Originally Posted by Guest

The Obama economy is booming along ! You can`t deny the data just announced this past week and commented on enthusiastically by the president !!

All done with $1.2 trillion in new debt. Are you "doing better" as a family if every year you owe more and more? You're taking out new loans to pay off old loans? You have to borrow to pay the interest on your loans?

We're NOT doing better...it's propaganda...you NEED to realize you're lied to every day.

Originally Posted by Guest

Show me how that number is calculated or did you make it up.

Unemployment numbers are derived from calling 60,000 households using some formula to determine who gets called. They ask questions and determine unemployment that way.

still don't see an unemployment number

Originally Posted by Guest

still don't see an unemployment number

These people cant see it either

Originally Posted by Guest

Unemployment is at an all time high since the depression.

Tell me the percentage of unemployed. You can't. Because you don't know.

If you did know the percentage I could verify it and compare it to the depression. Instead you throw out insults and silly photos. That's supposed to pass for insight.

It sounds like a Donald speech. You remind me of high school cheerleader that loves to cheer but in between cheers they don't watch the game or even know who's winning.

The labor force participation rate is now down to 62.6, and it is hovering just above a 38 year low.
When you add the number of working age Americans that are “officially unemployed” (7.4 million) to the
number of working age Americans that are considered to be “not in the labor force” (an all-time record high
of 94.7 million), you get a grand total of 102.1 million working age Americans that do not have a job right
now.

Originally Posted by Guest

Thank-you Jesus for sending me some hope.

No thanks I had some last week .

thanks for helping me understand instead of all the other bull****

Unemployment is at an all time high since the depression.

Many economist argue the labor force decline is the result of low-skilled workers losing their jobs to outsourcing or automation, having no success finding new employment and therefore dropping out of the labor force entirely. For this reason, they feel the participation rate is a more accurate measure of the state of the job market than the unemployment rate, which only considers those in the labor force. An unemployment rate of 5% means only 5 out of 100 workers in the labor force are without jobs, but it does not consider those unemployed workers who have given up looking altogether, even though they want to work.

Year Unemployed Percentage of Labor Force
1929 3.14
1930 8.67
1931 15.82
1932 23.53
1933 24.75
1934 21.60
1935 19.97
1936 16.80
1937 14.18
1938 18.91
1939 17.05
1940 14.45
1941 9.66

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- MAY 2016 []Sorry, the page you are looking for cannot be found.
The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 4.7 percent in May, and
nonfarm payroll employment changed little (+38,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. Employment increased in health care. Mining continued
to lose jobs, and employment in information decreased due to a strike.

I'm trying to understand how this works. It seems to me that you can only compare unemployment rates since no one measured the participation rate a long time ago. Do you know when they first started measuring participation rate?

I have another question. When I was little I only knew one or two kids who's mother worked. I lived in a stay at home mom neighborhood. Now it's just presumed all women will work. How does that impact participation rate? Would my mother be measured as unemployed or just not participating because she had no intention of working?

Originally Posted by Guest

Tell me the percentage of unemployed. You can't. Because you don't know.

.

No one knows you mentally diluted idiot. This is not a hard concept. As ignorant as thinking that a census was a worth while effort and expenditure of tax dollars a few years back (I shredded my census forms). MILLIONS were not counted then, they also are not counted in employment figures (nor are all the blacks who reside in prison and once out cant get a job even if they wanted to).

We COULD start by asking all of the leaches on society (welfare, medicaid and on and on) if they even applied for a job. If they did not, they are not counted. We COULD demand drug testing for welfare recipients...we COULD cut them off and ship the Mexicans and Arabs at the CircleK back to their mother lands (the Arabs are after all sending their money there).

Simply, the ignorant lemmings, such as yourself never ever let the reality of life get into the way of your false ideals. Thus, I really enjoy firing people at work who are liberal - and, just last week interviewed a guy for a position who had a Hillary sticker on his car. He did NOT get the job.

Originally Posted by Guest

Have you tried to follow the thread? If you jump in the middle and try to understand a discussion, I guess you would get lost. Work on it.

Its hard to follow a thread that starts off totally racist and rambles on from there to insults and name calling. It's like George Wallace and Don Rickles had a moronic kid and taught him how to type.

Originally Posted by Guest

No one knows you mentally diluted idiot. This is not a hard concept. As ignorant as thinking that a census was a worth while effort and expenditure of tax dollars a few years back (I shredded my census forms). MILLIONS were not counted then, they also are not counted in employment figures (nor are all the blacks who reside in prison and once out cant get a job even if they wanted to).

We COULD start by asking all of the leaches on society (welfare, medicaid and on and on) if they even applied for a job. If they did not, they are not counted. We COULD demand drug testing for welfare recipients...we COULD cut them off and ship the Mexicans and Arabs at the CircleK back to their mother lands (the Arabs are after all sending their money there).

Simply, the ignorant lemmings, such as yourself never ever let the reality of life get into the way of your false ideals. Thus, I really enjoy firing people at work who are liberal - and, just last week interviewed a guy for a position who had a Hillary sticker on his car. He did NOT get the job.

Here's the number:
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- MAY 2016
The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 4.7 percent in May.
Do you live in the villages?

Originally Posted by Guest

Tell me the percentage of unemployed. You can't. Because you don't know.

If you did know the percentage I could verify it and compare it to the depression. Instead you throw out insults and silly photos. That's supposed to pass for insight.

It sounds like a Donald speech. You remind me of high school cheerleader that loves to cheer but in between cheers they don't watch the game or even know who's winning.

NOBODY "knows" the exact number...nobody.

Originally Posted by Guest

Its hard to follow a thread that starts off totally racist and rambles on from there to insults and name calling. It's like George Wallace and Don Rickles had a moronic kid and taught him how to type.

And you added what? Some stupid reference to people you don't like? Wallace SAW the future and he tried to stop the inevitable destruction of a one fine nation. He was right...you were wrong. Nothing good has come from diversity, quotas, and affirmative action. Race "relations" have never been worse.

Originally Posted by Guest

Here's the number:
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- MAY 2016
The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 4.7 percent in May.
Do you live in the villages?

Nobody knows the REAL numbers.

Originally Posted by Guest

And you added what? Some stupid reference to people you don't like? Wallace SAW the future and he tried to stop the inevitable destruction of a one fine nation. He was right...you were wrong.

How well do you know Wallace?
"He argued that his early devotion to segregation was based on his reading of the Constitution and the Bible and was misinterpreted as a racist hatred of black people.

''I made a mistake in the sense that I should have clarified my position more,'' he said in his last term as Governor. ''I was never saying anything that reflected upon black people, and I'm very sorry it was taken that way.''

That Mr. Wallace died haunted by race is appropriate to his life story --
George Wallace, Segregation Symbol, Dies at 79 - NYTimes.com

Originally Posted by Guest

thanks for helping me understand instead of all the other bull****

Unemployment is at an all time high since the depression.

Many economist argue the labor force decline is the result of low-skilled workers losing their jobs to outsourcing or automation, having no success finding new employment and therefore dropping out of the labor force entirely. For this reason, they feel the participation rate is a more accurate measure of the state of the job market than the unemployment rate, which only considers those in the labor force. An unemployment rate of 5% means only 5 out of 100 workers in the labor force are without jobs, but it does not consider those unemployed workers who have given up looking altogether, even though they want to work.

Year Unemployed Percentage of Labor Force
1929 3.14
1930 8.67
1931 15.82
1932 23.53
1933 24.75
1934 21.60
1935 19.97
1936 16.80
1937 14.18
1938 18.91
1939 17.05
1940 14.45
1941 9.66

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- MAY 2016 []Sorry, the page you are looking for cannot be found.
The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 4.7 percent in May, and
nonfarm payroll employment changed little (+38,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. Employment increased in health care. Mining continued
to lose jobs, and employment in information decreased due to a strike.

I'm trying to understand how this works. It seems to me that you can only compare unemployment rates since no one measured the participation rate a long time ago. Do you know when they first started measuring participation rate?

I have another question. When I was little I only knew one or two kids who's mother worked. I lived in a stay at home mom neighborhood. Now it's just presumed all women will work. How does that impact participation rate? Would my mother be measured as unemployed or just not participating because she had no intention of working?

Unemployment is based on those that apply for unemployment benefits. When it gets real bad and people get discouraged from seeking employment, they become part of the group that left the work force. That also includes retirees (a small percentage) and the handicapped.

If you don't trust the stats, then do your own research. The information is availible at the CBO, Treasurydirect.gov, BLS, the DebtClock, etc.

Since Obama entered the White House, 14,179,000 Americans have “left the labor force” according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Indicators reveal that we have entered into another RECESSION. I wonder how long it will be before they admit it.

Originally Posted by Guest

If you don't trust the stats, then do your own research. The information is availible at the CBO, Treasurydirect.gov, BLS, the DebtClock, etc.

Since Obama entered the White House, 14,179,000 Americans have “left the labor force” according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Doing ones own research in reality is impossible. For instance, how many homeless people are in NYC? The reality is no one knows. From there, how many 20 year old black men with children "in the system" of welfare and what not have never applied for a job? No one will ever know. How many UNDER EMPLOYED people are there in Marion County? That would be VERY hard to know - "Under employed" is not the same for a 45yr old CPA working at Lowes as it is a 20 year old dropout working at Lowes...for the same wage.

Then, we get these idiots in the $15 an hour protests...who will easily be replaced with a kiosk that will never have a comp injury (but may have a "sick" day)

What is the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)?
Answer: The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is the principal fact-finding agency for the federal government in the broad field of labor economics and statistics. The BLS is an independent national statistical agency that collects, processes, analyzes, and disseminates essential statistical data to the American public, the U.S. Congress, other federal agencies, state and local governments, business, and labor. The BLS also serves as a statistical resource to the Department of Labor.

BLS data must satisfy a number of criteria, including relevance to current social and economic issues, timeliness in reflecting today’s rapidly changing economic conditions, accuracy and consistently high statistical quality, and impartiality in both subject matter and presentation.

Is that a reliable source?

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until USDL-16-1096
8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, June 3, 2016

Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * Current Population Survey (CPS)
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National) Home Page

Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov


THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- MAY 2016


The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 4.7 percent in May, and
nonfarm payroll employment changed little (+38,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. Employment increased in health care. Mining continued
to lose jobs, and employment in information decreased due to a strike.