• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

If your opinion is "age attributed to half of the decline in the labor force participation rate", i am giving it a nod.

We have already agreed, pages ago, that boomers are delaying retirement. If this is your only opinion, why use it as a means to reject the position of someone who agrees with the bold?

You wrote there is not a single credible study that supports my opinion. You have now admitted there are. I think I will leave you to find a huckleberry who is willing to play your game. I'm not one of them.
 
You wrote there is not a single credible study that supports my opinion.

If your opinion is that age does not attribute to half of the decline in the labor force participation rate, there isn't a single credible study that supports it.

You have now admitted there are.

Now you are trying to play a bait and switch game because your ignorance has been both called out and broken down so even you could see the lapse in thought.

I think I will leave you to find a huckleberry who is willing to play your game. I'm not one of them.

You are not up for much more than a few lines of meaningless drivel.
 
He claimed that many baby boomers were delaying retirement. How can this possibly be shown to be incorrect based on a claim that half of the decline in overall participation rate can be attributable to age? That's just nonsense. What you've posted tells us nothing about whether or not baby boomers are delaying retirement.

Many of them are. Others may decide to retire early. Neither factor really negates the fact that we have the highest percentage in history of our population in retirement, or the fact that the percentage will continue to grow.
 
Because it's got to be one or the other, right? :roll:

No, there are lot's of factors involved, none of them were created by Obama though.

Our school dropout rate is at a record low, and we have the highest percentage of our population ever attending college. Many of those people are choosing education over immediately entering our workforce.

More males are deciding to be stay at home parents, and the trend for females joining our workforce peaked years ago.

And certainly there are some folks who decided that if they can't find a job in their preferred field making a decent wage, that they can afford to not work (early retirement, single income earner families, etc). Yes, it IS a sign of a less that booming economy, and a result of the Great Bush Recession, but it is also about technology replacing the need for human labor. This trend will continue to some extent, even if our economy was booming.

I can't think of a single thing that President Mit Romney (or anyone else) would have done to keep people from retiring, or to get students to drop out of school, or to force stay at home spouses to start seeking work. It's simply not an Obama issue.

Obama isn't requiring that people retire, or that they go to school, or that they become homemakers. Back in the olden days, these were considered positive traits by conservatives, I really don't understand why conservatives are rejecting good family values. That's part of the reason why I left the republican party.
 
You wrote there is not a single credible study that supports my opinion. You have now admitted there are. I think I will leave you to find a huckleberry who is willing to play your game. I'm not one of them.

I usually just ignore him.

This time I saw a link so I followed him.

But normally, he is on my Ignore list.

Imo, he has a closed mind and comes on here primarily to troll...he is a waste of my time.
 
I usually just ignore him.

This time I saw a link so I followed him.

But normally, he is on my Ignore list.

Imo, he has a closed mind and comes on here primarily to troll...he is a waste of my time.

Agreed DA. I just love to see the effort some of these types go through. I have quite the picture in my mind, and there are times the smile that evokes in me is a nice distraction.
 
I usually just ignore him.

This time I saw a link so I followed him.

But normally, he is on my Ignore list.

Imo, he has a closed mind and comes on here primarily to troll...he is a waste of my time.
Your rule is to ignore anyone that has destroyed your argument.
 
No, there are lot's of factors involved, none of them were created by Obama though.

Our school dropout rate is at a record low, and we have the highest percentage of our population ever attending college. Many of those people are choosing education over immediately entering our workforce.

More males are deciding to be stay at home parents, and the trend for females joining our workforce peaked years ago.

And certainly there are some folks who decided that if they can't find a job in their preferred field making a decent wage, that they can afford to not work (early retirement, single income earner families, etc). Yes, it IS a sign of a less that booming economy, and a result of the Great Bush Recession, but it is also about technology replacing the need for human labor. This trend will continue to some extent, even if our economy was booming.

I can't think of a single thing that President Mit Romney (or anyone else) would have done to keep people from retiring, or to get students to drop out of school, or to force stay at home spouses to start seeking work. It's simply not an Obama issue.

Obama isn't requiring that people retire, or that they go to school, or that they become homemakers. Back in the olden days, these were considered positive traits by conservatives, I really don't understand why conservatives are rejecting good family values. That's part of the reason why I left the republican party.

and others of us reject offers to come out of retirement to work just so that younger folks can gain a foothold on their careers
at least it's the excuse i use on my wife. that's my story and i'm sticking to it
 
Yes, your math is correct. However the bulk of the Baby Boomers are just now crossing over the 60 threshold, which would mean the vast majority of them are all opting to take early retirement...

You are making an assumption with no figures to support it. There were more babies born in 1946 than in any other year up until that time (a darned big surge), and every year after that there have been even more born. It shouldn't surprise anyone that we have more people choosing to retire every year. They don't even have to be retiring early, they just have to be retiring.

And not only is it that we a surge of people retiring, we are also living longer, which means that every year the percentage of people who are in retirement will increase, thus the LFPR will tend to decline.
 
Shame on people retiring and lowering the number of folks in the work force.

In the conservative vision of the US economy, working people should work until their 85 just to eek by, while the rich rake it in and sit back on their verandas with the scotch brought in on silver trays.
 
You wrote there is not a single credible study that supports my opinion. You have now admitted there are. I think I will leave you to find a huckleberry who is willing to play your game. I'm not one of them.

Here was your opinion:

Given the penalty, and the impact of declines in the value of held assets, I'm not convinced the contribution to the participation rate decline is as significant as what is being suggested.

Which cannot be supported by evidence. Anecdotes and gallup polls simply do not cut it.
 
That's good news for the country.

Which of Obama's specific policies that he implemented as POTUS can be directly associated with and credited for this fantastic news?

Not slashing spending. Not increasing taxes on lower income earners. That's about it.
 
You are making an assumption with no figures to support it. There were more babies born in 1946 than in any other year up until that time (a darned big surge), and every year after that there have been even more born. It shouldn't surprise anyone that we have more people choosing to retire every year. They don't even have to be retiring early, they just have to be retiring.

And not only is it that we a surge of people retiring, we are also living longer, which means that every year the percentage of people who are in retirement will increase, thus the LFPR will tend to decline.

Sorry, but you are not correct. The data does not support your theory. People are working longer and the Census Bureau data supports this conclusion.

Capture USCB.JPG


Further, Boomers typically don't come from single child families. This means births extending into the early '50's.
 
lifeisshort said:
If Romney won we would have real economic improvement like when Reagan won.
The economy stayed down under Reagan for years -- and only rebounded once the Fed relaxed interest rates.

fredgraph.png
....
fredgraph.png
 
These numbers consist of teenagers and people over 55.

Unemployment went up for everybody else.

It doesn't matter what this "report" says because real people are really feeling what Obama's real economic policy is really about.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

So when shown how utterly absurd your last comment was, you decide to move the goalposts, and in the process, rendered your last post even more dumb than it was previously (as, according to you, this is now a "bad" jobs report, thus ruining your earlier assertion the books are cooked before an election to provide good news...and to prove this "bad" report, you use the source you claim is inaccurate).

I swear the anti-Obama crowd are some of the most illogical (and most transparent) people I've ever seen.
 
These numbers consist of teenagers and people over 55.

Unemployment went up for everybody else.

It doesn't matter what this "report" says because real people are really feeling what Obama's real economic policy is really about.

It happened more or less under Bush too (with rather sharp declines in participation by those in their 20s). So if you want to adjust unemployment figures to take into consideration age demographics, you have to do it for every president, not just this one.

But of course your goal isn't factual analysis, but partisan whining.
 
O
:lol: :lol: :lol:

So when shown how utterly absurd your last comment was, you decide to move the goalposts, and in the process, rendered your last post even more dumb than it was previously (as, according to you, this is now a "bad" jobs report, thus ruining your earlier assertion the books are cooked before an election to provide good news...and to prove this "bad" report, you use the source you claim is inaccurate).

I swear the anti-Obama crowd are some of the most illogical (and most transparent) people I've ever seen.

Come on now.

The fact that this jobs report is bad (imo - all extra employed are teenagers and over 55 PLUS 82K less 20-54 employed PLUS average hourly wage dropped) in no way proves that the numbers were not 'cooked' (nor does it prove the opposite).

How do you know the numbers were not truly horrible and the BLS was not instructed to cook the books to make the Dem's look good for the midterm elections and that these (imo) bad numbers were as far as the BLS agreed to exaggerate?

I assume you don't (just as I cannot prove that they were cooked).
 
Last edited:
O

Come on now.

The fact that this jobs report is bad (imo - all extra employed are teenagers and over 55 PLUS 82K less 20-54 employed PLUS average hourly wage dropped) in no way proves that the numbers were not 'cooked' (nor does it prove the opposite).
And your comment, in no way, addresses what I actually said. But thank you for missing the point (as you so often seem to do when replying to me).

How do you know the numbers were truly horrible and the BLS was instructed to cook the books to make the Dem's look good for the midterm elections?
How do you know the numbers weren't awesome and the BLS was instructed to cook the books to make the Dems not look great for the midterm elections?

The conspiracy theory nonsense is stupid, and anyone who buys it is someone who cares far less about the truth than they do their own personal position. When facts threaten one's position, the intellectually honest will reconsider their position. The intellectually dishonest will ignore the facts and claim they are untrue, often times with no evidence to support such an accusation.

If you have factual proof from an unbiased source that proves that the BLS did not deliberately alter the numbers
Good try, but your fallacious argument is laughable.

It's not on me to prove the nonpartisan BLS didn't alter the numbers they report every month and have for decades. It's on YOU to prove they did. And since you have zero evidence of this, it's clear you are simply talking out of your ass.

And since I assume you have no such proof, then you cannot factually say that the BLS did not alter the numbers.
Given your earlier statement about how you ignore people who have proven you wrong, please do me a favor and ignore me now. Your schtick is tiresome, transparent and, ultimately, devoid of logic.
 
And your comment, in no way, addresses what I actually said. But thank you for missing the point (as you so often seem to do when replying to me).

How do you know the numbers weren't awesome and the BLS was instructed to cook the books to make the Dems not look great for the midterm elections?

The conspiracy theory nonsense is stupid, and anyone who buys it is someone who cares far less about the truth than they do their own personal position. When facts threaten one's position, the intellectually honest will reconsider their position. The intellectually dishonest will ignore the facts and claim they are untrue, often times with no evidence to support such an accusation.

Good try, but your fallacious argument is laughable.

It's not on me to prove the nonpartisan BLS didn't alter the numbers they report every month and have for decades. It's on YOU to prove they did. And since you have zero evidence of this, it's clear you are simply talking out of your ass.

Given your earlier statement about how you ignore people who have proven you wrong, please do me a favor and ignore me now. Your schtick is tiresome, transparent and, ultimately, devoid of logic.

1) And where exactly did I make a statement about 'how I ignore people that prove me wrong?'

Frankly, I pay more attention to people that prove me wrong as they are my best source for learning.

But I generally ignore people whom I do not respect if they do not include a link to prove their position.


2) So, I assume, you admit you have no way of proving that the BLS did not cook the books to make the Dem's look better.

Noted.
 
BLS does not "cook the books." Its data is independent of the White House or Congress. Moreover, the basis of the labor force participation data you provide is also very same BLS that reports the headline unemployment figure.

I am one of the lucky ones that gets surveyed every month.

"Hi, this is Lorna with the Dept of Labor, how are you in Phoenix this month?"

'Fine how are you"

"How many employees did you have for the week including the 12th?"

"None, I fired the one that I had because he was late 3 days out of 5. And as a concrete contractor, being late just does not work."

"OK then, fired one guy. My boss decided that we are going to count you as an employee this month, even though you are the owner. So no change in the number of employees for your company this month. I'll call you in October, have a nice month."

This is an actual conversation with the Dept of Labor so when you say that they don't cook the books, I have to differ. They did something similar a year or two ago. Then after the election, back to normal.
 
Jobless Rate in U.S. Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump - Bloomberg

I know, I know... it's only true if it's bad news Obama.

To those of us that are not abject Obama haters, this is fantastic news!

I think you mean to the Obama fanatics, its fantastic! To some of us, its just meh. More people employed, great, but still 40 million in poverty, 2 trillion spent on "human resources" (income support etc). When that goes down significantly, then itll be fantastic to everyone.
 
Back
Top Bottom