Record 93 million Americans not working

[Manonthestreet]

 

[Freewill]

Do we agree in the 93 million NOT WORKING?

The BLS says that the labor force is 157 million, do we agree with that number?

The BLS says that the job participation rate is 59.3 for Mar 2015, do we agree?

Are you saying that the unemployed add to the 93 million?

If you are talking about the number "not working" rather than the number "unemployed" then yes.
As your MessiahRushie likes to put it, "not working, but eating" harkening back to the Nazi "useless eaters" meme. Of course, Porky then lies his fat ass off by claiming they ALL are being supported by the government.

October 15, 2013

RUSH: We've got a lot of people -- look, 90 million Americans -- I love to put it this way 'cause I think it's the proper perspective. Ninety million Americans are not working, Donna, but they're eating. What does that mean? That's over 10 New York Cities that are not working. But they're eating, which means somebody's buying their sustenance, and that somebody is somebody else, is the government. They are eating.

I don't listen to Rush as you apparently do but since the OP all I have been saying is not working.

 

[Freewill]

US population is 250??

250 million age 16+ not in the military or an institution

Is the BLS stat incorrect? they say that the JF is 157 million.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Manonthestreet]

Nothing to see.... Blacks and millenials can't find jobs.......cause........

 

[boedicca]

US population is 250??

250 million age 16+ not in the military or an institution

Is the BLS stat incorrect? they say that the JF is 157 million.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

That's the Civilian Labor Force. The Civilian Population (people old enough to be legally employed) is 250M - hence my 1.5 workers to 1 non worker stat mentioned earlier in the thread.

 

[Freewill]

of course the stats I provide are correct, I don't lie like you infer.

Now that progress is made and you now agree with the 93 million not working can be agree that your semantics is flawed in trying to make a distinction between no participation, not working, and being unemployed? The difference is that not participation includes those who could work and don't and those who are actively seeking work. Either way the effect is the same. As sad as it sounds 1/3 of the population could be working but are not.

You do realize that the 93 million you're citing doesn't include the 8.6 million unemployed?

First there's the Population: Those 16 and older excluding those in the military or in prison or other institution. That's 250 million people.
Under the Population, there's the Labor Force...those doing something about work...the Employed (148.3 million) and the Unemployed (8.6 million)
So that's a Labor Force of 156.9 million and a participation rate (percent of the population doing something about work) at 62.7%...a number that's been declining for 15 years now.

Everyone else in the population (93.2 million people) are "Not in the Labor Force," meaning they're not working and they're not trying to work. 86.8 million say they don't want a job.

Yes, I do believe it does include them according the the BLS site which has been provided.

157 million is the BLS labor force number. That excludes those under 16 retirees, institutionalized, housewives, and others I don't remember but the definitions were provided. So out of those 157 million according to the BLS 59.3 is the participation rate.59.3 March 2015. The unemployed is included in that number.

no no no....The POPULATION is 250 million 148.3 million Employed. 8.6 million Unemployed. 93.2 million who are neither employed nor unemployed.
The Labor force participation rate is Employed PLUS Unemployed divided by the Population: 62.7%
The Employment-Population ratio is 59.3%

Do you see? That 93 million are those not working and not trying to work. The Unemployed, who are part of the Labor Force, are those not working but trying to.

I really apologize but I am having a hard time following what you are posting.

it can be confusing.

Do we agree in the 93 million NOT WORKING?

No: it's 102 million not working: 93 million of whom are not trying to work.

The BLS says that the labor force is 157 million, do we agree with that number?

yes, but understand that "labor force" is employed plus unemployed"

The BLS says that the job participation rate is 59.3 for Mar 2015, do we agree?

No they don't. They say the employment to population ratio is 59.3%. There is no "job participation rate.

Are you saying that the unemployed add to the 93 million?

Yes. The 93 million are not trying to work. The unemployed are

Labor force: Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Labor force particpation rate: Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Labor force, current population: Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

I don't think we are actually disagreeing. 93 million is terrible, `105 is really terrible.

 

[edthecynic]

300 million people in this country and 93 million are unemployed ?
RW's crack me up.

According to the BLS and the facts provided to you from them, yes that is true. Your response is disingenuous.

since the OP all I have been saying is not working.

Not quite ALL!

 

[edthecynic]

I don't think we are actually disagreeing. 93 million is terrible, `105 is really terrible.

Actually we ARE disagreeing because the 93 million number is MEANINGLESS!

 

[Iceweasel]

The unemployed looking for jobs are included in the labor force. Those not looking for jobs are not included in the labor force.

That happens when people give up or get on subsidized living.

 

[BluesLegend]

Don't worry about people being out of work, liberals have a plan...libs?

 

[edthecynic]

The unemployed looking for jobs are included in the labor force. Those not looking for jobs are not included in the labor force.

That happens when people give up or get on subsidized living.

There are less than 1 million discouraged workers.

Employment Situation Summary

Among the marginally attached, there were 738,000 discouraged workers in March

 

[AceRothstein]

The unemployed looking for jobs are included in the labor force. Those not looking for jobs are not included in the labor force.

That happens when people give up or get on subsidized living.

It also happens when they retire, go to school or have kids.

 

[JakeStarkey]

About 11 mm who want to work but are unemployed?

Freewill's concusions are ludicrous yet the number still are not right.

 

[Siete]

You do realize that the 93 million you're citing doesn't include the 8.6 million unemployed?

First there's the Population: Those 16 and older excluding those in the military or in prison or other institution. That's 250 million people.
Under the Population, there's the Labor Force...those doing something about work...the Employed (148.3 million) and the Unemployed (8.6 million)
So that's a Labor Force of 156.9 million and a participation rate (percent of the population doing something about work) at 62.7%...a number that's been declining for 15 years now.

Everyone else in the population (93.2 million people) are "Not in the Labor Force," meaning they're not working and they're not trying to work. 86.8 million say they don't want a job.

Yes, I do believe it does include them according the the BLS site which has been provided.

157 million is the BLS labor force number. That excludes those under 16 retirees, institutionalized, housewives, and others I don't remember but the definitions were provided. So out of those 157 million according to the BLS 59.3 is the participation rate.59.3 March 2015. The unemployed is included in that number.

no no no....The POPULATION is 250 million 148.3 million Employed. 8.6 million Unemployed. 93.2 million who are neither employed nor unemployed.
The Labor force participation rate is Employed PLUS Unemployed divided by the Population: 62.7%
The Employment-Population ratio is 59.3%

Do you see? That 93 million are those not working and not trying to work. The Unemployed, who are part of the Labor Force, are those not working but trying to.

I really apologize but I am having a hard time following what you are posting.

it can be confusing.

Do we agree in the 93 million NOT WORKING?

No: it's 102 million not working: 93 million of whom are not trying to work.

The BLS says that the labor force is 157 million, do we agree with that number?

yes, but understand that "labor force" is employed plus unemployed"

The BLS says that the job participation rate is 59.3 for Mar 2015, do we agree?

No they don't. They say the employment to population ratio is 59.3%. There is no "job participation rate.

Are you saying that the unemployed add to the 93 million?

Yes. The 93 million are not trying to work. The unemployed are

Labor force: Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Labor force particpation rate: Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Labor force, current population: Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

I don't think we are actually disagreeing. 93 million is terrible, `105 is really terrible.

the BLS clearly states as of March 2015 the unemployment rate is 5.5% ... you are constantly disagreeing with yourself ... so which one is it ? the BLS is correct or incorrect?

you can't have it both ways...you tell us when you figure it out.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Usin

Links provided for discussion.

RECORD 93,175,000 AMERICANS NOT WORKING...
Record 12,202,000 Blacks Not In Labor Force...
Record 56,131,000 Women...
January, February jobs numbers revised down dramatically...
Fed Cuts Growth Forecast to ZERO...

What Pogo said.

Headlines like yours work for people who are innumerate. Intelligent people, though, don't fall for that shit.

The 14 year plunge of the LFPR which began long before the current Administration has been halted for the past 12 months.

591,000 jobs have been added this year, so far.

U1 through U6 have all declined in the past year.

This is all GOOD news. I know how much it pains you party-before-country idiots that people are getting jobs and unemployment is going down, but try not to be such assholes about it.

As always me being truthful what POGO said appears to be true:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

What you said isn't really exactly right. The plunge occurred on Obama's watch and after two years of democrat rule. Maybe it was beyond his ability to stop it but that is not what you said. Would I say you are untruthful? No. I say you just know so much that isn't so.

Flash, Sunshine......the drop commences shortly after January 2008......

Go check an almanac...........

Then grab your Hello Kitty 4 function calculator and add 1945 to 65....

Hollaback - 'k?

 

[IcebergSlim]

And you would think black unemployment numbers would not still be disastrous.

Disastrous compared to what?

 

[Roadrunner]

Links provided for discussion.

RECORD 93,175,000 AMERICANS NOT WORKING...
Record 12,202,000 Blacks Not In Labor Force...
Record 56,131,000 Women...
January, February jobs numbers revised down dramatically...
Fed Cuts Growth Forecast to ZERO...

Freed from the tyranny of labor(and self-respect), for the good of the Party(Democrat).

 

[IcebergSlim]

Convenient that you only went back 10 years instead of 15.

Are you guys unaware that you can do this yourself? Or is your point innuendo? So there was a drop after Clinton's recession, it wasn't a plunge by any means. Thanks be to GWB. Matter of fact look at the chart, it started dropping when? When the democrats took control of congress and ignored GWB.

So from the time Bush was inaugurated it was around 64 and dropped to 60 before he left office. When Obama was inaugurated it was around 60 and is now a tad above 59. Who saw the bigger drop?

Let us use actual statistics:

Jan 2001 = 64.4

Jan 2008 = 62.9

Jan 2015 = 59.3

So Bush 1.5, Obama 3.7

Actual data found here: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

yes indeed ... LET US

• The average prime working age LFPR since 2007 is 82.0%, and the average 55-and-over LFPR since 2007 is 40.1%

• The size of the 55-and-over population has increased by 15.619 million relative to that of the prime working age population since 2007

• 15.619 million multiplied by the difference between the two participation rates (82.0% - 40.1%) implies that this simple demographic shift alone has left only 6.544 million workers at the end of 2013 where there were 15.619 million at the end of 2007

• Subtract that 6.544 million still in the labor force from the 15.619 million who made the shift from the first bucket to the second bucket and you get 9.075 million people 55 years of age or over who have left the labor force over the past six years

Read more: Baby Boomers Are Retiring - Business Insider

What is your point? We all know that the retirees are leaving the labor force thus not counted in the job participation rate. This has all been provided to everyone within this thread.

You are wrong.......it is not the "job participation rate", it is the "Labor Force Participation rate"

In US, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) defines labor force participation rate as “the labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.”

 

[IcebergSlim]

Imagine, the regime has liberated 93,000,000 from the burden of having to get off their ass and work!

This surely calls for a celebration with FREE cake!

Hank,

You remain a nitwit....

 

[IcebergSlim]

Your link is dead. Which data set are you using?

Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

You can do a search if you want to go back 15 years.

What is the series ID? You can't link a BLS search that you've performed.

i am trying again, this is why I didn't post the 15 years in the first place it wouldn't come up but that didn't stop someone from inferring I was being dishonest.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Thank you. It worked that time and the numbers come up as I suspected.

Jan 2001: 64.4
Jan 2009: 60.6
Mar 2015: 59.3

A drop of 3.8 under Bush and a drop of 1.3 under Obama.

I stand corrected. Obama had more opportunity for improvement.

This will brighten your day, Sunshine....

Private sector job creation from Feb 2001 to Feb 2009 fell approx 8 million short of growth in the labor force....