and even opinions which contribute to such an answer.LOLThe not in labor force category grew by 13 million under Obama. There have been over 7 million baby boomers retire over that same period.
Suffice it to say, the word of an imbecile who actually thinks retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate is the last person whose word I would accept.
You say you're a man ... are ya man enough yet to admit you're a fucking retard? Whether you comprehend this or not -- retired folks are absolutely a factor in the labor force participation rate.
simple question there sparky,is the economy clicking away in a good fashion or are we still slogging along,with many ups and downs.
Its a simple question even for you.
I leave the answer to the Conference Board's consumer confidence index which is above 100 and the highest it's been since 2007, before the Great Recession.
which means you proved things have not been this good since republicans ran things; including all of the last 6 years
wow genius; you said a mouthful!!
lol
what does it say about Republicans leftard? (this ought to be good)
Of course they are not. But they do factor in to the labor force participation rate, which you moronically said they didn't.Again, you're even dumber than I claim you are if you think numbers thrown out by the forum retard who actually claimed retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate, have any value at all.Yet more lies. Sad how you are reduced to lying after you're shown to be a complete fucking retard. At any rate, I never said baby boomers are "the reason" that rate is as low as it is. I said it's a big factor of it. I also pointed out that over the course of Obama's presidency, 13 million have been added to the not in labor force category and 7 million are baby boomers who retired and are now in that category.The not in labor force category grew by 13 million under Obama. There have been over 7 million baby boomers retire over that same period.
Suffice it to say, the word of an imbecile who actually thinks retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate is the last person whose word I would accept.
You say you're a man ... are ya man enough yet to admit you're a fucking retard? Whether you comprehend this or not -- retired folks are absolutely a factor in the labor force participation rate.
yes you arent a man leftard; because you cant admit retiring boomers arent the reason for a 40-year low in the LFPR
YAWN; demographic changes account for less than half of the change in labor market participation.
you are going to have to do better
try again
YAWN; retirees arent counted in the labor force
yes or no?
Of course they are not. But they do factor in to the labor force participation rate, which you moronically said they didn't.Again, you're even dumber than I claim you are if you think numbers thrown out by the forum retard who actually claimed retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate, have any value at all.Yet more lies. Sad how you are reduced to lying after you're shown to be a complete fucking retard. At any rate, I never said baby boomers are "the reason" that rate is as low as it is. I said it's a big factor of it. I also pointed out that over the course of Obama's presidency, 13 million have been added to the not in labor force category and 7 million are baby boomers who retired and are now in that category.yes you arent a man leftard; because you cant admit retiring boomers arent the reason for a 40-year low in the LFPR
YAWN; demographic changes account for less than half of the change in labor market participation.
you are going to have to do better
try again
YAWN; retirees arent counted in the labor force
yes or no?
According to the St. Louis Fed, it's the number one reason for the decline...again; prove retirees are a factor in the LFPR being at a 40 year low; just spouting a number of people that retired is meaningless leftard; or kindly STFU ok?
Umm... moron ... you said they were no factor. And you said that not of the drop in the rare ... you said that of the rate itself.Of course they are not. But they do factor in to the labor force participation rate, which you moronically said they didn't.Again, you're even dumber than I claim you are if you think numbers thrown out by the forum retard who actually claimed retired folks are not a factor in the labor force participation rate, have any value at all.Yet more lies. Sad how you are reduced to lying after you're shown to be a complete fucking retard. At any rate, I never said baby boomers are "the reason" that rate is as low as it is. I said it's a big factor of it. I also pointed out that over the course of Obama's presidency, 13 million have been added to the not in labor force category and 7 million are baby boomers who retired and are now in that category.
YAWN; demographic changes account for less than half of the change in labor market participation.
you are going to have to do better
try again
YAWN; retirees arent counted in the labor force
yes or no?
YAWN; hence they are not a big factor
thanks
