• 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!

In 20% Of American Families, Everyone Is Unemployed

JRSaindo

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
567
Reaction score
163
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf

Of the nation's 80.4 million families, 80.0 percent had at
least one employed member in 2013.

So 20% of all families have no employment from any member.

The share of families with an employed member was unchanged at 80.0 percent in 2013.

What is more concerning is how the numbers didn't hardly change from 2012 data, yet we are constantly being told the "recovery" is working. Unless the numbers of single workers is drastically higher, I see nothing changed in terms of "recovery". So how are the employment numbers?

The government tells us that the official unemployment rate is about 7 percent, but that number is almost meaningless at this point.

A number that is much more useful is the employment-population ratio. According to the employment-population ratio, the percentage of working age Americans that actually have a job has been below 59 percent for more than four years in a row. Yeah, great recovery.

fredgraph.jpg

Throw em all out of office. Corrupted congress has led us down a bad path.
 
A corrupted congress? Really - how about the loser human in charge?


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf



So 20% of all families have no employment from any member.



What is more concerning is how the numbers didn't hardly change from 2012 data, yet we are constantly being told the "recovery" is working. Unless the numbers of single workers is drastically higher, I see nothing changed in terms of "recovery". So how are the employment numbers?

The government tells us that the official unemployment rate is about 7 percent, but that number is almost meaningless at this point.

A number that is much more useful is the employment-population ratio. According to the employment-population ratio, the percentage of working age Americans that actually have a job has been below 59 percent for more than four years in a row. Yeah, great recovery.

View attachment 67165639

Throw em all out of office. Corrupted congress has led us down a bad path.
 
I saw this number, and questioned if their definition included retired couples?
Families are classified either as married-couple families or as families
maintained by women or men without spouses present.
Under their definition, many retired couples could be included.
If the number were 20% between the ages of 20 to 40, that would be really bad.
As it stands, the number is meaningless, and will grow as baby boomers retire.
 
Throw em all out of office. Corrupted congress has led us down a bad path.

The problem is people don't think "their" rep is to blame.
 
Well oh my Gosh that's what you leftist losers kept saying about Bush for almost 4 years - "Bush did it" how many times have we heard that?


So it's ONE man to blame for everything?
 
I would imagine it does include retired people. As the baby boom generation ages up its likely to get worse not better.

I saw this number, and questioned if their definition included retired couples?

Under their definition, many retired couples could be included.
If the number were 20% between the ages of 20 to 40, that would be really bad.
As it stands, the number is meaningless, and will grow as baby boomers retire.
 
Well oh my Gosh that's what you leftist losers kept saying about Bush for almost 4 years - "Bush did it" how many times have we heard that?

You'll have to show where I said that. Nice personal attack BTW, it's sad that's all you have along with the excuse of "Well other people said it about BOOOOOOSH".
 
And in this case for the cons, only if it is Obama right?

I wouldn't know. I don't blame one person for anything. But I do know of at least one thread on here started by some loon blaming Bush exclusively for the mortgage meltdown. And I've seen more than my share of posts blaming Bush exclusively for Iraq, the financial crisis, the increase in terrorists joining in the charge, and some other things.
 
My rep is to blame. So are 99% of the other reps.

I detest Congress.

I agree with you there. But the fact is the majority of both sides believe OTHER reps are to blame and not theirs. At least the ones that keep electing the same rep that is part of the problem.
 
Perhaps this is why Obama wants the immigration bill so badly.

Those folks actually work.
 
I wouldn't know. I don't blame one person for anything. But I do know of at least one thread on here started by some loon blaming Bush exclusively for the mortgage meltdown. And I've seen more than my share of posts blaming Bush exclusively for Iraq, the financial crisis, the increase in terrorists joining in the charge, and some other things.

And vice-versa there are threads where people are blaming Obama for everything under the sun.
 
I agree with you there. But the fact is the majority of both sides believe OTHER reps are to blame and not theirs. At least the ones that keep electing the same rep that is part of the problem.

People are totally clueless and utterly partisan if they don't blame both sides (all reps). I struggle to find much good to say about any of them.

The only way to fix them is to vote them out, but what really bothers me is when one goes in who seems to have a lot of promise, it's no time before he/she becomes nothing but a partisan shill.

<sigh>
 
Term limits are the answer, but good luck thinking they'll vote against their own personal interests.
 
Well oh my Gosh that's what you leftist losers kept saying about Bush for almost 4 years - "Bush did it" how many times have we heard that?

The left-right paradigm doesn't work anymore. They both suck royally and need to be tossed to the curb.

The left says its for the "little guy" yet keeps voting more of the same.

The right says its for "more liberties, financial responsibility" yet they keep voting more of the same.

Since politics is a money game, things will never change unless we, the people, realize that D and R are one and the same and revolt strongly. Not violent revolt, but massive protests demanding accountability and responsibility for their actions.

There is another report out from a Stanford study that sums up the political landcape. Even with majority of public opinion against a measure, 43% of the time it was passed. Money runs politics, not the people. Let that sink in then we can start the healing process.
 
It would be nice to have a discussion without the partisan BS. These are real problems and all most people do on here is point fingers instead of discuss issues with a logical point of view.

After 2008 we never recovered, its plain as day. Retiring has little to do with it. As people retire, other people take their place. Not at the same rate probably, but it doesn't explain away the massive decline in employment since 2007-08.

On Jul 1, 2008 we had 304.09 million people in the US. with a 63% employment rate

On Jul 1, 2013 we had 313.99 million people with a 59% employment rate

63% of 304.09 million is 191.57 million
59% of 313.99 million is 185.25 million (59% is generous)

191.57 - 185.25 = 6.32 million

So we are at a net loss of 6.32 million jobs due to the boomers and not one of those were filled by a newcomer? You can't explain away the jobs loss with one piece of reasoning. Could it be that maybe the jobs just disappeared, as the data suggests?
 
Last edited:
You asked why does the blame fall on one man - I merely pointed out that lots of idiots around here pointed out the blame belonged to one man for years.

You'll have to show where I said that. Nice personal attack BTW, it's sad that's all you have along with the excuse of "Well other people said it about BOOOOOOSH".
 
So it's ONE man to blame for everything?

Its his policies and his ideas and his obstructionism that are to blame

You either hold a President responsible or you dont.

The Government just admitted today that GM cost us 11 BILLION dollars
 
Yeah, great recovery.

How many of these people are unemployed by choice? 2.8 million people are sitting on their arses and collecting federal "long term unemployment" benefits for starters.
 
I"m in college and I can tell you that well over 2/3rds of students would not BE students, were it not for school loans and grants. Many are just praying that the job market is better by the time their loans and grants run out. You CAN push those about 200k, did you know that? spread over 8 years. post grad loans and grants can be over 40k per year.
 
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf



So 20% of all families have no employment from any member.



What is more concerning is how the numbers didn't hardly change from 2012 data, yet we are constantly being told the "recovery" is working. Unless the numbers of single workers is drastically higher, I see nothing changed in terms of "recovery". So how are the employment numbers?

The government tells us that the official unemployment rate is about 7 percent, but that number is almost meaningless at this point.

A number that is much more useful is the employment-population ratio. According to the employment-population ratio, the percentage of working age Americans that actually have a job has been below 59 percent for more than four years in a row. Yeah, great recovery.

View attachment 67165639

Throw em all out of office. Corrupted congress has led us down a bad path.

Under that definition of "family" (household of two or more persons related by birth, marriage or adoption) that may include an 80 year old couple. What percentage of retired, elderly couples does one expect to have an employed family member?
 
Back
Top Bottom