Record 93,626,000 Americans not in labor force

[boedicca]

So many people are out of the labor force because Obamanomics cannot create enough jobs to keep up with population growth. Compare The Won's job creation to Reagan's:

 

[Misty]

The "job creators" better get busy then. Maybe we should gift them with some more tax cuts and wait another ten years to see if it trickles down.

Give it up. You're an ignorant follower.

Businesses pay more taxes than your tiny mind can comprehend.

It's only after you've owned and run a company that you can understand the government red tape that holds companies down.

 

[BluesLegend]

When you put liberal filth in charge this is what happens.

 

[SwimExpert]

So many people are out of the labor force because Obamanomics cannot create enough jobs to keep up with population growth. Compare The Won's job creation to Reagans:

View attachment 43791

Your graphic is a bit confusing.

 

[Misty]

The "job creators" better get busy then. Maybe we should gift them with some more tax cuts and wait another ten years to see if it trickles down.

Giving their money to you damn sure isn't working. Nothing seems to be trickling up.

Or you can wait for poor people to create jobs!
Who do you think will create a job first?

Where there is a will there is a way.

If someone wants to jump through all the government hoops, anyone can create there own job.

That's the one thing some illegals have proven. Mow a lawn. Clean a house. Instant job creator.

 

[boedicca]

So many people are out of the labor force because Obamanomics cannot create enough jobs to keep up with population growth. Compare The Won's job creation to Reagans:

View attachment 43791

Your graphic is a bit confusing.

It's not a graph - it's a table of information. I highlighted the germane figures to compare.

Net net, the at similar points in their presidencies, Reagan's saw 92% of the increase in the civilian population bec0me employed. Obama's ratio is 41%.

Reagan's Civilian Population increased by 13.3M; 12.3M of these people were employed.

Obama's Civilian Population increased by 16.1M; 6.6M of these people are employed.

That's why so many people have dropped out of the workforce. Obamanomics results in very poor job creation and provides incentives for people to take handouts instead of jobs.

 

[edthecynic]

only those with an IQ of 25 or under, those in a coma and cockroaches actually believe we have 5.4 unemployment.

Funny how when Shrub had 5.4% unemployment, cons touted it was real.

how can anyone brag about the Obama 5.4% unemployment rate when we all know it really closer to 35%? in other words, 93 Million under/not employed Americans represents 5.5(ish) per-cent of America?

You do know that Bush had 102 Million under/not employed Americans when he left, don't you?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Record 93,626,000 Americans not in labor force

That's because corporate business is making such monstrous profits, it doesn't have to create another 93 million jobs. If corporations had to pay taxes, their profit margins would be smaller and would have to hire more workers to make up for smaller profits. As long as corporations are given a free ride, this will continue. The rich created the national debt, and I guarantee, that eventually they will have to pay it off, because they have the money, not the peasants.

So, if companies made less money they'd hire more people? What's your IQ, like .5?

Jesus.. you can't be this stupid.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

only those with an IQ of 25 or under, those in a coma and cockroaches actually believe we have 5.4 unemployment.

Funny how when Shrub had 5.4% unemployment, cons touted it was real.

how can anyone brag about the Obama 5.4% unemployment rate when we all know it really closer to 35%? in other words, 93 Million under/not employed Americans represents 5.5(ish) per-cent of America?

You do know that Bush had 102 Million under/not employed Americans when he left, don't you?

You know I had a turkey sandwich for lunch yesterday, don't you?

 

[2aguy]

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

See....if only we knew that the best way to get unemployment down was to make people give up looking for work.....we could have 0 unemployment under obama......

 

[SwimExpert]

It's not a graph - it's a table of information. I highlighted the germane figures to compare.

Well, I said graphic, not graph. What is confusing is that it seems to be horribly mislabeled.

Net net, the at similar points in their presidencies, Reagan's saw 92% of the increase in the civilian population bec0me employed. Obama's ratio is 41%.

What do you mean by the "civilian" population?

Reagan's Civilian Population increased by 13.3M; 12.3M of these people were employed.

Obama's Civilian Population increased by 16.1M; 6.6M of these people are employed.

That's why so many people have dropped out of the workforce. Obamanomics results in very poor job creation and provides incentives for people to take handouts instead of jobs.

The problem here is that none of that necessarily has anything to do with economics. It could just as easily be explained as a matter of vital statistics. Nowadays, people are living longer than Reagan's time, while birth rates are dropping off. Increases in total population today have more to do with longevity than they do fertility.

A few months back I read (i.e. skimmed) something about how increased longevity is affecting our population. I'll have to see if I can find it again because I maybe I misunderstood, but the basic point that I got was that if life expectancy today were that of 50 years ago, our population would actually be on the decline right now. The reason I mention it now is to point out that the vital demographics of today are unique in comparison to times past, and therefore we are best to look at other factors to gauge economic health. IMO, stagnant wages, ballooning inequality, diminishing ability of an average citizen to support themselves are all better direct indicators of the economic failures we currently face.

 

[boedicca]

only those with an IQ of 25 or under, those in a coma and cockroaches actually believe we have 5.4 unemployment.

Funny how when Shrub had 5.4% unemployment, cons touted it was real.

how can anyone brag about the Obama 5.4% unemployment rate when we all know it really closer to 35%? in other words, 93 Million under/not employed Americans represents 5.5(ish) per-cent of America?

You do know that Bush had 102 Million under/not employed Americans when he left, don't you?

That's a lie. When Bush left office, their were 80.5M people not in the Labor force; Obama's figure is 93.6M.

If you want to add underemployed, then you need to update Obama's 93.6M as well.

 

[boedicca]

It's not a graph - it's a table of information. I highlighted the germane figures to compare.

Well, I said graphic, not graph. What is confusing is that it seems to be horribly mislabeled.

Net net, the at similar points in their presidencies, Reagan's saw 92% of the increase in the civilian population bec0me employed. Obama's ratio is 41%.

What do you mean by the "civilian" population?

Reagan's Civilian Population increased by 13.3M; 12.3M of these people were employed.

Obama's Civilian Population increased by 16.1M; 6.6M of these people are employed.

That's why so many people have dropped out of the workforce. Obamanomics results in very poor job creation and provides incentives for people to take handouts instead of jobs.

The problem here is that none of that necessarily has anything to do with economics. It could just as easily be explained as a matter of vital statistics. Nowadays, people are living longer than Reagan's time, while birth rates are dropping off. Increases in total population today have more to do with longevity than they do fertility.

A few months back I read (i.e. skimmed) something about how increased longevity is affecting our population. I'll have to see if I can find it again because I maybe I misunderstood, but the basic point that I got was that if life expectancy today were that of 50 years ago, our population would actually be on the decline right now. The reason I mention it now is to point out that the vital demographics of today are unique in comparison to times past, and therefore we are best to look at other factors to gauge economic health. IMO, stagnant wages, ballooning inequality, diminishing ability of an average citizen to support themselves are all better direct indicators of the economic failures we currently face.

I'm sorry you can't read.

 

[SwimExpert]

It's not a graph - it's a table of information. I highlighted the germane figures to compare.

Well, I said graphic, not graph. What is confusing is that it seems to be horribly mislabeled.

Net net, the at similar points in their presidencies, Reagan's saw 92% of the increase in the civilian population bec0me employed. Obama's ratio is 41%.

What do you mean by the "civilian" population?

Reagan's Civilian Population increased by 13.3M; 12.3M of these people were employed.

Obama's Civilian Population increased by 16.1M; 6.6M of these people are employed.

That's why so many people have dropped out of the workforce. Obamanomics results in very poor job creation and provides incentives for people to take handouts instead of jobs.

The problem here is that none of that necessarily has anything to do with economics. It could just as easily be explained as a matter of vital statistics. Nowadays, people are living longer than Reagan's time, while birth rates are dropping off. Increases in total population today have more to do with longevity than they do fertility.

A few months back I read (i.e. skimmed) something about how increased longevity is affecting our population. I'll have to see if I can find it again because I maybe I misunderstood, but the basic point that I got was that if life expectancy today were that of 50 years ago, our population would actually be on the decline right now. The reason I mention it now is to point out that the vital demographics of today are unique in comparison to times past, and therefore we are best to look at other factors to gauge economic health. IMO, stagnant wages, ballooning inequality, diminishing ability of an average citizen to support themselves are all better direct indicators of the economic failures we currently face.

I'm sorry you can't read.

Were you under the mistaken belief that Obama was President during the 1980s? Because that's how your graphic is labeled.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes... of course. Because 93 million is not close to one third of the ENTIRE POPULATION that is NOT WORKING.

To be more precise, it is 29.4% of the population. Does that seem like a shocking number to you?

Which without any study of how many of those are below the age of consent, too old, medically incapable of work, incarcerated, morally unsuited, etc..., we can readily deduce that the percentage of those capable of working, but who are not working is well above 1/3rd.

A simple google search would have fixed that problem for you. Instead, you thought it would be better to just run your mouth. After all, what could possibly be go wrong with running your mouth before you know what you're actually talking about? Just jump up and down and say that nearly a third of the population isn't participating in the workforce. It'll work out great!

It's not like Swimexpert's going to smack your bitch ass down with fact and figures, showing that we have always had at least one third of the population not participating in the workforce. Nope, not going to happen. Anyone waiting for it to happen better grab a chair and get comfortable. Long wait ahead of you.

Oh, and while you're waiting, feel free to study this graph from the BLS showing historic workforce participation rates since the 1940s.

You see the two values of total population and 'not working' remain static

What. The. Fuck.

I can't even begin to describe how stupid that is a thing to say. That's Paintmyhouse level stuipd. That's Franco level stupid. That's Nancy Pelosi level stupid.

Well there ya go kids...

To the Ideological Left, there's nothing shocking about 42.9% of the NATION: NOT WORKING, which is to say HALF THE NATION IS UNEMPLOYED.

Of course, they aren't proclaiming that officially... because not 'everyone' agrees that HALF THE NATION BEING UNEMPLOYED IS ACCEPTABLE.

SO... they tell YOU that 5.3% of the nation is unemployed.

This so that ya don't wet your pants, because you're to stupid to recognize that half the nation being unemployed is perfectly NORMAL!

They're not lying... they're protecting you from yourself.

 

[hangover]

When you put liberal filth in charge this is what happens.

^^^^The next Dylann Roof.^^^^

 

[SwimExpert]

Yes... of course. Because 93 million is not close to one third of the ENTIRE POPULATION that is NOT WORKING.

To be more precise, it is 29.4% of the population. Does that seem like a shocking number to you?

Which without any study of how many of those are below the age of consent, too old, medically incapable of work, incarcerated, morally unsuited, etc..., we can readily deduce that the percentage of those capable of working, but who are not working is well above 1/3rd.

A simple google search would have fixed that problem for you. Instead, you thought it would be better to just run your mouth. After all, what could possibly be go wrong with running your mouth before you know what you're actually talking about? Just jump up and down and say that nearly a third of the population isn't participating in the workforce. It'll work out great!

It's not like Swimexpert's going to smack your bitch ass down with fact and figures, showing that we have always had at least one third of the population not participating in the workforce. Nope, not going to happen. Anyone waiting for it to happen better grab a chair and get comfortable. Long wait ahead of you.

Oh, and while you're waiting, feel free to study this graph from the BLS showing historic workforce participation rates since the 1940s.

You see the two values of total population and 'not working' remain static

What. The. Fuck.

I can't even begin to describe how stupid that is a thing to say. That's Paintmyhouse level stuipd. That's Franco level stupid. That's Nancy Pelosi level stupid.

Well there ya go kids...

To the Ideological Left, there's nothing shocking about 42.9% of the NATION: NOT WORKING, which is to say HALF THE NATION IS UNEMPLOYED.

Of course, they aren't proclaiming that officially... because not 'everyone' agrees that HALF THE NATION BEING UNEMPLOYED IS ACCEPTABLE.

SO... they tell YOU that 5.3% of the nation is unemployed.

This so that ya don't wet your pants, because you're to stupid to recognize that half the nation being unemployed is perfectly NORMAL!

They're not lying... they're protecting you from yourself.

There is no greater indication of willful ignorance and deceit than a person freely changing their claims from 1/3 unemployed to 1/2 unemployed.

 

[BluesLegend]

When you put liberal filth in charge this is what happens.

^^^^The next Dylann Roof.^^^^

^^^ the next hangover ^^^ top that insult

 

[edthecynic]

only those with an IQ of 25 or under, those in a coma and cockroaches actually believe we have 5.4 unemployment.

Funny how when Shrub had 5.4% unemployment, cons touted it was real.

how can anyone brag about the Obama 5.4% unemployment rate when we all know it really closer to 35%? in other words, 93 Million under/not employed Americans represents 5.5(ish) per-cent of America?

You do know that Bush had 102 Million under/not employed Americans when he left, don't you?

That's a lie. When Bush left office, their were 80.5M people not in the Labor force; Obama's figure is 93.6M.

If you want to add underemployed, then you need to update Obama's 93.6M as well.

The poster clearly said "under/not employed" so that means you add 12+ million unemployed plus 7.9 million underemployed for Bush's total.

 

[boedicca]

It's not a graph - it's a table of information. I highlighted the germane figures to compare.

Well, I said graphic, not graph. What is confusing is that it seems to be horribly mislabeled.

Net net, the at similar points in their presidencies, Reagan's saw 92% of the increase in the civilian population bec0me employed. Obama's ratio is 41%.

What do you mean by the "civilian" population?

Reagan's Civilian Population increased by 13.3M; 12.3M of these people were employed.

Obama's Civilian Population increased by 16.1M; 6.6M of these people are employed.

That's why so many people have dropped out of the workforce. Obamanomics results in very poor job creation and provides incentives for people to take handouts instead of jobs.

The problem here is that none of that necessarily has anything to do with economics. It could just as easily be explained as a matter of vital statistics. Nowadays, people are living longer than Reagan's time, while birth rates are dropping off. Increases in total population today have more to do with longevity than they do fertility.

A few months back I read (i.e. skimmed) something about how increased longevity is affecting our population. I'll have to see if I can find it again because I maybe I misunderstood, but the basic point that I got was that if life expectancy today were that of 50 years ago, our population would actually be on the decline right now. The reason I mention it now is to point out that the vital demographics of today are unique in comparison to times past, and therefore we are best to look at other factors to gauge economic health. IMO, stagnant wages, ballooning inequality, diminishing ability of an average citizen to support themselves are all better direct indicators of the economic failures we currently face.

I'm sorry you can't read.

Were you under the mistaken belief that Obama was President during the 1980s? Because that's how your graphic is labeled.

I corrected a formatting error.