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.
Actually discouraged workers have been declining since 2010, so a better answer would have been, just about none of them.If they had an attractive enough job opportunity they would start working.Huh? "Just about all of them?" What do you base that on?Oh? Of the people who have dropped out of the labor force, how many of them do you contend did so because they want to work but couldn't find a job?Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.
The unemployment rate was never 2.4%, not even close.
Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
The only reason that the rate is currently going "down" is because so many people dropped out of the labor workforce and are no longer looking for jobs. Only a liberal hack would gloat about such an "accomplishment".
Just about all of them, why else do people drop out of the workforce? Bush had a healthy 65-66% his entire term. Obama has been dropping every month, now down to an all time low of 62.7%.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Keep on spinnin'.
You're not very good at this stuff, are you?
No bullshit idiot it is what it isBULLSHIT!92 MILLION CHERISH THIS MOMENT OBAMA HAS A RECORD. It will never happen again unless you idiots help elect another moron.So? 94% of them don't want to work.Get over it obama has the record 92 BILLION Americans are not working A RECORDAnd yet, YOUR source for that 92.6 figure, the BLS, say it does. Whassamatter, ijit? You don't believe your own source??No it does not dumb ass. No matter how many times you repeat it, it's still a lie.
And I point out again that you are incapable of demonstrating that the LFPR is a negative indicator of the economy.
And I point out again that you are incapable of demonstrating that the LFPR is a negative indicator of the economy.
I'll be back to kick your dumb ass some more
A new "record" will happen again and again! No matter who is president as long as the population keeps growing each president will leave office with the new record, as has happened with EVERY president since they started keeping track in 1947.
Oh you are going to get the stupid idiots worked up in to the dreppy stageStarting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.
The unemployment rate was never 2.4%, not even close.
Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
The only reason that the rate is currently going "down" is because so many people dropped out of the labor workforce and are no longer looking for jobs. Only a liberal hack would gloat about such an "accomplishment".
It's a record the 92 million is a record you stupid waste od a fuck you should have been condomizedIf it was lower before 1973, then it is not a "RECORD" low.Sorry buba obama has a record low have not seen this since 1973 DON'T LIKE IT? I DON'T GIVE A FUCK YOU SUPPORTED THIS NOW DEAL WITH IT.That chart shows it began dropping in 2001 ... how come you righties never talked about it until around 2009?How so at 62.8 percent, the participation rate matches the lowest since March 1978.Every president holds that record as the population grows. The next GOP president will hold it but suddenly it won't matter again.obama hold's that record alone.
So? The number is up about 12 million since Obama became president. During that same period, we've had some 14-15 million baby boomers retire. You don't think that had an impact on the 'not in labor force' figure? (Rhetorical question since you don't think)It's a record the 92 million is a record you stupid waste od a fuck you should have been condomizedIf it was lower before 1973, then it is not a "RECORD" low.Sorry buba obama has a record low have not seen this since 1973 DON'T LIKE IT? I DON'T GIVE A FUCK YOU SUPPORTED THIS NOW DEAL WITH IT.That chart shows it began dropping in 2001 ... how come you righties never talked about it until around 2009?How so at 62.8 percent, the participation rate matches the lowest since March 1978.Every president holds that record as the population grows. The next GOP president will hold it but suddenly it won't matter again.
If that's the case then why did Reagan start with a lower workforce participation rate than he ended with?I just did.Prove that "just about all of them" wanted to work.If they had an attractive enough job opportunity they would start working.Huh? "Just about all of them?" What do you base that on?Just about all of them, why else do people drop out of the workforce? Bush had a healthy 65-66% his entire term. Obama has been dropping every month, now down to an all time low of 62.7%.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Keep on spinnin'.
You're not very good at this stuff, are you?
You're sort of thick, aren't you?
Why do you think the workforce participation rate rose in the Reagan years?
Why didn't you know that RAYgun did not have an average of 8000 baby boomers retiring per day on his watch?
You should know that by now.. we schooled you on that many posts ago! Retirees dropping out of the workforce will certainly have an impact on the workforce participation rate.
LOL!Try a frontal lobotomy. Maybe that will make more lucid?No! No! I'm right! I'm right!Hell, you can't even prove that.Repeating the same thing isn't arguing, Murgatroyd.And you failed to provide any proof. Only a loon would take you at your word. And since you have no proof, you have nothing.Right. Proof constitutes proof. And I gave it. That you dont like that is your problem, not mine.
Prove that they dont want jobs as opposed to believing there are not adequate jobs out there.
Face it, s0n. You've been
It just falls off the cliff with your other unsubstantiated nonsense.
Call me when you get an argument more believable than that.
It's a "record" EVERY president breaks!!!!!It's a record the 92 million is a record you stupid waste od a fuck you should have been condomizedIf it was lower before 1973, then it is not a "RECORD" low.Sorry buba obama has a record low have not seen this since 1973 DON'T LIKE IT? I DON'T GIVE A FUCK YOU SUPPORTED THIS NOW DEAL WITH IT.That chart shows it began dropping in 2001 ... how come you righties never talked about it until around 2009?How so at 62.8 percent, the participation rate matches the lowest since March 1978.Every president holds that record as the population grows. The next GOP president will hold it but suddenly it won't matter again.
Over 2.5 million every year since Obama became president whereas St Ronnie averaged only 1.6 million each year.If that's the case then why did Reagan start with a lower workforce participation rate than he ended with?I just did.Prove that "just about all of them" wanted to work.If they had an attractive enough job opportunity they would start working.Huh? "Just about all of them?" What do you base that on?
You're not very good at this stuff, are you?
You're sort of thick, aren't you?
Why do you think the workforce participation rate rose in the Reagan years?
Why didn't you know that RAYgun did not have an average of 8000 baby boomers retiring per day on his watch?
You should know that by now.. we schooled you on that many posts ago! Retirees dropping out of the workforce will certainly have an impact on the workforce participation rate.
Do you think the entire number of people leaving are baby boomers retiring?
Why do you think they are choosing now to retire, rather than continue working, which would increase their income?
You're not terribly well informed here. Just saying.
I would expect YOU to know the answer to your own question about RAYgun's workforce participation rate. Did you ask the question because you are clueless? Or did you expect me to get tied up looking for the answer so as to relieve the pressure on you? Either way, I won't bother...RAYgun's highs and lows could have been attributed to a lot of factors but the workforce participation rate must have went down somewhat when he fired all those air traffic controllers. Reagan's WFPR might have went up thanks to Carter...who allowed all those "conservative" vietnam era draft dodgers back into the country with his amnesty plan. Reagan benefitted from that, too as they slowly re-entered the job market.If that's the case then why did Reagan start with a lower workforce participation rate than he ended with?I just did.Prove that "just about all of them" wanted to work.If they had an attractive enough job opportunity they would start working.Huh? "Just about all of them?" What do you base that on?
You're not very good at this stuff, are you?
You're sort of thick, aren't you?
Why do you think the workforce participation rate rose in the Reagan years?
Why didn't you know that RAYgun did not have an average of 8000 baby boomers retiring per day on his watch?
You should know that by now.. we schooled you on that many posts ago! Retirees dropping out of the workforce will certainly have an impact on the workforce participation rate.
Do you think the entire number of people leaving are baby boomers retiring?
Why do you think they are choosing now to retire, rather than continue working, which would increase their income?
You're not terribly well informed here. Just saying.
Bush didn't Clinton didn't So fuck off.It's a "record" EVERY president breaks!!!!!It's a record the 92 million is a record you stupid waste od a fuck you should have been condomizedIf it was lower before 1973, then it is not a "RECORD" low.Sorry buba obama has a record low have not seen this since 1973 DON'T LIKE IT? I DON'T GIVE A FUCK YOU SUPPORTED THIS NOW DEAL WITH IT.That chart shows it began dropping in 2001 ... how come you righties never talked about it until around 2009?How so at 62.8 percent, the participation rate matches the lowest since March 1978.
WOW showing off obama's war on women wealth inequalityOver 2.5 million every year since Obama became president whereas St Ronnie averaged only 1.6 million each year.If that's the case then why did Reagan start with a lower workforce participation rate than he ended with?I just did.Prove that "just about all of them" wanted to work.If they had an attractive enough job opportunity they would start working.
You're not very good at this stuff, are you?
You're sort of thick, aren't you?
Why do you think the workforce participation rate rose in the Reagan years?
Why didn't you know that RAYgun did not have an average of 8000 baby boomers retiring per day on his watch?
You should know that by now.. we schooled you on that many posts ago! Retirees dropping out of the workforce will certainly have an impact on the workforce participation rate.
Do you think the entire number of people leaving are baby boomers retiring?
Why do you think they are choosing now to retire, rather than continue working, which would increase their income?
You're not terribly well informed here. Just saying.
Beneficiary Data
View attachment 33138
Of course Bush & Clinton both had record numbers of people not in the labor force during their respective presidencies. Every president has...Bush didn't Clinton didn't So fuck off.It's a "record" EVERY president breaks!!!!!It's a record the 92 million is a record you stupid waste od a fuck you should have been condomizedIf it was lower before 1973, then it is not a "RECORD" low.Sorry buba obama has a record low have not seen this since 1973 DON'T LIKE IT? I DON'T GIVE A FUCK YOU SUPPORTED THIS NOW DEAL WITH IT.That chart shows it began dropping in 2001 ... how come you righties never talked about it until around 2009?
You remain insane.WOW showing off obama's war on women wealth inequalityOver 2.5 million every year since Obama became president whereas St Ronnie averaged only 1.6 million each year.If that's the case then why did Reagan start with a lower workforce participation rate than he ended with?I just did.Prove that "just about all of them" wanted to work.
You're sort of thick, aren't you?
Why do you think the workforce participation rate rose in the Reagan years?
Why didn't you know that RAYgun did not have an average of 8000 baby boomers retiring per day on his watch?
You should know that by now.. we schooled you on that many posts ago! Retirees dropping out of the workforce will certainly have an impact on the workforce participation rate.
Do you think the entire number of people leaving are baby boomers retiring?
Why do you think they are choosing now to retire, rather than continue working, which would increase their income?
You're not terribly well informed here. Just saying.
Beneficiary Data
View attachment 33138
Insanity is still being an obama supporter you stupid fuckYou remain insane.WOW showing off obama's war on women wealth inequalityOver 2.5 million every year since Obama became president whereas St Ronnie averaged only 1.6 million each year.If that's the case then why did Reagan start with a lower workforce participation rate than he ended with?I just did.
You're sort of thick, aren't you?
Why do you think the workforce participation rate rose in the Reagan years?
Why didn't you know that RAYgun did not have an average of 8000 baby boomers retiring per day on his watch?
You should know that by now.. we schooled you on that many posts ago! Retirees dropping out of the workforce will certainly have an impact on the workforce participation rate.
Do you think the entire number of people leaving are baby boomers retiring?
Why do you think they are choosing now to retire, rather than continue working, which would increase their income?
You're not terribly well informed here. Just saying.
Beneficiary Data
View attachment 33138
No they didn't they never came close to caters levelOf course Bush & Clinton both had record numbers of people not in the labor force during their respective presidencies. Every president has...Bush didn't Clinton didn't So fuck off.It's a "record" EVERY president breaks!!!!!It's a record the 92 million is a record you stupid waste od a fuck you should have been condomizedIf it was lower before 1973, then it is not a "RECORD" low.Sorry buba obama has a record low have not seen this since 1973 DON'T LIKE IT? I DON'T GIVE A FUCK YOU SUPPORTED THIS NOW DEAL WITH IT.
LOL! Wow that graph just demonstrates it all. Chiefly it demonstrates you are a dimbuilb.Of course Bush & Clinton both had record numbers of people not in the labor force during their respective presidencies. Every president has...Bush didn't Clinton didn't So fuck off.It's a "record" EVERY president breaks!!!!!It's a record the 92 million is a record you stupid waste od a fuck you should have been condomizedIf it was lower before 1973, then it is not a "RECORD" low.Sorry buba obama has a record low have not seen this since 1973 DON'T LIKE IT? I DON'T GIVE A FUCK YOU SUPPORTED THIS NOW DEAL WITH IT.
Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.
Nothing is saner than an Obama voter when compared to a Bush voter. Bush almost doubled unemployment from 4.2% to 7.8%. Obama cleaned up Bush's mess and reduced unemployment from 7.8% to 5.9%.Insanity is still being an obama supporter you stupid fuckYou remain insane.WOW showing off obama's war on women wealth inequalityOver 2.5 million every year since Obama became president whereas St Ronnie averaged only 1.6 million each year.If that's the case then why did Reagan start with a lower workforce participation rate than he ended with?Why didn't you know that RAYgun did not have an average of 8000 baby boomers retiring per day on his watch?
You should know that by now.. we schooled you on that many posts ago! Retirees dropping out of the workforce will certainly have an impact on the workforce participation rate.
Do you think the entire number of people leaving are baby boomers retiring?
Why do you think they are choosing now to retire, rather than continue working, which would increase their income?
You're not terribly well informed here. Just saying.
Beneficiary Data
View attachment 33138
