sling shot from the abysmal prior two months coupled with the return to work of 32k striking verizon employees. unemployment rate ticked up while Labor partcipation rate is at 62%, a low of 1976.  Its not as it's cracked up to be.  

While there are past small decreases, the overall continued increase in the employment rate is evident when compared to the huge unemployment rates of the pre-Obama period.

ba$eman posted:

sling shot from the abysmal prior two months coupled with the return to work of 32k striking verizon employees. unemployment rate ticked up while Labor partcipation rate is at 62%, a low of 1976.  Its not as it's cracked up to be.  

....where is goddamned cry-baby emoji when you need it?

Data extracted on: July 8, 2016 (8:01:24 PM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id:           LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

United States Department of Labor

Bureau of Labor Statics

Source --- http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

ba$eman posted:

sling shot from the abysmal prior two months coupled with the return to work of 32k striking verizon employees. unemployment rate ticked up while Labor partcipation rate is at 62%, a low of 1976.  Its not as it's cracked up to be.  

Jump, scream and wail as you wish but the best way to have strong job growth is to elect a Democrat.

Compare job growth under George Bush with Obama, or under Bill Clinton vs. even the much venerated Reagan.

We have been through this before so shut your trap!

caribny posted:

ba$eman posted:

sling shot from the abysmal prior two months coupled with the return to work of 32k striking verizon employees. unemployment rate ticked up while Labor partcipation rate is at 62%, a low of 1976.  Its not as it's cracked up to be.  

Jump, scream and wail as you wish but the best way to have strong job growth is to elect a Democrat.PPP

We have been through this before so shut your trap!

You are repeating a line Dem PPP bais program into you over time hanging with them on GNI..

Still labor participation is 62%, lowest since 1976.  Any growth is good, but dont get carried away. It's actually mediocre.

ba$eman posted:

Still labor participation is 62%, lowest since 1976.  Any growth is good, but dont get carried away. It's actually mediocre.

You are framing it as mediocre because you are a bloody dunce or as usual aiming to leverage your usual bilge against a black president. The decline began sometime in the beginning of the century and accelerated at the end of the Bush administration as the country collapsed into a severe depression. Add to that the changing job market, the fall out rates of baby boomers and you have the bottom of a labor participation cycle.

ba$eman posted:

Still labor participation is 62%, lowest since 1976.  Any growth is good, but dont get carried away. It's actually mediocre.

More jobs were created under Obama than under Bush.  Get over it!

Under Clinton there was an increase of 23 million vs. Reagan 16 million. Bush had an increase of just over 1 million, vs. Obama seeing an increase of 10 million jobs since Jan 2009.

And btw your Trump manufactures his products in CHINA. So I don't think you are going to see job creation under him either.

Face it. If you want a job vote for a Democrat.  Even under the much maligned Jimmy Carter there was an increase of 10 million jobs during his term.

ba$eman posted:

Still labor participation is 62%, lowest since 1976.  Any growth is good, but dont get carried away. It's actually mediocre.

A few may think it as mediocre while the vast majority consider it as progressive advancement under President Barack Obama.

ba$eman posted:

Still labor participation is 62%, lowest since 1976.  Any growth is good, but dont get carried away. It's actually mediocre.

Food Stamp clients are up. No need to work when yo can make more money collecting food stamps sitting at home.

skeldon_man posted:

ba$eman posted:

Still labor participation is 62%, lowest since 1976.  Any growth is good, but dont get carried away. It's actually mediocre.

Food Stamp clients are up. No need to work when yo can make more money collecting food stamps sitting at home.

The very definition of racism, you twit.

ba$eman posted:

Still labor participation is 62%, lowest since 1976.  Any growth is good, but dont get carried away. It's actually mediocre.

Boy, you don't give up, eh?! Tat quicksand is pulling you in further and further. Reason is anathema to you. Facts are an alien concept to you.

Stormborn posted:

ba$eman posted:

Still labor participation is 62%, lowest since 1976.  Any growth is good, but dont get carried away. It's actually mediocre.

You are framing it as mediocre because you are a bloody dunce or as usual aiming to leverage your usual bilge against a black president. The decline began sometime in the beginning of the century and accelerated at the end of the Bush administration as the country collapsed into a severe depression. Add to that the changing job market, the fall out rates of baby boomers and you have the bottom of a labor participation cycle.

Nothing to do with race.  Fact is labor participation is 62% and with 287k job gains, unemployment went up.  Could you explain that?  With 59% un/underemployment in the Black community, then there must be close to -0- in the White/Asian communities.  Now dunda head dunce, I know that is hard for you to grasp!!

Kari posted:

skeldon_man posted:

ba$eman posted:

Still labor participation is 62%, lowest since 1976.  Any growth is good, but dont get carried away. It's actually mediocre.

Food Stamp clients are up. No need to work when yo can make more money collecting food stamps sitting at home.

The very definition of racism, you twit.

Why you think this is racism? Have you not seen Indo Guyanese collecting food stamps or white folks collecting food stamps? Are you associating food stamps with negroes only?
Did you say you attended QC? You calling me a twit and you fail to look beyond your nose? Now go to the mirror and see the true definition moron.

ba$eman posted:

Stormborn posted:

ba$eman posted:

Still labor participation is 62%, lowest since 1976.  Any growth is good, but dont get carried away. It's actually mediocre.

You are framing it as mediocre because you are a bloody dunce or as usual aiming to leverage your usual bilge against a black president. The decline began sometime in the beginning of the century and accelerated at the end of the Bush administration as the country collapsed into a severe depression. Add to that the changing job market, the fall out rates of baby boomers and you have the bottom of a labor participation cycle.

Nothing to do with race.  Fact is labor participation is 62% and with 287k job gains, unemployment went up.  Could you explain that?  With 59% un/underemployment in the Black community, then there must be close to -0- in the White/Asian communities.  Now dunda head dunce, I know that is hard for you to grasp!!

I do not have to explain it. There are numerous articles out on it. Actually Bloomberg had a discussion on it only a week ago. There baby boomers are retiring. IT is changing demand etc The US is in a transition period  with its labor force and that began three decades ago. It will never reach the 80 percent employment participation levels for a long time and it is not a bad thing either. People in retirement have money working for them. The problem is with young people coming in ill prepared and the high levels of minority unemployment. Note the Rockefeller laws etc are now returning large numbers of convicts to the streets ill prepared for life.

The dependent population of the US is more as a percentage than ever before (thus the demands on increased Health care and retirement incomes like social security). So there is a smaller percentage of meaningful working population that leads to a lower labor participation.

Obama came at a time (in addition to Bush's profligate wars - ba$eman where is the Bush avatar?) of the working/dependent population ratio favoring the latter, job transferal to cheaper sources reaching its nadir and technology changing the labor force in an accelerating manner. 

Let your analysis consider these.

skeldon_man posted:

ba$eman posted:

Still labor participation is 62%, lowest since 1976.  Any growth is good, but dont get carried away. It's actually mediocre.

Food Stamp clients are up. No need to work when yo can make more money collecting food stamps sitting at home.

I know that you get all your info from FIX TV but food stamps is for low wage folks.  Most of the people who get food stamps work for a living, but get paid little.

You cannot stay home and live off food stamps because they don't cover rent and other expenses, and don't fully cover food needs either.

Now just ask yourself why you think that Bush was a good president when only 1.2 million more people were working in Jan 2009 when compared to Jan 2001.   10 million more people are working now when compared to Jan 2009.

Kari posted:

The dependent population of the US is more as a percentage than ever before (thus the demands on increased Health care and retirement incomes like social security). So there is a smaller percentage of meaningful working population that leads to a lower labor participation.

Obama came at a time (in addition to Bush's profligate wars - ba$eman where is the Bush avatar?) of the working/dependent population ratio favoring the latter, job transferal to cheaper sources reaching its nadir and technology changing the labor force in an accelerating manner. 

Let your analysis consider these.

More people are working now than under Bush, however more people in their 40s and 50s have dropped out of the labor force since 2008. 

While Obama can be credited for having more vibrant job creation than was the case under Bush, there still remains a problem which he doesn't address, as he jumps around and prances and screams that all is well.  He looks like the out of touch elite that he is.

It is this problem with the middle aged that caused Brexit and might well lead to the 20% possibility of a Trump victory.

Stormborn posted:

!!

IT is changing demand etc The US is in a transition period  with its labor force and that began three decades ago.

This poses a major political problem for the Democrats.  Not only do their risk losing the whites so trapped to bigots like Trump, but they also risk losing the minorities so trapped to apathy. 

As is over 60% of the black and Latin vote is female, which is why analyses show that Obama won the female vote, when he actually got only 48% of the white female vote.  As the population of older black females diminishes will the younger black women who replace them feel as compelled to vote if they don't see what benefits that it brings to them?

So I suggest that the Democrats get serious about solving the mismatch between the jobs available and the skill sets of the labor force.  As it is many employers complain that they cannot find qualified workers.  Surely some public private partnership can reduce this problem.