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.
Now you're switching to labor force participation. Pick one: labor force or employment.labor force participation at lowest level since 1978 - Sep. 6, 2013
The official U.S. unemployment rate is falling, but that's not necessarily a good thing.
That's because the slice of Americans involved in the labor force has shrunk to a level not seen in 35 years.
The labor force participation rate -- the percentage of people over 16 who either have a job or are actively searching for one -- fell to 63.2% in August. The last time it was that low was in August of 1978.
In the latter half of the 20th century, the rate rose steadily for decades as more women were entering the workforce, eventually peaking at 67.3% in 2000. But the number has been on the decline ever since -- a trend that was accelerated by the Great Recession.
You're not very good at reading charts, here's the localized chart 1977-1988Huh? Follow the conversation...Bull used a 2010 article to claim we had lost 7.9 million jobs since 2008 (which was true at the time). I pointed out that since that article had been written, we have gained 6 million jobs. I showed him wrong using the data for 2010 to present...that's the only relevant data...not sure what other years would be relevant when we were installing about 2010-2013.How Fucking Quaint...............
Cherry picking data for years that suck at unemployment showing improvement.
BLS, of course, series report CES0000000001
I assume you mean the lowest employment-population ratio in 35 years.
Not particularly, but apparently you don't realize that the emp-pop ratio then was the highest ever to that point. Surely you're not claiming we're better off than any time before 1978?Hmmmmmmmmmmm...........Who was the President then....................
Oh yeah PEANUT HEAD. Nice economy back then wasn't it...
And that the emp-pop ratio reached its peak in 2000 (under Clinton) then declined. It went up again 2003-2007, but dropped again after that...it's stabilized some,
Series LNS 12300000
You can access the series reports at BLS Series Report : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Thank you for proving my point of Reagan. Notice the downward spike under Carter..........................
Notice the upward spike under Reagan............................
While Obama wasn't in office in the crash of 2008, his policies are failing to turn the spike upward..................
What we needed was another Reagan not another Carter to fix this mess.
Now you're switching to labor force participation. Pick one: labor force or employment.labor force participation at lowest level since 1978 - Sep. 6, 2013
The official U.S. unemployment rate is falling, but that's not necessarily a good thing.
That's because the slice of Americans involved in the labor force has shrunk to a level not seen in 35 years.
The labor force participation rate -- the percentage of people over 16 who either have a job or are actively searching for one -- fell to 63.2% in August. The last time it was that low was in August of 1978.
In the latter half of the 20th century, the rate rose steadily for decades as more women were entering the workforce, eventually peaking at 67.3% in 2000. But the number has been on the decline ever since -- a trend that was accelerated by the Great Recession.
But in either case you've just undercut your own argument...you see implying that the ratio (either one) was bad under Carter, but you've just shown that it was at then record highs. And you've confirmed my point that both ratios have been declining since 2000.
Thanks for proving me right.
You're not very good at reading charts, here's the localized chart 1977-1988Huh? Follow the conversation...Bull used a 2010 article to claim we had lost 7.9 million jobs since 2008 (which was true at the time). I pointed out that since that article had been written, we have gained 6 million jobs. I showed him wrong using the data for 2010 to present...that's the only relevant data...not sure what other years would be relevant when we were installing about 2010-2013.
BLS, of course, series report CES0000000001
I assume you mean the lowest employment-population ratio in 35 years.
Not particularly, but apparently you don't realize that the emp-pop ratio then was the highest ever to that point. Surely you're not claiming we're better off than any time before 1978?
And that the emp-pop ratio reached its peak in 2000 (under Clinton) then declined. It went up again 2003-2007, but dropped again after that...it's stabilized some,
Series LNS 12300000
You can access the series reports at BLS Series Report : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Thank you for proving my point of Reagan. Notice the downward spike under Carter..........................
Notice the upward spike under Reagan............................
While Obama wasn't in office in the crash of 2008, his policies are failing to turn the spike upward..................
What we needed was another Reagan not another Carter to fix this mess.
The emo-pop ratio only dropped, slightly, in Carter's last year, continued to drop through the recession and then came back up.
The President is pretty irrelevant...there are other factors. It went up under Carter due to continuing entry of women, and then the recession.
If you want to take a bite out of the debt, reign in The Military-Industrial Complex.
Not that the bankers don't need a shorter leash... but if trimming the national debt is the goal, the US needs to stop spending ten times what the rest of the world spends on arms.
Combine that with fair and simple taxes and the stars await.
While you were "pruning" posts in my thread, you might have noticed the premise of this thread is a NUMBER of debt the leftists here would not go past. I have no interest in the feeble suggestions of how to "reduce" the debt or what programs the leftists demand be kept. I have no interest in their moronic thoughts of who ran up the debt or their lies about Hussein reducing it. Not a one of them have any idea what they're talking about or care to know. So please consider pruning the meaningless drivel from those I've asked to leave yet continue to troll the thread and me.
No... while I was pruning your posts I was learning what a potty-mouth you can be.
I saw the number question in your opening post. Still doesn't deserve a simple answer because it's not a simple question.
Point is, out-spending the world ten-fold in the arms race following World War II is what created the debt and NOT borrowing and spending so much on weaponry is the way to fix it.
If your goal is actually trimming the national debt, as almost alluded to in your opening post, blaming some imaginary devil you've named Hussein isn't productive to the debate.
On the other hand, if you're goal is to make a squeaky noise from the right, carry on.
Derrivitives are at the root of all evil in the world.
Do you not understand the difference between a level and a rate? Employment can go up, but the ratio go down. Employment (and jobs, different concepts) has been going up since 2010, but not as fast as population growth. I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue.Now you're switching to labor force participation. Pick one: labor force or employment.labor force participation at lowest level since 1978 - Sep. 6, 2013
The official U.S. unemployment rate is falling, but that's not necessarily a good thing.
That's because the slice of Americans involved in the labor force has shrunk to a level not seen in 35 years.
The labor force participation rate -- the percentage of people over 16 who either have a job or are actively searching for one -- fell to 63.2% in August. The last time it was that low was in August of 1978.
In the latter half of the 20th century, the rate rose steadily for decades as more women were entering the workforce, eventually peaking at 67.3% in 2000. But the number has been on the decline ever since -- a trend that was accelerated by the Great Recession.
But in either case you've just undercut your own argument...you see implying that the ratio (either one) was bad under Carter, but you've just shown that it was at then record highs. And you've confirmed my point that both ratios have been declining since 2000.
Thanks for proving me right.
Which part of less people are working above the age of 16 don't you understand.........
If less people are employed via the rate then there is less employment period.............
Are you claiming the increase in employment-population under Ford and Carter was a sign of improvement? That's an odd position. There are many non-economic reasons for changes up or down in the ratio.It's an indicator of overall health, but it can be misleading. In any case, my initial point was only that Bull was wrong in stating we had not gained 6 million jobs since 2010. I made no further claims.But if you can't see how employment via the population as a real indicator of improvement, then you are a tool.......
Because it wasn't relevant. I was talking about jobs, from the payroll survey, which doesn't't differentiate between full and part time. You switched the topic to employment and the emp-pop ratio, from the household survey, which does differentiate, but the issue never came up.Secondly you ignore the issues of Part time employment.
Derrivitives are at the root of all evil in the world.
Nah, Man... Derivatives are just a tool.
LOVE of derivatives is the root of all evil in the world.
Do you not understand the difference between a level and a rate? Employment can go up, but the ratio go down. Employment (and jobs, different concepts) has been going up since 2010, but not as fast as population growth. I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue.Now you're switching to labor force participation. Pick one: labor force or employment.
But in either case you've just undercut your own argument...you see implying that the ratio (either one) was bad under Carter, but you've just shown that it was at then record highs. And you've confirmed my point that both ratios have been declining since 2000.
Thanks for proving me right.
Which part of less people are working above the age of 16 don't you understand.........
If less people are employed via the rate then there is less employment period.............
Are you claiming the increase in employment-population under Ford and Carter was a sign of improvement? That's an odd position. There are many non-economic reasons for changes up or down in the ratio.It's an indicator of overall health, but it can be misleading. In any case, my initial point was only that Bull was wrong in stating we had not gained 6 million jobs since 2010. I made no further claims.But if you can't see how employment via the population as a real indicator of improvement, then you are a tool.......
Because it wasn't relevant. I was talking about jobs, from the payroll survey, which doesn't't differentiate between full and part time. You switched the topic to employment and the emp-pop ratio, from the household survey, which does differentiate, but the issue never came up.Secondly you ignore the issues of Part time employment.
You seem in distant on reading some overall argument in my posts, but I have no idea what argument you think I'm trying to make.
Please stick to what I've actually written rather than inventing some broader claim that I'm not making.
What exactly in my post are you disagreeing with? I was pinpointing out that the emp-pop ratio went up under Carter. You, not I, are the one claiming that an increasing ratio is a positive sign.You're not very good at reading charts, here's the localized chart 1977-1988Thank you for proving my point of Reagan. Notice the downward spike under Carter..........................
Notice the upward spike under Reagan............................
While Obama wasn't in office in the crash of 2008, his policies are failing to turn the spike upward..................
What we needed was another Reagan not another Carter to fix this mess.
The emo-pop ratio only dropped, slightly, in Carter's last year, continued to drop through the recession and then came back up.
The President is pretty irrelevant...there are other factors. It went up under Carter due to continuing entry of women, and then the recession.
Spare me.
I was out of the country in those years, but I read the US news. I never said things weren't bad in fact, it was my point that they were bad! The economy was bad, but the emo-pop ratio was going up, proving it's not the best indicator of the economy.I was around back then and the economy was in the dumps.
How is that relevant in a discussion about direction of the emp-pop ratio?????STAGFLATION is ignored by you, and inherited by Reagan.
Derrivitives are at the root of all evil in the world.
Nah, Man... Derivatives are just a tool.
LOVE of derivatives is the root of all evil in the world.
Derivatives where illegal from 1936 to 1983. They were part of the lessons learned from the Great Depression. Part of the Glass Steigal Act.
Had they stayed illegal, there would have never been a stock market crash in 2008.
The final nail in the coffin occurred in 2000. Allowing Shadow trading beyond SEC control. The house of cards was created in 8 years or less. They pulled the cards out of the bottom, and the whole thing collapsed.
We have now built a recovery on FIAT CURRENCY, another house of cards via derivatives. Which is why the economy is not improving IN RELATION TO THE MARKETS.
Derivatives should be illegal, but they have now created so many of them that they simply don't know what to do about it anymore.
What exatly are you claiming in untrue or inaccurate?Do you not understand the difference between a level and a rate? Employment can go up, but the ratio go down. Employment (and jobs, different concepts) has been going up since 2010, but not as fast as population growth. I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue.Which part of less people are working above the age of 16 don't you understand.........
If less people are employed via the rate then there is less employment period.............
Are you claiming the increase in employment-population under Ford and Carter was a sign of improvement? That's an odd position. There are many non-economic reasons for changes up or down in the ratio.It's an indicator of overall health, but it can be misleading. In any case, my initial point was only that Bull was wrong in stating we had not gained 6 million jobs since 2010. I made no further claims.
Because it wasn't relevant. I was talking about jobs, from the payroll survey, which doesn't't differentiate between full and part time. You switched the topic to employment and the emp-pop ratio, from the household survey, which does differentiate, but the issue never came up.Secondly you ignore the issues of Part time employment.
You seem in distant on reading some overall argument in my posts, but I have no idea what argument you think I'm trying to make.
Please stick to what I've actually written rather than inventing some broader claim that I'm not making.
BS
No, not really. You seem to be addressing points I'm not actually making, so it's a bit confusing.You know exactly what I'm saying.
What time frame are you talking about? If you mean there are fewer people working now than before the recession, that's true. But Employment and jobs have been going up the last 3 years.Less people are working PERIOD.
ummm, yeah, counting usually is.Employment is a numbers game.
Which numbers and what time frame? And population changes have nothing to do with the level of employment or jobs.And the numbers are lower even with population increases as I've shown from data you ignore.
Which thread? Which numbers? You've posted nothing that contradicts anything I've said. You've made a couple of links to pure data, without comment, so I'm not sure what point you intended, and there was nothing there contrary to what I said, so I had no response.You didn't look again at the thread I posted again. Showing the numbers, which show you are full of it.
At least so far....maybe today we'll get a breakthrough.
HOW MUCH DEBT are you willing to allow the government shysters to put us in? What's the number when even the maoists say enough is enough? We're at $17T now....many economists think $20T is the tipping point. Obama has raised the debt-ceiling 7 times after screaming like a woman when Dubya did it. He's added $6T to the debt and continues to run $1T yearly deficits. After $20T, another financial meltdown of any kind, could tip us over into default. Surely you leftists don't believe Wall Street has stopped dealing in mortgage-based derivatives. Surely you don't believe criminal enterprises like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have stopped rigging the futures markets. So how much is enough....how close to the edge of diaster are you willing to tread?
The premise of your question is false. It is not Democrats who are running up the debt, Clinton had a surplus, Bush exploded the debt and Obama cut spending in half.
Derivatives where illegal from 1936 to 1983. They were part of the lessons learned from the Great Depression. Part of the Glass Steigal Act.
Had they stayed illegal, there would have never been a stock market crash in 2008.
The final nail in the coffin occurred in 2000. Allowing Shadow trading beyond SEC control. The house of cards was created in 8 years or less. They pulled the cards out of the bottom, and the whole thing collapsed.
We have now built a recovery on FIAT CURRENCY, another house of cards via derivatives. Which is why the economy is not improving IN RELATION TO THE MARKETS.
Derivatives should be illegal, but they have now created so many of them that they simply don't know what to do about it anymore.
Explain to me how an economy expands to accommodate rapid increases in value, such as we saw with the digital revolution, without the use of fiat currency?
If we have a gold standard, do we simply devalue the rest of the Somewhere along the line, someone got the idea that fiat currency is "bad." Opposition to fiat currency in general simply demonstrates abject ignorance of market economics. Yes, monetary policy can and is abused, but this doesn't mean that fiat currency is the issue.
Derivatives became a money-making venture for financial institutions in an economy that was no longer producing anything in the US.
Selling each other cheeseburgers and insurance policies is what we are. They saw the "housing boom" was simply a massive Ponzi scheme built on the promise of a 25% yearly equity bump. So they decided to package up their junk, talk AIG into insuring it, and off to Europe they went with it.
As to fiat currency, it allows rogue nations like china to keep their currency valuation far below it's actual worth and keep their labor price low. All to squeeze more capital flight from the US.
Japan did it and have done quite well with it. They claim they can't honor our trade agreements with them because they're in a "recession" that's now lasted about 15 years. Countries without gold (or cotton or coal...whatever you attach a fiat currency to) have no obligation to back up their currency with anything but promises. We back our currency with the United States Marine Corps....should that ever not be the case, we'll quickly move into third-world status as our wealth rots on the vine.
