New ObaMao all-time record - 100 MILLION folks out of the labor force
-
The Blaze's "report" is utter nonsense:
First of all, the total US population (FY2015), from newborns to the oldest American, is around 320 million people. If you subtract out the number of citizens who normally don't fully participate in the workforce anyway - those under the age of 18 (73,645,000) and above the age of 70 (31,693,000) - this leaves a maximum possible workforce (ages 18-70) of around 214,662,000.
So, if the Blaze's "report" is to be believed, and 100 million people are not participating in the workforce, that would come out to an unemployment rate of 46.6%. To put that in perspective, that would place the US within the top 10 countries with the highest unemployment rates, somewhere between the Republic of the Congo and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Or, to put it another way, even the highest unemployment rate of the Great Depression, 1934, was 25%.
Funny how some of these claims become dubious when you bother to actually look into them deep enough.
But, the conservative zealots eat up whatever garbage the Blaze spits out and believes it like it's gospel.
"That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”. - Christopher Hitchens "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you". - Neil deGrasse Tyson -
Anybody want to wager a guess as to the number of multi-generational welfare recipients? Those who weren't going into the workforce anyway? I would imagine it's growing but I don't know.
WSS
-
baloney, jblu. You can't change how the calc is done whenever it suits you, as in, against a rep and for a dem.
It's worse, far, far worse under obaMao the terrible sombeitch.
-
Now, jblu, looky at the bold line. see it go up from 2000, to 2008. Now, take your time...what...does...it.....do....from 08 to 2014?
Would little jblusies like to have backhisliberaltruckupsies?
-
The point from my original question is how does the baby boomer generation affect this? If people are retiring earlier than what the "max age to work" statistic is, the "out of the workforce" number goes up naturally.
-
what if aliens work here and live to be 500 years old?
what if iizard woodpeckers only live to be 23?
what if birdbrains play whack-a-mole all day long, and miss lunch, and go hungry?
what if ...
'I'll Never Retire': Americans Break Record for Working Past 65 ...www.bloomberg.com/.../-i-ll-never-retire-americans-break-record-for-w...May 13, 2016 - 'I'll Never Retire': Americans Break Record for Working Past 65 ... benefits was at least one reason they had retired later than they planned to.Americans Settling on Older Retirement Age | Gallupwww.gallup.com/poll/.../americans-settling-older-retirement-age.aspxApr 29, 2015 - As part of that survey, Gallup asked nonretired Americans the age at which they expect to retire, and also asked retired Americans to report the age at which they retired. ... On average, nonretired Americans expect to retire at age 65, similar to averages of between 65 and 67 since 2009. -
Right, but this stat given in the OP was a total, not a percentage. We have more people than ever, and more old people. Even if the retirement age is later, the total I was referring to earlier is still higher.
-
the calculation doesn't change, though. The results of the calc, if perfectly legit over the years, are perfectly
legit now, even when it's ObaMao that has the disgrace of too much unemployment on him.
and, it's higher. quibbling over technicalities over how it's calc'ed misses the point.
-
or one, it includes lots of people who likely aren’t looking for work. It includes every American of retirement age -- 65 and older. It includes every high-school student at least 16 years of age. It includes every college and many graduate or professional-school students. It includes every person who has a disability that makes it impossible for them to work. It includes parents who are choosing to stay home to take care of their kids. It includes every adult who’s gone back to school full-time. It even includes trust-fund kids who are living off investments.
More old people = higher number
Didn't realize that number had no max age cap
-
the calculation doesn't change, though. The results of the calc, if perfectly legit over the years, are perfectly
legit now, even when it's ObaMao that has the disgrace of too much unemployment on him.
and, it's higher. quibbling over technicalities over how it's calc'ed misses the point.
the calculation doesn't change, though. The results of the calc, if perfectly legit over the years, are perfectly
legit now, even when it's ObaMao that has the disgrace of too much unemployment on him.
and, it's higher. quibbling over technicalities over how it's calc'ed misses the point.
You're parading around a big number because it looks bad. I would say understanding how that number is calculated is more than "quibbling over technicalities". You saw a post on your bias new site, saw a big number, and thought "ah ha! That confirms what I already thought!" and then posted it over here. At no point did you actually try to understand what that number means. THAT'S a huge problem, with too many people now.
-
They do need to parse out the data and remove the retired. They are willingly out of the labor force and likely collecting social security or a pension.
I would want to know for ages 18-35. That would project out down the road.
-
I say "quibbling" because the numbers were used against Bush for eight years.
NOW, there are excuses as to why the numbers are not quite as valid, etc etc etc.
It's only been eight years, it isn't like it's been 50. Numbers need to be accurate only when
it's in defense of the left. Otherwise, any numbers sure as hell are their benchmark.
-
You say quibbling because you posted a number you didn't understand and then got called out on it.
Now you're rambling on about what you think the left did before.
More old people = more people out of the workforce.
-
Does it include illegal aliens?
-
THANKS OBAMAO.
-
On a more serious note, the number of people of working age who are not actively seeking employment should be the useful metric here.
- People who are retiring earlier than the federal/state retirement age because they've had a good career and are able to do so because of good investments etc shouldn't really count against the non-participation rate (and also shouldn't really count against any one presidential administration).
- People who are retired shouldn't count. Social security is what, 65? 67? Something like that. And people over that counts for about 15% of people off the bat, around 20% of whom are still working (statistics will vary but these numbers are 'about there'), so you're looking at a little over 12% there.
- People still in education shouldn't count. 23% of the US population is under 18. Maybe knock that down to 21-22% because som 16-17 year olds might have a part time job? About 20m people are in college, good for about 6% of the population. Call it 3% because I'm sure at least half are doing something to put themselves through college.
So, 12 + 21 + 3 = 36% of the population isn't really going to count against this. Meaning 64% of the population is going to count against it. And the numbers in the OP suggest 62.7% of people are in the labour force. Rough numbers aside, it looks like it's about close to what it should be.
The important information to consider isn't really counted there, and that's hours worked per eligible person - if someone works a paper route for 2 hours per week, are they counted as being in the labour force? One knock that there's been on the jobs growth is that the jobs aren't really what they seem, with requirements for employees who work over a certain amount of hours per week to have whatever perks meaning those hours are being cut and given to someone else, so what is really only one 48 hour per week job is being split in to three 16 hour jobs.
-
Get out of here with you liberal statistics
Obamao + big number = BAD!
End of story.
-
You say quibbling because you posted a number you didn't understand and then got called out on it.
Now you're rambling on about what you think the left did before.
More old people = more people out of the workforce.
You say quibbling because you posted a number you didn't understand and then got called out on it.
Now you're rambling on about what you think the left did before.
More old people = more people out of the workforce.
you've never called anybody out on anything, woodypeckerhead.
It's just an excuse to protect the gutless liberal weinie entitlement mess made far worse by Obamao.
For instance:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ils/pdf/opbils81.pdf
"Record unemployment among older workers does not keep them out of the job market"
Life under Obama sucks. And these numbers prove it - Telegraphwww.telegraph.co.uk › News › World News › Barack ObamaOct 28, 2014 - Things are worse for black Americans, whose poverty rate has risen ... Finally, even the much praised unemployment rates can be misleading.
Tavis Smiley: On Every Leading Economic Issue Black Americans ...www.thegatewaypundit.com/.../tavis-smiley-on-every-leading-economic-...Jan 11, 2016 - For blacks, it's worse. ... these democrats like keeping minorities dumb and unemployed and on ... is swimning in wealth under this administration according to Larry Elder. .... Just like Tavis will be humping Barry's again even without any ballz. ... Black Americans voted for Obama at the 98% level, twice.
they are not all elderly, birdbrain. Blaming it on "more "elderly" is just ignorant.
Nobody is going to excuse obaMao's failures because there is more old folks, republicans,
and not being able to be asswholish long enough around here, with no opposition.
-
http://www.actionforex.com/articles-library/financial-glossary/unemployment-20041209484/
The sample survey has its own problems, because the total number of workers in the economy is based on guesses rather than a census. So many economists look to the survey of employers to get a better estimate of the number of jobs created or destroyed.
Due to these deficiencies, many labor market economists prefer to look at a range of economic statistics such as:
- Labour market participation rate (the percentage of people aged between 15 and 64 who are currently employed or searching for employment)
- The total number of full-time jobs in an economy
- The number of people seeking work as a raw number and not a percentage
- The total number of person-hours worked in a month compared to the total number of person-hours people would like to work
- Labour market participation rate (the percentage of people aged between 15 and 64 who are currently employed or searching for employment)
-
Now you seem to be vomiting as many other links and statistics you can in this thread that you think make Obama look bad. All while getting further from the original statistic you posted.
I'll try to remember to look through it all later. Or maybe Chris will.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login