Who Is Excited About The Employment Report?

[Uncensored2008]

The LFPR is at 63% The average in the 1950's was 59.3%, and the 1960's at 59.2%. The LFPR never got anywhere near 63% until the late 1970's

Because women, 53% of the population, didn't enter the workforce until then.

63% remains critically low.

 

[kwc57]

Good Grief! If you think Phrump has a chance to win the General, you are terribly mistaken. He cannot even defeat old Bernie. The GOP asked for someone like Phrump, and now they got him. ENJOY!

Trumps demographics are crumbling. Wait till they start counting electoral votes

They will see what happens when they get one of their dream candidates instead of a RINO

I can't wait. let's go already.

Better stock up with sleeping pills. You will need them in November. Phrump, who will soon be the party standard bearer and is going to embarrass the Republican Party. There are just not enough angry white men alive to help him win.

So you should be able to give us advice from personal experience since Obama has been the standard bearer of your party. How have you dealt with the embarrassment for the past 8 years?

 

[AceRothstein]

Just a realist....

No, a nattering nabob of negativity.

Maybe you can explain how the jobs report isn't BS? There are nearly 90 million people out of the work force, do the math, dumbass.

You're worthless

Good lord, you're an idiot.

 

[jc456]

Just a realist....

No, a nattering nabob of negativity.

Maybe you can explain how the jobs report isn't BS? There are nearly 90 million people out of the work force, do the math, dumbass.

You're worthless

Good lord, you're an idiot.

but close to spot on if not. ~40% unemployed.

 

[edthecynic]

Just a realist....

No, a nattering nabob of negativity.

Maybe you can explain how the jobs report isn't BS? There are nearly 90 million people out of the work force, do the math, dumbass.

You're worthless

For the same reason you hypocrites never complained about Bush's 80 million out of the workforce making his jobs report BS.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Just a realist....

No, a nattering nabob of negativity.

Maybe you can explain how the jobs report isn't BS? There are nearly 90 million people out of the work force, do the math, dumbass.

You're worthless

For the same reason you hypocrites never complained about Bush's 80 million out of the workforce making his jobs report BS.

Now you're catching on, it's all BS....but you fall for it

 

[AceRothstein]

Just a realist....

No, a nattering nabob of negativity.

Maybe you can explain how the jobs report isn't BS? There are nearly 90 million people out of the work force, do the math, dumbass.

You're worthless

Good lord, you're an idiot.

but close to spot on if not. ~40% unemployed.

No it isn't unless you count the retired, students and stay at home parents who don't need to work as unemployed. Why would anyone count those groups of people as unemployed?

 

[rightwinger]

8 million

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

It's good that the LPR went up, first time in Obama's presidency. It remains shockingly low, even so.

The LFPR is at 63% The average in the 1950's was 59.3%, and the 1960's at 59.2%. The LFPR never got anywhere near 63% until the late 1970's

And that was because women and baby boomers were entering the workforce

 

[rightwinger]

The LFPR is at 63% The average in the 1950's was 59.3%, and the 1960's at 59.2%. The LFPR never got anywhere near 63% until the late 1970's

Because women, 53% of the population, didn't enter the workforce until then.

63% remains critically low.

Why is it low?

Too many retirees to suit you?

 

[jc456]

Just a realist....

No, a nattering nabob of negativity.

Maybe you can explain how the jobs report isn't BS? There are nearly 90 million people out of the work force, do the math, dumbass.

You're worthless

Good lord, you're an idiot.

but close to spot on if not. ~40% unemployed.

No it isn't unless you count the retired, students and stay at home parents who don't need to work as unemployed. Why would anyone count those groups of people as unemployed?

i posted that material earlier in the thread, go for the read. Go to search and put jc456 and this thread, then look for the link I posted.

 

[pinqy]

The LFPR is at 63% The average in the 1950's was 59.3%, and the 1960's at 59.2%. The LFPR never got anywhere near 63% until the late 1970's

Because women, 53% of the population, didn't enter the workforce until then.

63% remains critically low.

Why? Why was 59.3% not critically low, but 63% is? It went up because women were entering, it's dropping because women, retirees, and high school students are leaving or not entering.

 

[Andylusion]

It's entirely true. In 2006 I had my own insurance policy. Today I actually have YOU pay my insurance. I can show you the bill. Cost of insurance $250, my cost, $80. Who pays the difference? You do. Good job sparky.

Why are you lying?

I'm not. Why would I lie?

Because you want to make a political point.

How many hours were you dropped to? You used to work 40....but that would mean your employer would need to get Obamacare.....so he cut your hours. How many hours a week do you work now?

Not exactly. I was full time at my previous job. This job never was full time, because the company hired me on at 30 hours. The guy was very open as to why. Small company. They didn't want to pay Obama Care, and so it's a part-time job. That was my understanding. Perhaps they lied to me.

Regardless, today, you are paying for my insurance. Look at your deductions, and remember I deserve your money, sucker. $_$

30 hours per week, huh? Small company, huh?

Now I KNOW you are lying.

And...here is what you need to know. I am HAPPY to help you get quality insurance. I want you to be healthy and productive. As an American, I benefit when every American is healthy. I benefit when diseases are caught early. We all benefit when our kids get vaccinations and there are no sick people running around touching doorknobs.

Figure it out, bro.

And stop lying. It's lame.

So I did some digging around at work, and talked to some people and found out.... everything I said was exactly right... I wish.

You were right. About all of it. Turns out his (my managers) Obamacare rant was "if we get big enough then....". The company must be too small to be hit with the penalties. And my part time work week, is just because they don't need me 40 hours.

THEREFORE.... You were right, and I was 100% wrong. You taught me a valuable lesson in double checking my facts on what I thought was the case.

Of course this makes me hate this job even more, given there is no reason I'm not getting 40 hours. Ironically I got a call today from a head hunter, and I have interview tomorrow so hopefully I can escape.

But you were right. Score 1 for you.

 

[AceRothstein]

No, a nattering nabob of negativity.

Maybe you can explain how the jobs report isn't BS? There are nearly 90 million people out of the work force, do the math, dumbass.

You're worthless

Good lord, you're an idiot.

but close to spot on if not. ~40% unemployed.

No it isn't unless you count the retired, students and stay at home parents who don't need to work as unemployed. Why would anyone count those groups of people as unemployed?

i posted that material earlier in the thread, go for the read. Go to search and put jc456 and this thread, then look for the link I posted.

The link that says the U6 is the real unemployment rate? That would be fine if we historically used the U6 number as the standard but we've been using the U3 for a very long time so the U3 it is.

 

[AceRothstein]

The BLS releases employment data for March in a few minutes. Anyone hoping for a strong showing? How close to 300,000 new jobs did we get?

Who's ready to celebrate?

Celebrate the fact that we are 200,000 jobs behind what we need to just keep up with population growth? No wonder you dudes are such losers, your standards are so fucking low that ANY news is good.

Wait, you seriously think we need to create 400k+ jobs a month to keep up with population growth?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The LFPR is at 63% The average in the 1950's was 59.3%, and the 1960's at 59.2%. The LFPR never got anywhere near 63% until the late 1970's

Because women, 53% of the population, didn't enter the workforce until then.

63% remains critically low.

Why? Why was 59.3% not critically low, but 63% is? It went up because women were entering, it's dropping because women, retirees, and high school students are leaving or not entering.

Because half the population did not hold jobs.

Simple concept. And yes, the fact that Gen Y is not interested in holding jobs is a concern.

 

[AceRothstein]

The BLS releases employment data for March in a few minutes. Anyone hoping for a strong showing? How close to 300,000 new jobs did we get?

Who's ready to celebrate?

Celebrate the fact that we are 200,000 jobs behind what we need to just keep up with population growth? No wonder you dudes are such losers, your standards are so fucking low that ANY news is good.

Who told you that nonsense?

We need somewhere around 190,000 jobs created per month to keep up with the growth in population. You need to count the people who die and retire as well as the people who get born.

Nice work, water carrier. Nice work.

190k is too high, we don't even need that many jobs per month to keep up with population growth. It is less than 150k.

 

[AceRothstein]

Here:

Donald Trump Is Right: The Unemployment Rate Is 40%

"But actually, this view can be supported by actual statistics. If you use the broadest definition of unemployment, the ratio of people over the age of 16 with jobs to the overall 16-and-over population, the Labor Department says that 40.6% of the population is unemployed."

Nowhere does that article state there are 17 million people unemployed; plus that article is 6 months old.

Your idiotic claim falls unsubstantiated. You lose again.

Can't do math eh? Here if 8 million is five percent multiply that by 7 and what do you get?

8 x 7 is 56. You said there are 17 million people unemployed.

You failed to prove that. Miserably.

Isn't that greater than, and includes 17 million wow dude you asked I delivered

You said it was 17 million.

If you weren't full of shit, you wouldn't have posted [very] different numbers three times (so far).

First you said it was 9 million.

Then you said it was 17 million.

Then you said it was 56 million.

Do you really think more evidence is needed that you really have no fucking clue what you're talking about?

Trump loves the poorly educated.

 

[jc456]

Maybe you can explain how the jobs report isn't BS? There are nearly 90 million people out of the work force, do the math, dumbass.

You're worthless

Good lord, you're an idiot.

but close to spot on if not. ~40% unemployed.

No it isn't unless you count the retired, students and stay at home parents who don't need to work as unemployed. Why would anyone count those groups of people as unemployed?

i posted that material earlier in the thread, go for the read. Go to search and put jc456 and this thread, then look for the link I posted.

The link that says the U6 is the real unemployment rate? That would be fine if we historically used the U6 number as the standard but we've been using the U3 for a very long time so the U3 it is.

but it is the number, just cause you wish to ignore it doesn't change it.

 

[jc456]

Nowhere does that article state there are 17 million people unemployed; plus that article is 6 months old.

Your idiotic claim falls unsubstantiated. You lose again.

Can't do math eh? Here if 8 million is five percent multiply that by 7 and what do you get?

8 x 7 is 56. You said there are 17 million people unemployed.

You failed to prove that. Miserably.

Isn't that greater than, and includes 17 million wow dude you asked I delivered

You said it was 17 million.

If you weren't full of shit, you wouldn't have posted [very] different numbers three times (so far).

First you said it was 9 million.

Then you said it was 17 million.

Then you said it was 56 million.

Do you really think more evidence is needed that you really have no fucking clue what you're talking about?

Trump loves the poorly educated.

and the educated and anyone else who wants america great again. I can't wait BTW!!!! it will be great.

 

[AceRothstein]

Good lord, you're an idiot.

but close to spot on if not. ~40% unemployed.

No it isn't unless you count the retired, students and stay at home parents who don't need to work as unemployed. Why would anyone count those groups of people as unemployed?

i posted that material earlier in the thread, go for the read. Go to search and put jc456 and this thread, then look for the link I posted.

The link that says the U6 is the real unemployment rate? That would be fine if we historically used the U6 number as the standard but we've been using the U3 for a very long time so the U3 it is.

but it is the number, just cause you wish to ignore it doesn't change it.

The U3 is the U3 and the U6 is the U6. The U3 is the official unemployment rate that everyone has been quoting for decades. Why should we change that now? Because it makes Obama look worse?