ADVERTISEMENT

federal reserve says u.s. economy near full employment

When President Obama took office in January 2009, 80,529,000 Americans were not participating in the labor force; since then, 14,179,000 Americans have left the workforce -- some of them retiring and some just quitting because they can't find work.
 
and just curious... you keep posting (and bragging) about these "employment" stats while the general consensus among ALL Americans regardless of political affiliation is major concern about the economy and unemployment/jobs. why are both Dems and Cons worried about the economy and unemployment/jobs if everybody "that want's one" has one?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
 
and just curious... you keep posting (and bragging) about these "employment" stats while the general consensus among ALL Americans regardless of political affiliation is major concern about the economy and unemployment/jobs. why are both Dems and Cons worried about the economy and unemployment/jobs if everybody "that want's one" has one?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
Dherd is lost on the "Its the economy, Stupid" principle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: raleighherdfan
When President Obama took office in January 2009, 80,529,000 Americans were not participating in the labor force; since then, 14,179,000 Americans have left the workforce -- some of them retiring and some just quitting because they can't find work.

you may not be familiar with it but there is a concept and a reality
known as retirement.

i am certain that if you put a little effort into it
you can become a great deal more educated on this topic.

furthermore the unemployment rate has always been the yardstick
for measuring employment. why do cons want to change to something
else now. could it be to mislead the ill informed and give the dead enders
like those on this board a twig on which to cling? i think - yes.

AND WE ALL KNOW I AM ALWAYS CORRECT.
 
you may not be familiar with it but there is a concept and a reality
known as retirement.

i am certain that if you put a little effort into it
you can become a great deal more educated on this topic.

furthermore the unemployment rate has always been the yardstick
for measuring employment. why do cons want to change to something
else now. could it be to mislead the ill informed and give the dead enders
like those on this board a twig on which to cling? i think - yes.

AND WE ALL KNOW I AM ALWAYS CORRECT.
Youve shown time and time again that you are the opposite of correct. Both parties are guilty of trying to hide the true employment rates
 
  • Like
Reactions: raleighherdfan
Between 2000 and 2010, the number of people age 65 to 84 in the U.S. grew by 3.3 million.
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/2012/03/23/the-baby-boomer-number-game

When President Obama took office in January 2009, 80,529,000 Americans were not participating in the labor force; since then, 14,179,000 Americans have left the workforce -- some of them retiring and some just quitting because they can't find work.

so in a 10 year period (2000-2010) 3.3 million people retired. in a 7 year period (2009-2016) people "not in the labor force" grew by 14,179,000. i know you are a moron, but you can probably still figure this out...
 
  • Like
Reactions: herd4life5 (HN)
Between 2000 and 2010, the number of people age 65 to 84 in the U.S. grew by 3.3 million.
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/2012/03/23/the-baby-boomer-number-game

When President Obama took office in January 2009, 80,529,000 Americans were not participating in the labor force; since then, 14,179,000 Americans have left the workforce -- some of them retiring and some just quitting because they can't find work.

so in a 10 year period (2000-2010) 3.3 million people retired. in a 7 year period (2009-2016) people "not in the labor force" grew by 14,179,000. i know you are a moron, but you can probably still figure this out...
You might want to go ahead and do the math for him showing the subtractions and the resulting differences. Just to make 100% sure he gets it.
 
Between 2000 and 2010, the number of people age 65 to 84 in the U.S. grew by 3.3 million.
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/2012/03/23/the-baby-boomer-number-game

When President Obama took office in January 2009, 80,529,000 Americans were not participating in the labor force; since then, 14,179,000 Americans have left the workforce -- some of them retiring and some just quitting because they can't find work.

so in a 10 year period (2000-2010) 3.3 million people retired. in a 7 year period (2009-2016) people "not in the labor force" grew by 14,179,000. i know you are a moron, but you can probably still figure this out...

About 4 million Americans retire every year, x 10 years =
 
You still arent addressing the 14 million that have grown that arent retirees but are either unemployed or under employed

Of the 14 million......

"Almost all of the decline (80 percent) in the participation rate since the first quarter of 2012 is accounted for by the increase in nonparticipation due to retirement."

Add to that: More young people are going to college.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2006:According to the BLS projections, the overall participation rate will continue its gradual decrease each decade and reach 60.4 percent in 2050.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/
 
Between 2000 and 2010, the number of people age 65 to 84 in the U.S. grew by 3.3 million.
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/2012/03/23/the-baby-boomer-number-game

When President Obama took office in January 2009, 80,529,000 Americans were not participating in the labor force; since then, 14,179,000 Americans have left the workforce -- some of them retiring and some just quitting because they can't find work.

so in a 10 year period (2000-2010) 3.3 million people retired. in a 7 year period (2009-2016) people "not in the labor force" grew by 14,179,000. i know you are a moron, but you can probably still figure this out...

THERE IS ANOTHER THING WHICH YOU APPARENTLY NEED TO
EDUCATE YOUSELF ABOUT - IT IS CALLED THE BABY BOOM GENERATION.

THE BABY BOOM (SINCE YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY ABOUT AS INQUISITIVE AS GEORGE W. BUSH AND DONALD TRUMP)
REFERS TO THE POST WWII INCREASE IN BIRTH. NOW FROM
1945 - 1952 OR SO WOULD BE THE BABY BOOM. SO LETS SEE
NOW - 2010 - 1945 = 65 YRS. WOW WHAT DO YOU KNOW A HUGE
INCREASE IN BABIES IN 1945 EQUALS A HUGE INCREASE IN PEOPLE
NOT SEEKING WORK IN 2015. SHAZAM - GOOBER - YOU SURE ARE
GULLIBLE - OR JUST DESPERATE FOR ANYTHING TO SUPPORT
A FAILED ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL IDEOLOGY.
 
Bush start 4.2
end 7.8
net jobs gain 1.8 million

Obama start 7.8
now (July) 4.9
net jobs gain 9.9 million and counting
 
9.9 million part time restaurant jobs.................kudos Mr. Obummer.
here is a link since EG or DHERD will want one.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/05/news/economy/obama-jobs/

look who has lost jobs in spite of shovel ready as Obama promised.Construction, specifically specialty trade contractors who work in skilled jobs such as ironwork, plumbing or excavation, were the biggest losers during Obama's term. It has shed nearly 320,000 positions, bottoming out in January 2011 at 3.4 million employees.
 
Here's this again, in case you missed it......

Bush start 4.2
end 7.8
net jobs gain 1.8 million

Obama start 7.8
now (July) 4.9
net jobs gain 9.9 million and counting
 
I understand completely. You're whining about a net job increase in the U S of about 10 million while you had no complaints of Bush's less than 2 million. According to your article construction workers (whose employment numbers were in a 4 1/2 year slide BEFORE Obama took office , teachers, and state government workers are being hired. You cons would like for everyone to forget the mess Obama inherited, the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.
 
I understand completely. You're whining about a net job increase in the U S of about 10 million while you had no complaints of Bush's less than 2 million. According to your article construction workers (whose employment numbers were in a 4 1/2 year slide BEFORE Obama took office , teachers, and state government workers are being hired. You cons would like for everyone to forget the mess Obama inherited, the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.
I remember seeing a lot more construction between 2001 and 2009. Dont really see a lot these days (and yes I make my way around the country and not just WV)
 
this is by design... add 20 million new minimum wage jobs requiring everybody to be on government assistance for the rest of their lives while voting Democrat to say "thanks" for the handouts...

meanwhile, the middle class barely keeps their head above water and continues to live paycheck to paycheck while footing the bill....
 
So the Obama Economy has helped people get drunker too (Since they have nothing productive to do because Obamacare has killed their full time jobs)

Of course, just so happens it's during the longest consecutive private sector job growth streak ever.
 
I remember seeing a lot more construction between 2001 and 2009. Dont really see a lot these days (and yes I make my way around the country and not just WV)

I did also. I didn't say construction had fully recovered. There was this housing boom/bust thing.
 
And a little over 4 million turn 18 and join the workforce each year, x 10 years =

What else you got?

Wrong. Appx 2.2 million of those enter college each year, and they count against the labor force participation rate. What else you got?
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT