• 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!

Economy Unemployment Rate Falls To 5.3 Percent, But For The Wrong Reason

Welfare up 24.9 percent, according to the census bureau.

One in Five Americans Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month | Washington Free Beacon

And the percentage of people OF WORKING AGE that are not working is the highest its been since the days women barely worked. But keep hiding in your dream world.

Changing the issue is a concession on the main point. I am not arguing the change in welfare at the this time, it is a whole another discussion. In that case, I would not argue that total number of people receiving welfare is not up (it is).... the cause of that, however, is another issue. I have been arguing that the changes in the labor participation rate DO NOT indicate economic weakness, which you keep asserting every time the unemployment rate is published.

Again, people receiving welfare are generally considered to be IN the workforce and therefore a labor participants, just like people that are gainfully and fully employed. People that are "Not in the Work Force" are primarily the retired, students, stay at home moms and the disabled (and, to a very minor extent, the discouraged workers). The Work Force includes ALL persons over the age of 16 not in the military, prison or in nursing homes. It includes ALL persons 16 to 90. As people age beyond 65, more and more chose to not work. Choosing not to work removes you from participating in the Work Force. It does not, however, change the denominator.

The fact that more people can chose not to work; that they can retire, go to school full-time or stay at home with their kids, is actually a sign of a strong economy. Therefore, changes in the labor participation rate is not a bad thing, nor is it a measure of the recovery, I appreciate your concession here (trying to shift the discussion to number of welfare participants and not longer trying to defend the labor participation).

Consider yourself schooled! Let's not see this reference from you again. (Somehow, I am not convinced, as you last post continues to suggest you did not do your homework and you are still confused about what the labor participation rate is.)
 
Last edited:
We have a record 94 million Americans of working age that aren't in the work force.

Funny how we constantly hear threats to social security or medicare funding, but you never hear threats to reduce welfare.

That's what's funny to you?

What's funny to me is watching the right bitch about how too many of the youthful generations aren't working while at the same time saying how we need to cut social security which forces the elderly to stay in the work force for longer therefore limiting the job opportunities for the younger generation. Cognitive dissonance anyone?
 
Changing the issue is a concession on the main point. I am not arguing the change in welfare at the this time, it is a whole another discussion. In that case, I would not argue that total number of people receiving welfare is not up (it is).... the cause of that, however, is another issue. I have been arguing that the changes in the labor participation rate DO NOT indicate economic weakness, which you keep asserting every time the unemployment rate is published.

Again, people receiving welfare are generally considered to be IN the workforce and therefore a labor participants, just like people that are gainfully and fully employed. People that are "Not in the Work Force" are primarily the retired, students, stay at home moms and the disabled (and, to a very minor extent, the discouraged workers). The Work Force includes ALL persons over the age of 16 not in the military, prison or in nursing homes. It includes ALL persons 16 to 90. As people age beyond 65, more and more chose to not work. Choosing not to work removes you from participating in the Work Force. It does not, however, change the denominator.

The fact that more people can chose not to work; that they can retire, go to school full-time or stay at home with their kids, is actually a sign of a strong economy. Therefore, changes in the labor participation rate is not a bad thing, nor is it a measure of the recovery, I appreciate your concession here (trying to shift the discussion to number of welfare participants and not longer trying to defend the labor participation).

Consider yourself schooled! Let's not see this reference from you again. (Somehow, I am not convinced, as you last post continues to suggest you did not do your homework and you are still confused about what the labor participation rate is.)

And from the Huffington Post of all places: U.S. Labor Force Participation Rate Lowest Since 1979

Instead, the number of Americans in the labor force — those who have a job or are looking for one — fell by nearly half a million people from February to March, the government said Friday. And the percentage of working-age adults in the labor force — what's called the participation rate — fell to 63.3 percent last month. It's the lowest such figure since May 1979.

You argue with yourself in the shower. Am I right?
 
Back
Top Bottom