FULLTIME JOBS lower than a snake in a wagon rut....

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-05/full-time-jobs-down-150k-participation-rate-remains-35-year-lows

Full-Time Jobs Down 150K, Participation Rate Remains At 35 Year Lows, "No Job Market For Young Men"

Now you've done it. Boards is probably creating some bar graph to prove you wrong at this very moment.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2RNe2jwHE0

Markle knows better than to post the labor force participation rate anymore.  Now it appears that we have someone else picking up up the torch.  Feel free to come join the conversation.  Or not.

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t16954-markle-and-the-labor-force-participation-rate


It's like the classic arcade game.  Beat one down, another pops up.

boards of FL wrote:Markle knows better than to post the labor force participation rate anymore.  Now it appears that we have someone else picking up up the torch.  Feel free to come join the conversation.  Or not.



It's like the classic arcade game.  Beat one down, another pops up.

What's the matter? Can't dispute the facts Teo posted? Of course not, everyone knows you cherry pick the data you post and if a report comes out that isn't on your agenda you ignore it or resort to your usual childish comments if someone else posts it. You never seem to grasp the "big picture". Grow up.

Welfare, disability, food stamps, medicaid... etc... are all trending upward. Congratulations comrade.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-05/full-time-jobs-down-150k-participation-rate-remains-35-year-lows

Full-Time Jobs Down 150K, Participation Rate Remains At 35 Year Lows, "No Job Market For Young Men"

This article is telling you to ignore the establishment survey and instead focus on the household survey.  To put that into context, the household survey is comprised of a sample of 50,000 households.  The establishment survey is comprised of 390,000 businesses that capture roughly 47 million workers.

Now, I don't know how much knowledge either of you have in the world of math or statistics, but trust me when I say that a sample of 47 million workers is considerably more robust than a sample of 50,000 households.

Beyond that, the labor force participation rate held steady.   He frames this as "the same adverse trends indicated over the last 4 years have continued."  Look at chart TEO.  For how long has the LPR been in decline?  (Hint:  The correct answer is since 2001)  That is a 14 year trend - not 4.  

He also points out that those "not in the labor force" increased by 69k.  That is correct, though he doesn't go on to tell you that 119,000 people entered the labor force that same month.  

Finally, the real number that matters is that 321,000 more people have jobs today than what was the case in October.  And given the fact that average weekly hours increased, well...see if you can finish that one on your own.

Hey lets all just continue playing Whack a troll and see who wins.....

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Hey lets all just continue playing Whack a troll and see who wins.....

And there we have it! We have reached the end of the the thread! The collective substance that our forum republicans have to offer is already tapped out...after just one copy-and-pasted article.

Enjoyed this one, guys. Really.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Hey lets all just continue playing Whack a troll and see who wins.....

I'm waiting for him to break out the deficit/surplus graph again and point out that since the deficit is decreasing that there has to be more people working. That graph of his can do and prove anything.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2RNe2jwHE0