• 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

The latest figures from the BLS show hiring's in August - the last month reported - are down over 300,000.

Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey News Release

Plus, looking at the stock markets...the DOW is now up YTD (year to date) less then 2% (and is getting hammered so far today - down over 300), the Russell 2000 is down YTD about 7%. So the markets are stalling/retreating.

Hiring is down, markets are falling; why?

Easy (imo)...QE is ending and Europe and Japan are falling fast.

Like I have said many times, all this neo-Krynesian nonsense does is increase debt, make the rich richer and stagnate the economy in the end by getting it almost totally dependent on the government teat.
 
Last edited:
Wow...you just throw out everything you can and wait to see what sticks don't you?


Being honest about Californias REAL economic and financial issues is " throwing out everthing " ?

Here's the problem with covering up reality with Politically motivated BS.

It marginalizes those who continue to suffer economically.
 
I also just found this chart on the BLS.

And this chart DOES lend credence to the assertion that roughly half of the decrease in the LFPR is due to retiring seniors.

I was definitely mistaken saying it was not.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000


Man...look at all the old people...their numbers are growing like mad.

We need Carousel for over 75's... ;)


So...assuming that roughly 1/2 of the drop in the LFPR since 2000 is due to retiring seniors; if you eliminated retiring seniors, that would raise the LFPR to roughly 64.9%.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


Once again, that would leave a U-3 unemployment rate (by my calculations) of 9.1%.
 
So...assuming that roughly 1/2 of the drop in the LFPR since 2000 is due to retiring seniors; if you eliminated retiring seniors, that would raise the LFPR to roughly 64.9%.

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


Once again, that would leave a U-3 unemployment rate (by my calculations) of 9.1%.

Hey, you can't link from the table like that. What you have to do is copy and paste the series report number (LNS......) and link to BLS Series Report : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Of course when I did that for you when you demanded the data, you ignored it saying you weren't going to hunt down the numbers; but it's the only way.

As for your calculations, remember that when you say "if the for were higher..." All you're saying is "if more people were trying to work..."
 
Hey, you can't link from the table like that. What you have to do is copy and paste the series report number (LNS......) and link to BLS Series Report : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Of course when I did that for you when you demanded the data, you ignored it saying you weren't going to hunt down the numbers; but it's the only way.

As for your calculations, remember that when you say "if the for were higher..." All you're saying is "if more people were trying to work..."

Thank you ('Hey' ?!?)...but I have no idea where this LNS number for the page in question is.

So here is the search...just look at the top link and there is the data.

BLS Search Results
 
Yes it is, expect the usual suspects to try to minimize the good news...

I wouldn't call creating a "bubble" economy good news.... It may be good news for those who have jobs that are on the inside of the bubble but that does absolutely NOTHING for the millions of unemployed outside of that bubble.

Watch GDP drop significantly while progressives spout their 5.9% unemployment rate...

Remember unemployment rate is measured by those currently receiving unemployment benefits divided by those presently employed... So if you aren't receiving unemployment benefits or don't have current employment - you don't factor into to their deceptive numbers.
 
BTW, did I mention that since Obama took office, by my calculations, 1,001,000 less Americans under 55 are employed...but 5,417,000 more Americans over 55 are employed!?!

I did?

Okay.


BTW, once again, I am neither Dem nor Rep.
 
BTW, did I mention that since Obama took office, by my calculations, 1,001,000 less Americans under 55 are employed...but 5,417,000 more Americans over 55 are employed!?!

I did?

Okay.


BTW, once again, I am neither Dem nor Rep.

Probably because of something like there being millions more Americans over the age of 55 than there were wen O' took office. I don't think that's surprising, we have an aging population.

fact_sheet-graph-population.gif
 
Probably because of something like there being millions more Americans over the age of 55 than there were wen O' took office. I don't think that's surprising, we have an aging population.

fact_sheet-graph-population.gif

I think it is very surprising.

The population below 55 is not shrinking, it is growing as well (though not nearly as fast)...yet there are over 1 million less of them employed. And it is 25-54 that are the economic heart of America. Yet that group ALONE has lost over 1 million employed.

This administration has had 5 1/2 years and has raised the national debt by about 60% and what does America have to show for it?

1 MILLION less people employed in the all important 25-54 age range and millions and millions more people on food stamps.

That sounds like a TERRIBLE return on the investment to me...and I am not even a conservative.
 
That boomers make up a large portion of the labor market. Which is expected, given that they are roughly 1/4 of the total U.S. population. It would do us all a favor if you would educate yourself a bit more about this particular demographic.

You lack the ability to critique the White House study on worker participation, so you misuse discrete data by making unsubstantiated claims. The current population of those ages 55 and over is 85.18 million. The number of workers ages 55 and over is 33.97 million.

Meaning, roughly 60% of those ages 55 and over are not in the labor force. Since 2002, there have been an additional 14 million people ages 55 and over in the labor force, even though the population for this demographic has increased by 25 million.

For the next 15 years, their will be an average of 10,000 boomers retiring every day. That's 3.65 million per year, or roughly 14 million since 2011. Interestingly enough, there have been an additional 3 million people ages 55 and over enter the labor force in that same time frame.

We already know you lack the courage to admit when you are wrong.




You are citing a demographic of 55 and older.

The retirement age for most is about 65.

Does you source have a demographic for 65 and older?
 
Probably because of something like there being millions more Americans over the age of 55 than there were wen O' took office. I don't think that's surprising, we have an aging population.

fact_sheet-graph-population.gif




Obama care will probably help with this problem.
 
You are citing a demographic of 55 and older.

The retirement age for most is about 65.

Does you source have a demographic for 65 and older?

The retirement age has shifted from 60 to 62 (average).
 
If your position is that job growth is low due to the federal deficit, then yes, it would help solve the job problem.

If we increased the taxes of the rich to offset tax cuts for the middle class, then yes again, it may be a deficit trade off but shifting money into the hands of those who have the highest propensity to spend the marginal dollar would increase demand and thus increase business expansion.

If we increased taxation on the rich to expand infrastructure spending, then yes, more jobs would be created directly due to the infrastructure spending and indirection because businesses need infrastructure to expand.

If we increased taxation on the rich to provide more economic benefits to everyone, then it would also result in an increase in demand, and thus business expansion.

Too bad that's not what the money would be used for, but it all sounds good. :roll:
 
Too bad that's not what the money would be used for, but it all sounds good. :roll:

Projections based on an uninformed opinion are... piss poor projections! It's not like i expected you to provide anything of value to begin with :shrug:.
 
Too bad that's not what the money would be used for, but it all sounds good. :roll:

What would the money be used for if not for spending or paying down the deficit? Are you suggesting that it would all just be collected in burlap bags and buried?
 
Back
Top Bottom