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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
obama supporters say some of the dumbest things, but what do you expect from stupid people?From the same 2007 starting point little Jeffie Sessions started to the time Bush left there were 1.5 million working-age people and employment declined by almost 6 million. Seems like Jeffie Limp Wrist is pissed that Obama got back 5.5 million of the 6 million jobs Bush lost.
You say this shit but yet I notice your attack on the tea party? Dude you really need to stop it you're showing how ignorant you truly are.Buy Bush and Clinton.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.
I'm glad you are starting to see beyond party lines. Sometimes it takes longer than others.
The basics of America today is, "Will you be a puppet that will sell out the people for profit, or be what use to be an ACTUAL American. Even after killing off the Indians certain Americans know the line that needs to be drawn.
The Measure is, "Are you willing to kill innocent people and/ or enslave innocents so we can profit beyond imagination?" We have done it and we can still do it...........but not for very long. The world is wising up to our course.
This is the year 2014 & we have a new president. Feel free to break the bonds of that 2007 bubble and join us.
]
No, more people are participating now, but the percent of the population participating is lower.
Can you clarify pinqy? The population is probably larger now, but percentage wise less people are employed currently. So we are making a comparision between Bush's highest unemployment rate and Obama's lowest? How is that a fair comparison or even noteworthy?
Well, I guess Forbes knows more than anyone else according to you!
So, the "real" unemployment rate counts some people who have a slow week at their full time job as "unemployed?" Because, yes, many of the people classified as part time for economic reasons have full time jobs but had a bad week or two.Forbes Puts America's Real Unemployment Rate at 12.6%
Tackling The Real Unemployment Rate 12.6 - Forbes
Jake, WWII started and ended in less time than your boy has been in the White House!Well, I guess Forbes knows more than anyone else according to you! So was the rate under previous administrations much higher than publicized? That must be the case, huh? But the White House report did raise an interesting point. At no time in history has so many Americans reached retirement age. The retiring baby boomers surely have some impact on the numbers of Americans leaving the workforce!Forbes Puts America's Real Unemployment Rate at 12.6%
Tackling The Real Unemployment Rate 12.6 - Forbes
Oh my bad. Did I mistake a "learning" thread as a trolling one by mistake?This is the year 2014 & we have a new president. Feel free to break the bonds of that 2007 bubble and join us.
Problem is, one side slates the other for the supposed problems the current leadership has caused, but often they're just dealing with a situation that's just been forced upon them.
Looking back and learning from mistakes gone by is a good thing to do. Right?
Are you too lazy to look up those numbers if they exist? Educate me if you can! I am open to constructive criticism and new knowledge.JQ, your nonsense is not even worth replying to. You are willfully omitting the numbers that are under-employed or have left the workforce entirely.
You are a useless Jack-off.
You don't know anything, do you? There's more than 102 million not working. I assume you're talking about the 92.6 million who are not in the labor force ... yeah, so? Among those 92.6 million are high schoolers who don't want to work, baby boomers who don't want to work, housewives (and house husbands) who don't want to work, college students who don't want to work, people on disability who can't or don't want to work, people on welfare who don't want to work, disabled military vets who don't can't, etc...Americans not working 92 million
Well, they say they want a job. But half of those haven't tried to get a job in over a year or never looked for work.Only about 6 million (about 2% of civilian noninstitutional population) of them want a job.
Yeah it's not like what happened yesterday affects us today...
Yes it's true you're believing the bull shit they are saying now.The white house said? Hell if the white house the sky was green you would eat it up like shit ice cream.The disaster clowns may have been in place before Obama took office:It's called the Workforce Participation Rate. Go check it out to see what a fucking disaster clown your president is.Care to expound on that?
Since this workforce participation in labor has seemingly neutered the gains made in reducing unemployment I was curious as to why that happened. The BLS statistics show the numbers but not the reasons behind that data. A White House report provided more insight.
A White House report says declining participation in labour force had pre-recession roots
Jul 17, 2014 Jim Kuhnhenn, The Associated Press 0
WASHINGTON – Declaring the Great Recession only partly to blame, White House economists say the increasing number of Americans dropping out of the labour force dampens economic growth and demands policy changes that create more job opportunities and add workers.
In a new report released Thursday, President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers point to an aging population as the biggest single factor contributing to the lowest participation rate in 36 years. The report also says the elevated unemployment rate, which climbed to 10 per cent in 2009, drove workers to put off looking for a job.
But they say other factors might be at play, including long-term declining rates for 24- to 54-year-old men and a more recent decline in the participation in the labour force by women.
The decline in the labour force — currently at 62.8 per cent compared to a high of 67.3 per cent in 2000 — has been one of the more baffling indicators to emerge during the economic recovery, clouding an otherwise improving jobs picture. The participation rate has declined even as companies have increased hiring and as the unemployment rate has declined.
MORE:
White House report says declining participation in labour force had pre-recession roots - Canadian Business
No, that is not true. But , I don't see any viable explanations for the workforce participation disparity coming from the right! That is , other than Obama bashing, Do you have something valuable to add?
You asked every one of them, right?You don't know anything, do you? There's more than 102 million not working. I assume you're talking about the 92.6 million who are not in the labor force ... yeah, so? Among those 92.6 million are high schoolers who don't want to work, baby boomers who don't want to work, housewives (and house husbands) who don't want to work, college students who don't want to work, people on disability who can't or don't want to work, people on welfare who don't want to work, disabled military vets who don't can't, etc...Americans not working 92 million
Only about 6 million (about 2% of civilian noninstitutional population) of them want a job.
Unemployment was higher during the Clinton & Obama years than the Bush years. Everyone knows 911 caused unemployment to skyrocket and it took till 2007 for it to stabilize, but then the Dems won Congress and the rate skyrocketed to almost 11%. According to the BLS the UE rate was 3.9% at the start of the Bush years, not 2.4%, so your OP is bullshit.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.
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1992 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.4 | 7.4 | 7.6 | 7.8 | 7.7 | 7.6 | 7.6 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.4 | |
| 1993 | 7.3 | 7.1 | 7.0 | 7.1 | 7.1 | 7.0 | 6.9 | 6.8 | 6.7 | 6.8 | 6.6 | 6.5 | |
| 1994 | 6.6 | 6.6 | 6.5 | 6.4 | 6.1 | 6.1 | 6.1 | 6.0 | 5.9 | 5.8 | 5.6 | 5.5 | |
| 1995 | 5.6 | 5.4 | 5.4 | 5.8 | 5.6 | 5.6 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.6 | 5.5 | 5.6 | 5.6 | |
| 1996 | 5.6 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.6 | 5.6 | 5.3 | 5.5 | 5.1 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 5.4 | 5.4 | |
| 1997 | 5.3 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 5.1 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 4.9 | 4.8 | 4.9 | 4.7 | 4.6 | 4.7 | |
| 1998 | 4.6 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.6 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.4 | |
| 1999 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 4.0 | |
| 2000 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.0 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 3.9 | |
| 2001 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 4.6 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 5.3 | 5.5 | 5.7 | |
| 2002 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.9 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.9 | 6.0 | |
| 2003 | 5.8 | 5.9 | 5.9 | 6.0 | 6.1 | 6.3 | 6.2 | 6.1 | 6.1 | 6.0 | 5.8 | 5.7 | |
| 2004 | 5.7 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 5.6 | 5.6 | 5.6 | 5.5 | 5.4 | 5.4 | 5.5 | 5.4 | 5.4 | |
| 2005 | 5.3 | 5.4 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 5.1 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.9 | |
| 2006 | 4.7 | 4.8 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.6 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.4 | |
| 2007 | 4.6 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 5.0 | |
| 2008 | 5.0 | 4.9 | 5.1 | 5.0 | 5.4 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 6.1 | 6.1 | 6.5 | 6.8 | 7.3 | |
| 2009 | 7.8 | 8.3 | 8.7 | 9.0 | 9.4 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 9.8 | 10.0 | 9.9 | 9.9 | |
| 2010 | 9.7 | 9.8 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 9.6 | 9.4 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.8 | 9.4 | |
| 2011 | 9.1 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 9.1 | 9.0 | 9.1 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 8.8 | 8.6 | 8.5 | |
| 2012 | 8.2 | 8.3 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.9 | |
| 2013 | 7.9 | 7.7 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.3 | 7.2 | 7.2 | 7.2 | 7.0 | 6.7 | |
| 2014 | 6.6 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 6.3 | 6.3 | 6.1 | 6.2 | 6.1 | 5.9 |
Why would I ask any of them? That's the BLS's job, not mine. I just reference their numbers.You asked every one of them, right?You don't know anything, do you? There's more than 102 million not working. I assume you're talking about the 92.6 million who are not in the labor force ... yeah, so? Among those 92.6 million are high schoolers who don't want to work, baby boomers who don't want to work, housewives (and house husbands) who don't want to work, college students who don't want to work, people on disability who can't or don't want to work, people on welfare who don't want to work, disabled military vets who don't can't, etc...Americans not working 92 million
Only about 6 million (about 2% of civilian noninstitutional population) of them want a job.
Typically after a recession the UE rate goes up, as those discouraged people enter the workforce. That didnt happen this time. Why? People didnt perceive any value in looking for work, remaining discouraged. Or the incentives not to work were greater than the incentives to work.
Either way the labor situaiton now sucks. Household income sucks. Household wealth sucks. And it is having repercussions throughout the economy as people put off getting married, starting businesses, etc.
A cycle of trickle up poverty, thanks to the Democrats.
Are you too lazy to look up those numbers if they exist? Educate me if you can! I am open to constructive criticism and new knowledge.JQ, your nonsense is not even worth replying to. You are willfully omitting the numbers that are under-employed or have left the workforce entirely.
You are a useless Jack-off.
Anyone who pays attention knows that there is a significant number of people out there who are no longer seeking employment. Where the fuck have YOU been, you lazy Jack-off?
This isn't remedial current events, jizz breath. I am not going to hold your fucking hand. Why don't you go fuck a Liberian. You know, because of the Ebola epidemic there. Oh, you have not heard of the Ebola epidemic either, have you?
Fuck off, Jack-off.
No, you made an assumption not based in fact.Why would I ask any of them? That's the BLS's job, not mine. I just reference their numbers.You asked every one of them, right?You don't know anything, do you? There's more than 102 million not working. I assume you're talking about the 92.6 million who are not in the labor force ... yeah, so? Among those 92.6 million are high schoolers who don't want to work, baby boomers who don't want to work, housewives (and house husbands) who don't want to work, college students who don't want to work, people on disability who can't or don't want to work, people on welfare who don't want to work, disabled military vets who don't can't, etc...Americans not working 92 million
Only about 6 million (about 2% of civilian noninstitutional population) of them want a job.
Typically after a recession the UE rate goes up, as those discouraged people enter the workforce. That didnt happen this time. Why? People didnt perceive any value in looking for work, remaining discouraged. Or the incentives not to work were greater than the incentives to work.
Either way the labor situaiton now sucks. Household income sucks. Household wealth sucks. And it is having repercussions throughout the economy as people put off getting married, starting businesses, etc.
A cycle of trickle up poverty, thanks to the Democrats.
Are you too lazy to look up those numbers if they exist? Educate me if you can! I am open to constructive criticism and new knowledge.JQ, your nonsense is not even worth replying to. You are willfully omitting the numbers that are under-employed or have left the workforce entirely.
You are a useless Jack-off.
Anyone who pays attention knows that there is a significant number of people out there who are no longer seeking employment. Where the fuck have YOU been, you lazy Jack-off?
This isn't remedial current events, jizz breath. I am not going to hold your fucking hand. Why don't you go fuck a Liberian. You know, because of the Ebola epidemic there. Oh, you have not heard of the Ebola epidemic either, have you?
Fuck off, Jack-off.
Are you an angry white guy? I can't believe that white people could actually be so viciously profane.
I doubt if we can continue to have dialogue until you cool down a bit.
.But, until then I'll just sit back and watch what you say with my finger hovering precariously over the report button.
