Over 92 million Americans out of work force

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
From Fact Checker...

The Facts

The Bureau of Labor Statistics does show that there are nearly 92 million Americans out of the workforce. But dig into the numbers and it is clear that it’s silly to say all of these people are “on the sidelines” and need action from the president and the Congress.

This BLS document shows that the civilian noninstitutional population—essentially, people over the age of 16–is nearly 247 million. The civil labor force is 155 million, with a participation rate of 62.8 percent. So that leaves nearly 92 million “not in the labor force.” What does that mean?

Essentially, it means everyone above the age of 16 who is not working. The BLS breaks it down even further, and it quickly becomes clear that the vast majority of these people are retired or simply are not interested in working, such as stay-at-home parents.

•6 million want a job now but cannot find one.

•2.4 million did not actively search for work.

•1.5 million did not search for work because they are students or left the job market for family reasons, illness or some other factor.

•900,000 are discouraged and think no job is available.
Add that up, along with the 10.3 million who are unemployed, and then maybe you could say there are 21 million people who are “on the sidelines” of the job market. But the other 80 million people have permanently left the work force.
 
the last thing these people need is "immediate action from the President and Congress."

The point of this thread is that saying unemployment is under 7% is untrue when you don't count those who have given up trying to get a job. The count is at least 12% and rising.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
This is another in a long line of missleading bullshit!

They counted my neighbor, a stay at home mother and both my wifes 80 year old parents?

Mr Fechter thinks that they should be counted as not just out of the work force, but counted as "unemployed", facts are not important to him.

Mr Fecthter was known for posting nothing but missleading data, nothing has changed.
 
Last edited:
Bob you know full well these unemployment figures are there for entertainment in the political playground where they will be bounced about. Here in the UK unemployment is virtually incalculable because of the further education system (a term for those dossing off the state while learning new skills) , disability benefits ( many creaming this one although in many cases there is nothing wrong with them), single parents and the list goes on. Add in the 1 million that are supposedly unemployable and you can begin to see the problems with these figures. Left/right wing opinions on these figures as you can imagine vary:laugh:

Bob
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
From Fact Checker...

The Facts

The Bureau of Labor Statistics does show that there are nearly 92 million Americans out of the workforce. But dig into the numbers and it is clear that it’s silly to say all of these people are “on the sidelines” and need action from the president and the Congress.

This BLS document shows that the civilian noninstitutional population—essentially, people over the age of 16–is nearly 247 million. The civil labor force is 155 million, with a participation rate of 62.8 percent. So that leaves nearly 92 million “not in the labor force.” What does that mean?

Essentially, it means everyone above the age of 16 who is not working. The BLS breaks it down even further, and it quickly becomes clear that the vast majority of these people are retired or simply are not interested in working, such as stay-at-home parents.

•6 million want a job now but cannot find one.

•2.4 million did not actively search for work.

•1.5 million did not search for work because they are students or left the job market for family reasons, illness or some other factor.

•900,000 are discouraged and think no job is available.
Add that up, along with the 10.3 million who are unemployed, and then maybe you could say there are 21 million people who are “on the sidelines” of the job market. But the other 80 million people have permanently left the work force.

"There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics" (- Mark Twain or somebody...'depends on who you ask)...to which I'd add, "...and then there are the interpretations of statistics".
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
The unemployment numbers are looking better, to the Republicans this is bad, they can't have the truth be seen. They must do something to missleading the people

Mr Fechter does not like the way they count the unemployed, he says its miss-leading.....

He says that it makes the numbers look "better" and he is right.

Lets see why they are counted this way.

**************

From the Economist

Is our government “cooking the books”?

The short answer is yes. The unemployment rate is being cooked.

The first problem, the seeming inaccuracy of the unemployment figures, can be traced to the Reagan administration. It was decided that unemployment figures were scary for the new administration so, in 1982, they created new constraints on who could be counted as unemployed. They dropped people who had not looked for a job in the last two weeks. They also dropped teenagers who had been employed but were now unemployed. By some estimates, the real unemployment rate is closer to 10% than it is to 5%. The Reagan economic expansion was in part based on cooking the books.

************

Lets recap,

Reagan changed how unemploment is counted to make it look beter than it really is.

But now that we have a Domocrat as President, suddenly they are OUTRAGED at the cooked numbers and do not want Reagans method used.

They now insist that we stop using "Reagans" method and use a method that counts stay at home parents and 90 year olds as "unemployed".

********

In the unlikely event that another Republican is elected President, how many seconds will it take for these OUTRAGED people to go back to the Reagan method?
 
Last edited:
Once again, trying to assassinate the character of those you don't agree with, and quoting articles with no link to the article. Can the charts be far behind? Of course they aren't (far behind).
 
This is where this is heading, no matter what bogus editorial you may scrape off the bottom of your shoe.
 

Attachments

  • a un.jpg
    a un.jpg
    41.7 KB · Views: 240

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
This is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, dated yesterday. It shows the US unemployment rate, using the method designed by the "Great" Ronald Reagan. You know, the one that makes it possible to actually compare trends.

latest_numbers_LNS14000000_2004_2014_all_period_M04_data.gif
 
Last edited:
The US economy has delivered two minor shocks in a week, prompting concerns that bond tapering by the Federal Reserve may be doing more damage than expected.
Non-Farm Payrolls data released on Friday shows that the workforce shed 806,000 jobs in April, a stunning drop that cannot plausibly be blamed on the weather. Wage growth and hours worked were both flat and the manufacturing hours per week fell.
This follows news earlier in the week that the economy to a halt in the first quarter. Growth plummeted to 0.1pc and is now well below the Fed’s “stall speed” indicator. Analysts blamed this on the freezing polar vortex over the winter.
Yet the jobs data confirm a disturbingly weak picture. The headline unemployment rate fell to 6.3pc but that was only because the labour “participation rate” plummeted back to a modern-era low of 62.8pc, last seen in 1978 when there were far fewer women in the workforce. The rate for males is the lowest ever recorded at 69.1pc.
The jobs market is highly volatile – and is often revised later – but the data are a warning that the US recovery may be losing momentum. Lakshman Achuthan, from the Economic Cycle Research Institute, said the trend was already weakening long before the cold weather. “We see a failure to launch. We’re decelerating, not accelerating, and that is a big concern,” he said.

Shocking US jobs data impugns recovery, Fed tapering - Telegraph
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Obviously, that website must be run by "racist conservative GOP sympathizers", Bob. Otherwise it'd ignore (or spin) the facts and provide the same cheery outlook as the Obama White House and all spin masters who orbit that place.

Oh...wait a sec...isn't the Telegraph located 'across the pond' somewhere? I believe they are. They don't have a dog in the fight...do they?
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Yes I remember several years ago Mr Fechter telling us that the stock market would crash under President Obama, he said the US economy would collapse.

I said that was great news and a good time to invest, as Mr Fecthter is never right about anything!

How did that work out?

Here is a large reason we won't be seeing a Republican President for many many years.

Returns on a $1,000 investment in a hypothetical fund that tracks the S&P 500 during only Democratic administrations versus one following a similar strategy during Republican presidencies
chart1.jpg


Now remember, this data only goes to 2012, the market is way up since then:)
 
Last edited:

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
Non-Farm Payrolls data released on Friday shows that the workforce shed 806,000 jobs in April, a stunning drop that cannot plausibly be blamed on the weather. Wage growth and hours worked were both flat and the manufacturing hours per week fell.

I am constantly amazed at the distribution of wealth in our country. Every report I read or hear says that lower-income population is losing economic ground, yet the wealthy and ultra-wealthy in our country are increasing at a rate higher than that seen in any other part of the world.

My question is this...why aren't some of those wealthy/ultra-wealthy using some of that capital to hire people...IMHO the reason for the high (if you believe it) unemployment numbers is because there are not enough jobs open in the marketplace. Look at any newspaper and you'll find jobs in the medical field...most of which require specialization or advanced degrees...and jobs where the pay is based on commissions. I would starve if I had to rely on commissions for my income, and while I have never had much difficulty staying employed, it is because of my advanced education.

My answer is this...those wealthy and ultra-wealthy individuals are becoming so because they are hoarding their profits. There is probably something going on politically or economically that they feel justifies that, but even so if they are not using that wealth to help reduce unemployment (which, if they are such good businessmen, would be most likely to make them even wealthier) then they are contributing to the problem, not the solution.

I realize that many believe people who need unemployment or welfare benefits are lazy, but in my experience both types of governmental financial assistance are difficult to qualify for and difficult to justify over long periods. Those who have used up their unemployment benefits without finding jobs are now needing those types of assistance just to stay alive...either that or they turn to crime. We all have to eat...perhaps it's just because of my current job, but it seems to me that there is also a large population here in the part of TX where I live who make their livings illegally. Those people may make huge sums of cash and yet are considered unemployed because they do not report their earnings to the government. IMHO it's a bigger problem than most believe...at least in this part of the country.

I'm sure that at one point I would have been counted in that large pool of "unemployed" because I was retired. I didn't need to work at the time, so I didn't even look. That is not wrong, nor is it the fault of the current administration (which this thread SEEMS TO ME to imply is the current administration's fault). Compared to the hoarding behaviors of the increasingly wealthy, I for one am glad that the federal government is engaging in projects that require labor...at least there ARE jobs involved in that endeavor. There have been times in the past when we as a country NEEDED help from the government, think of the governmental jobs provided during the great depression and the governmental efforts to improve national infrastructure. People without wealth were able to survive because of those jobs.

As I have stated before, I worry about armed insurrection. Not long ago one of our conservative members mentioned he wondered how long those who work and pay high taxes would tolerate that before they revolted...even mentioned armed insurrection. I worry more about the population who does NOT work because they can find no job, and yet they watch the wealthy ride past their meager surroundings in limos and such. That is what I think is a much larger risk...class warfare. "Let them eat cake" did not work out so well for Marie Antoinette, how long will the downtrodden take before they believe it is time to TAKE what they need to survive, probably preying on those of us who are supporting our economy.

Perhaps it's nobody's fault...but as I think about it I see only two entities who can have a positive impact on the problem. That's the government and the wealthy/ultra-wealthy. Which of those two does it look like to YOU is at least trying to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem??? :idea:

Doug
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Doug, I am sure you are a terrific bloke, but that is probably the most misguided pap I have ever read in the paddock.
Without wealthy business men there would be no jobs. And no taxes to support government.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
I do not know how it is in Australia but here in the USA, Doug is absoulutly right, I'm afraid the "misguided pap" comes from you!

Pete I know you do not care for charts, but take a close look at this one!

You guys wonder why such a large % of US workforce does not make enough to pay taxes?

There is why! Ronald Reagan started it. he took office in 1981 (note the lines on the chart are all essentually together)....

Reagan told us the best thing to do was cut taxes to the rich and "All that money would "TRICKEL DOWN" to the working people...........BULLSHIT.

The Right has kept up this lie, you cant tax the rich..... "The rich take all that money and hire people"...........


Up until 1980 all Americans were sharing the gains fairly equally........

*****IN 1981 REAGAN TOOK OFFICE AND EVERYTHING CHANGED******







Its time to admit that "TRICKEL DOWN" has never worked for anyone but the wealthy.

Pete how can you look at this data and still believe that the cutting taxes to the righ does anything but make them richer.
 
Last edited:

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
'Same old tired song, Jim. Just like all the other totally bogus anti-GOP mantras the left chants 24/7/365: GOP's war on women, 'war on the poor, 'war on unions, 'war on "immigrants", blah, blah, blah.

'Tired of it...
 
Back
Top