Record 93,626,000 Americans not in labor force

[boedicca]

I'm saying that the economy is not creating enough jobs for the youngest cohort to get even a part time job.

And I am saying that you're conclusions are based on assumptions that are no longer applicable behavior patterns, while ignoring modern day trends and demand, all leading to pointing fingers in all the wrong places.

That fewer 16-24 year olds are participating in the work force is not a cause for concern. To the contrary, it is indicative of good developments in how our economy is learning to operate. Fewer people are dropping out of high school and entering the work force. More people are going to college, and delaying permanent entry into the work force. More students are committing more time to their academic success. These are good things.

The things to be concerned about are that school is more expensive than ever before, employer needless demand for "any degree" no matter how irrelevant is as high as ever, technical training remains extremely undervalued in the marketplace, wage stagnation and income inequality are also at their worst levels in a century.

Technical skills are not undervalued. The people struggling are those without such skills: unskilled workers and non STEM students. You are glossing over serious problems that are a big weight on our economy.

Kids who don't belong in college, and would be better off learning a trade, are taking on enormous debt. Many don't graduate or have economically worthless degrees. Employers require college degrees because they've been thoroughly debased by Federal Debt Sponsored oversupply. This debt has also driven education inflation far beyond that of the broader economy (much like Health Care, another heavily controlled by the Feds sector).

As regards wage stagnation, thank lack of valuable skills combined with regulations that make employees more expensive.

And Income Inequality - blah blah blah. If the economy were growing, there would be more opportunity for everyone who is motivated to better his lot in life. When the economy is moribund, of course the very powerful and wealthy do better. They rig the game in their favor. That is the age old condition of humankind. The best way to deal with that is to limit government involvement and control, but that's not the trend line we are on.

 

[boedicca]

...without unions what would keep corporations from permanently keeping wages down?

you got something against paying 25 cents for a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk at 50 cents, gasoline at 35.9 cents per Gal. how about a luxury car at $2,500.00, that is what you would have if there were no fucking greedy unions who give your union dues to demoscum traitors.., also at that time most Mothers were at home doing Motherly duties and Dad was making a decent living for his family.

FUCK the unions, they never helped in any fucking way, their policies is why i joined the U.S.Navy and stayed for 25 years defending my country.

So Unions scared you so much you are afraid to come out of the Navy and the closet and try the real world?

You are an idiot.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

Obama hasn't made any effort to stop the debt from growing, apparently taking vacations on borrowed money takes priority.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm saying that the economy is not creating enough jobs for the youngest cohort to get even a part time job.

And I am saying that you're conclusions are based on assumptions that are no longer applicable behavior patterns, while ignoring modern day trends and demand, all leading to pointing fingers in all the wrong places.

That fewer 16-24 year olds are participating in the work force is not a cause for concern. To the contrary, it is indicative of good developments in how our economy is learning to operate. Fewer people are dropping out of high school and entering the work force. More people are going to college, and delaying permanent entry into the work force. More students are committing more time to their academic success. These are good things.

The things to be concerned about are that school is more expensive than ever before, employer needless demand for "any degree" no matter how irrelevant is as high as ever, technical training remains extremely undervalued in the marketplace, wage stagnation and income inequality are also at their worst levels in a century.

Technical skills are not undervalued. The people struggling are those without such skills: unskilled workers and non STEM students. You are glossing over serious problems that are a big weight on our economy.

Kids who don't belong in college, and would be better off learning a trade, are taking on enormous debt. Many don't graduate or have economically worthless degrees. Employers require college degrees because they've been thoroughly debased by Federal Debt Sponsored oversupply. This debt has also driven education inflation far beyond that of the broader economy (much like Health Care, another heavily controlled by the Feds sector).

As regards wage stagnation, thank lack of valuable skills combined with regulations that make employees more expensive.

And Income Inequality - blah blah blah. If the economy were growing, there would be more opportunity for everyone who is motivated to better his lot in life. When the economy is moribund, of course the very powerful and wealthy do better. They rig the game in their favor. That is the age old condition of humankind. The best way to deal with that is to limit government involvement and control, but that's not the trend line we are on.

This reminds me of the 19 eighties when the government told oil companies what's the price of gas had to be. Then Reagan came along and told them they could charge whatever they want. So now we see free market unregulated capitalism is what raised the price of gas so much. Perhaps our federal government should tell the healthcare Giants what they can charge. So what the CEO only gets to make 10 million dollars this year instead of 50 million?

 

[sealybobo]

Obama hasn't made any effort to stop the debt from growing, apparently taking vacations on borrowed money takes priority.

Let's see if you even have a clue as to how big a problem the debt is. What would you do to eliminate the debt specifically.

 

[sealybobo]

Also note that Obama allowed the teabaggers to make many many cuts in these last few years too many social programs. We see that hasn't even been a drop in the bucket. So why not now start going after corporate welfare and the rest? Will never do that and therefore the debt will never be solved no matter how much you complain

 

[sealybobo]

...without unions what would keep corporations from permanently keeping wages down?

you got something against paying 25 cents for a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk at 50 cents, gasoline at 35.9 cents per Gal. how about a luxury car at $2,500.00, that is what you would have if there were no fucking greedy unions who give your union dues to demoscum traitors.., also at that time most Mothers were at home doing Motherly duties and Dad was making a decent living for his family.

FUCK the unions, they never helped in any fucking way, their policies is why i joined the U.S.Navy and stayed for 25 years defending my country.

So Unions scared you so much you are afraid to come out of the Navy and the closet and try the real world?

You are an idiot.

When an idiot or conservative calls me an idiot I take it as a compliment

 

[boedicca]

I'm saying that the economy is not creating enough jobs for the youngest cohort to get even a part time job.

And I am saying that you're conclusions are based on assumptions that are no longer applicable behavior patterns, while ignoring modern day trends and demand, all leading to pointing fingers in all the wrong places.

That fewer 16-24 year olds are participating in the work force is not a cause for concern. To the contrary, it is indicative of good developments in how our economy is learning to operate. Fewer people are dropping out of high school and entering the work force. More people are going to college, and delaying permanent entry into the work force. More students are committing more time to their academic success. These are good things.

The things to be concerned about are that school is more expensive than ever before, employer needless demand for "any degree" no matter how irrelevant is as high as ever, technical training remains extremely undervalued in the marketplace, wage stagnation and income inequality are also at their worst levels in a century.

Technical skills are not undervalued. The people struggling are those without such skills: unskilled workers and non STEM students. You are glossing over serious problems that are a big weight on our economy.

Kids who don't belong in college, and would be better off learning a trade, are taking on enormous debt. Many don't graduate or have economically worthless degrees. Employers require college degrees because they've been thoroughly debased by Federal Debt Sponsored oversupply. This debt has also driven education inflation far beyond that of the broader economy (much like Health Care, another heavily controlled by the Feds sector).

As regards wage stagnation, thank lack of valuable skills combined with regulations that make employees more expensive.

And Income Inequality - blah blah blah. If the economy were growing, there would be more opportunity for everyone who is motivated to better his lot in life. When the economy is moribund, of course the very powerful and wealthy do better. They rig the game in their favor. That is the age old condition of humankind. The best way to deal with that is to limit government involvement and control, but that's not the trend line we are on.

This reminds me of the 19 eighties when the government told oil companies what's the price of gas had to be. Then Reagan came along and told them they could charge whatever they want. So now we see free market unregulated capitalism is what raised the price of gas so much. Perhaps our federal government should tell the healthcare Giants what they can charge. So what the CEO only gets to make 10 million dollars this year instead of 50 million?

Perhaps you should learn something about economic. Try these:

Economics in One Lesson The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics Henry Hazlitt 9780517548233 Amazon.com Books

Amazon.com The Essential Hayek eBook Donald J. Boudreaux Kindle Store

 

[sealybobo]

I'm saying that the economy is not creating enough jobs for the youngest cohort to get even a part time job.

And I am saying that you're conclusions are based on assumptions that are no longer applicable behavior patterns, while ignoring modern day trends and demand, all leading to pointing fingers in all the wrong places.

That fewer 16-24 year olds are participating in the work force is not a cause for concern. To the contrary, it is indicative of good developments in how our economy is learning to operate. Fewer people are dropping out of high school and entering the work force. More people are going to college, and delaying permanent entry into the work force. More students are committing more time to their academic success. These are good things.

The things to be concerned about are that school is more expensive than ever before, employer needless demand for "any degree" no matter how irrelevant is as high as ever, technical training remains extremely undervalued in the marketplace, wage stagnation and income inequality are also at their worst levels in a century.

Technical skills are not undervalued. The people struggling are those without such skills: unskilled workers and non STEM students. You are glossing over serious problems that are a big weight on our economy.

Kids who don't belong in college, and would be better off learning a trade, are taking on enormous debt. Many don't graduate or have economically worthless degrees. Employers require college degrees because they've been thoroughly debased by Federal Debt Sponsored oversupply. This debt has also driven education inflation far beyond that of the broader economy (much like Health Care, another heavily controlled by the Feds sector).

As regards wage stagnation, thank lack of valuable skills combined with regulations that make employees more expensive.

And Income Inequality - blah blah blah. If the economy were growing, there would be more opportunity for everyone who is motivated to better his lot in life. When the economy is moribund, of course the very powerful and wealthy do better. They rig the game in their favor. That is the age old condition of humankind. The best way to deal with that is to limit government involvement and control, but that's not the trend line we are on.

This reminds me of the 19 eighties when the government told oil companies what's the price of gas had to be. Then Reagan came along and told them they could charge whatever they want. So now we see free market unregulated capitalism is what raised the price of gas so much. Perhaps our federal government should tell the healthcare Giants what they can charge. So what the CEO only gets to make 10 million dollars this year instead of 50 million?

Perhaps you should learn something about economic. Try these:

Economics in One Lesson The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics Henry Hazlitt 9780517548233 Amazon.com Books

Amazon.com The Essential Hayek eBook Donald J. Boudreaux Kindle Store

I have better. I have been living it for 45 years. I don't need to have to hear two assclowns tell me they're spin that you swallowed and cant explain so you have to provide links, as if I'm going to click on them.

 

[boedicca]

I'm saying that the economy is not creating enough jobs for the youngest cohort to get even a part time job.

And I am saying that you're conclusions are based on assumptions that are no longer applicable behavior patterns, while ignoring modern day trends and demand, all leading to pointing fingers in all the wrong places.

That fewer 16-24 year olds are participating in the work force is not a cause for concern. To the contrary, it is indicative of good developments in how our economy is learning to operate. Fewer people are dropping out of high school and entering the work force. More people are going to college, and delaying permanent entry into the work force. More students are committing more time to their academic success. These are good things.

The things to be concerned about are that school is more expensive than ever before, employer needless demand for "any degree" no matter how irrelevant is as high as ever, technical training remains extremely undervalued in the marketplace, wage stagnation and income inequality are also at their worst levels in a century.

Technical skills are not undervalued. The people struggling are those without such skills: unskilled workers and non STEM students. You are glossing over serious problems that are a big weight on our economy.

Kids who don't belong in college, and would be better off learning a trade, are taking on enormous debt. Many don't graduate or have economically worthless degrees. Employers require college degrees because they've been thoroughly debased by Federal Debt Sponsored oversupply. This debt has also driven education inflation far beyond that of the broader economy (much like Health Care, another heavily controlled by the Feds sector).

As regards wage stagnation, thank lack of valuable skills combined with regulations that make employees more expensive.

And Income Inequality - blah blah blah. If the economy were growing, there would be more opportunity for everyone who is motivated to better his lot in life. When the economy is moribund, of course the very powerful and wealthy do better. They rig the game in their favor. That is the age old condition of humankind. The best way to deal with that is to limit government involvement and control, but that's not the trend line we are on.

This reminds me of the 19 eighties when the government told oil companies what's the price of gas had to be. Then Reagan came along and told them they could charge whatever they want. So now we see free market unregulated capitalism is what raised the price of gas so much. Perhaps our federal government should tell the healthcare Giants what they can charge. So what the CEO only gets to make 10 million dollars this year instead of 50 million?

Perhaps you should learn something about economic. Try these:

Economics in One Lesson The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics Henry Hazlitt 9780517548233 Amazon.com Books

Amazon.com The Essential Hayek eBook Donald J. Boudreaux Kindle Store

I have better. I have been living it for 45 years. I don't need to have to hear two assclowns tell me they're spin that you swallowed and cant explain so you have to provide links, as if I'm going to click on them.

It's not at all surprising that you wish to remain persistently ignorant and misinformed.

 

[Iceweasel]

It's the Baby Boomer generation going into retirement. Millions are not waiting until 65 to retire. Duh. You are actually blaming this on liberals? What a moron.

Early retirement because they lost their jobs and with so many looking for work, with healthcare mandates, nobody will hire them. Fuck yes it's another liberal wet dream that's a nightmare in reality.

Hey dumb ass, if they are retired they have Medicare and are exempt from the mandates.

Uhm, OK. If they retire they get Medicare so then somebody will hire them? Pure genius.

Once they reach retirement age they get Medicare whether they retire or not. You said they retired because no one would hire them because of the mandates. If they are old enough to retire there are no mandates.
Get it, moron?

YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKER. I said retire EARLY.

 

[edthecynic]

93 Million out of the work force, all living off borrowed money.

BULLSHIT!
Speak for yourself!

 

[edthecynic]

It's the Baby Boomer generation going into retirement. Millions are not waiting until 65 to retire. Duh. You are actually blaming this on liberals? What a moron.

Early retirement because they lost their jobs and with so many looking for work, with healthcare mandates, nobody will hire them. Fuck yes it's another liberal wet dream that's a nightmare in reality.

Hey dumb ass, if they are retired they have Medicare and are exempt from the mandates.

Uhm, OK. If they retire they get Medicare so then somebody will hire them? Pure genius.

Once they reach retirement age they get Medicare whether they retire or not. You said they retired because no one would hire them because of the mandates. If they are old enough to retire there are no mandates.
Get it, moron?

YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKER. I said retire EARLY.

That makes no difference.
If they hire an early retiree the employer would only have to pay for healthcare for 2 years and 9 months, whereas if they hired someone younger they would have tp pay for healthcare much longer. So healthcare is STILL an incentive to hire a retiree or near retiree.

 

[edthecynic]

Obama hasn't made any effort to stop the debt from growing, apparently taking vacations on borrowed money takes priority.

Of course, the GOP pissing away borrowed money on political witch hunts is perfectly OK with you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

93 Million out of the work force, all living off borrowed money. "But Its For The Children" according to Liberals. The liberals that dont care that the debt pretty much has come to about 1 million dollars per child. So long as they can live off of our tax dollars, F----K the children.

Inflated Numbers for Partisan Effect Fails

• 74 million are children 17 and under
• 5.7 Million are retired and receive SS
• 2.1 unemployed for 27 weeks or more

 

[Faun]

A record 93,626,000 Americans 16 or older did not participate in the nation’s labor force in June
Read more at Record 93 626 000 Americans not in labor force

what the hell is this ? i thought the liberliars said the labor force was at an all time high ???

color me puzzled

So what? 87 million of those 93 million don't want to work.

 

[CowboyTed]

Enough said.

 

[danielpalos]

A record 93,626,000 Americans 16 or older did not participate in the nation’s labor force in June
Read more at Record 93 626 000 Americans not in labor force

what the hell is this ? i thought the liberliars said the labor force was at an all time high ???

color me puzzled

So what? 87 million of those 93 million don't want to work.

not in any at-will employment State; some on the left believe and have Faith in merely using capitalism for all of its worth and solving for a natural rate of unemployment at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.

 

[Iceweasel]

Early retirement because they lost their jobs and with so many looking for work, with healthcare mandates, nobody will hire them. Fuck yes it's another liberal wet dream that's a nightmare in reality.

Hey dumb ass, if they are retired they have Medicare and are exempt from the mandates.

Uhm, OK. If they retire they get Medicare so then somebody will hire them? Pure genius.

Once they reach retirement age they get Medicare whether they retire or not. You said they retired because no one would hire them because of the mandates. If they are old enough to retire there are no mandates.
Get it, moron?

YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKER. I said retire EARLY.

That makes no difference.
If they hire an early retiree the employer would only have to pay for healthcare for 2 years and 9 months, whereas if they hired someone younger they would have tp pay for healthcare much longer. So healthcare is STILL an incentive to hire a retiree or near retiree.

Wrong. 50 plus is about the cutoff for most of those hiring. Employers aren't looking 15 years down the road, most don't stay that long. Older usually means more care, meds, sick and likely higher cost of insurance. You can't even hire 30hr a week now without full benefits. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[edthecynic]

Hey dumb ass, if they are retired they have Medicare and are exempt from the mandates.

Uhm, OK. If they retire they get Medicare so then somebody will hire them? Pure genius.

Once they reach retirement age they get Medicare whether they retire or not. You said they retired because no one would hire them because of the mandates. If they are old enough to retire there are no mandates.
Get it, moron?

YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKER. I said retire EARLY.

That makes no difference.
If they hire an early retiree the employer would only have to pay for healthcare for 2 years and 9 months, whereas if they hired someone younger they would have tp pay for healthcare much longer. So healthcare is STILL an incentive to hire a retiree or near retiree.

Wrong. 50 plus is about the cutoff for most of those hiring. Employers aren't looking 15 years down the road, most don't stay that long. Older usually means more care, meds, sick and likely higher cost of insurance. You can't even hire 30hr a week now without full benefits. You don't know what you're talking about.

50 is not the age of early retirement, it is 62 years and 3 months.