[QUOTE=Guest;1205730][QUOTE=Guest;1205490]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
Some additional information: From BLS
Work Force in 2000 = 154,746,644
Employed Work Force NOW =151,307,667
Full-Time Employed = 123,396,244
Not Employed/Not in labor force = 93,765.812
Employed 123,396,244
Not working + 93,765.812
Total = 217,162,056
Total unemployed/not working = 43.1%[/QUOT
The difference in the work force from 2000 to 2016 is 3,400,000. What was the amount of not employed/not in the labor force in 2000? You left that out. It was over 40%. The only thing that has change is the person running the country. To try and float out there that the unemployment rate is 43.1% is just plain nonsense.
Presidents in this country can't control what businesses do. The president has little control of getting the US out of a recession especially when the other party is doing everything it can to make sure that he doesn't succeed even at the cost of its citizens. Party first, citizens second. We should all feel so proud, and what we have created.
|
No, I did not say that the unemployment rate in 2000 was 43.1%. I used that figure for today. And that is the figure based on those in the working force plus those not in the working force. The percentage was those no longer in the working force divided by the total. That gives you the percentage, in case you are questioning the math.
Regarding the total not working percentage in 2000, the numbers I got from BLS indicate 33.8%. Your math must be off a bit.
In 2000,
Living in poverty = 32,383,466
Food Stamps = 17,458,988
Now,
Living in poverty = 46,752,103
Food Stamps = 44,927,996
That's an
increase of:
44.3% in poverty level
157.3% in food stamps
The president's policies, with the help of a Democrat controlled congress had a lot to do with the decline. You act like restrictive business policies do not have any affect employment and standard of living levels.