Markle and the Labor Force Participation rate

Posted for the THIRD time and will be deleted by the children of this forum.

BOF, like the main stream media, touts a meager 321,000 new jobs. IGNORES 11,918,000 who have dropped out since OBAMA. 12/6/2014 at 5:58 pm

FOURTH attempt at the FACTS. Something my far left Progressive good friends seem to find.

BOF and 2seaoat, like the main stream media, touts a meager 321,000 new jobs. IGNORES 11,918,000 who have dropped out since OBAMA.

Just can't make these things up.

Labor Force Participation Remains at 36-Year Low

December 5, 2014 - 9:17 AM

(CNSNews.com) - The labor force participation rate remained at a 36-year low of 62.8 percent in November, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The participation rate, which is the percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population who participated in the labor force by either having a job during the month or actively seeking one, was 62.8 percent in November which matches the percentage since March 1978.

In November, according to BLS, the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population, consisting of all people 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, reached 248,844,000. Of those, 156,397,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.

The 156,397,000 who participated in the labor force was 62.8 percent of the 248,844,000 civilian noninsttutional population, which matches the 62.8 percent rate in April, May, June, August and October of 2014 as well as the participation rate in March of 1978. The participation rate hit its lowest level of 62.7 percent in September 2014.

Another 92,447,000 people did not participate in the labor force. These Americans did not have a job and were not actively trying to find one. When President Obama took office in January 2009, there were 80,529,000 Americans who were not participating in the office, which means that since then, 11,918,000 Americans have left the workforce.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/labor-force-participation-remains-36-year-low-0

Contrary to the belief of 2seaoat, the POPULATION of workers in America has GROWN every year. BOF and 2seaoat believe that because baby boomers, like myself, are retiring NO ONE IS REPLACING THEM.

I know, stunning isn't it?

Markle wrote:Posted for the THIRD time and will be deleted by the children of this forum.

BOF, like the main stream media, touts a meager 321,000 new jobs. IGNORES 11,918,000 who have dropped out since OBAMA. 12/6/2014 at 5:58 pm

FOURTH attempt at the FACTS. Something my far left Progressive good friends seem to find.

BOF and 2seaoat, like the main stream media, touts a meager 321,000 new jobs. IGNORES 11,918,000 who have dropped out since OBAMA.

Just can't make these things up.

Labor Force Participation Remains at 36-Year Low

December 5, 2014 - 9:17 AM

(CNSNews.com) - The labor force participation rate remained at a 36-year low of 62.8 percent in November, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The participation rate, which is the percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population who participated in the labor force by either having a job during the month or actively seeking one, was 62.8 percent in November which matches the percentage since March 1978.

In November, according to BLS, the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population, consisting of all people 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, reached 248,844,000. Of those, 156,397,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.

The 156,397,000 who participated in the labor force was 62.8 percent of the 248,844,000 civilian noninsttutional population, which matches the 62.8 percent rate in April, May, June, August and October of 2014 as well as the participation rate in March of 1978. The participation rate hit its lowest level of 62.7 percent in September 2014.

Another 92,447,000 people did not participate in the labor force. These Americans did not have a job and were not actively trying to find one. When President Obama took office in January 2009, there were 80,529,000 Americans who were not participating in the office, which means that since then, 11,918,000 Americans have left the workforce.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/labor-force-participation-remains-36-year-low-0

Contrary to the belief of 2seaoat, the POPULATION of workers in America has GROWN every year. BOF and 2seaoat believe that because baby boomers, like myself, are retiring NO ONE IS REPLACING THEM.

I know, stunning isn't it?

OK, Markle.  You obviously cling to this economic data point.  This is your chance to make your case and explain to all of us exactly why it is that you feel the Labor Force Participation rate is the end-all economic data point. You seem to be under the impression that posting the same chart again and again is a valid, substantive entry into any discussion, no matter the topic.  This is your chance to lay out why you feel that is the case.

I'll just go ahead and get this out of the way now to save you the time.  The labor force participation rate:





So there it is. This is the holy-grail of all economic data points in Markle-land.   Notice the long rising trend that lasts between the years 1963 and 2000.  Many would attribute that to cultural changes that took hold in the US during that time.  We evolved from a society in which women had a very specific roll - a homemaker - to a society in which women are empowered to gain education and work.  This is just one factor perhaps among many.  That said, Makle likely discounts conventional wisdom and instead has his own theories to explain that increase, and I suspect they're all political.

Also notice the peak in the year 2000 and the subsequent decline.  Some would say the peak was the end of the "dot com" era in which we saw massive gains in productivity in large part due to widespread adoption of computers and the internet in business.  What followed was a steady trend of automation combined with a massive aging cohort (baby boomers) that were reaching retirement age and that began to exit the workforce.  But here again, I'm sure Markle has his own theories and I'm sure they're all based in politics.

So, with that said, the floor is yours, Markle.  Let's hear it.  Tell us all why the labor force participation rate is the end-all economic data point that trumps everything from jobless claims, to GDP, to retail sales, to consumer confidence, to the employment situation.  Enlighten us as to why we see the movements that we do in this data point, which clearly are long long running trends.  

Please proceed, governor....

FOURTH TIME...a FACT PROVEN THREAD HATED BY PROGRESSIVES  Like their beloved DailyKOS, CENSORSHIP REIGNS

Posted for the FOURTH time and will be deleted by the children of this forum.  Why?

BOF, like the main stream media, touts a meager 321,000 new jobs. IGNORES 11,918,000 who have dropped out since OBAMA. 12/6/2014 at 5:58 pm

FOURTH attempt at the FACTS. Something my far left Progressive good friends seem to find.

BOF, like the main stream media, touts a meager 321,000 new jobs. IGNORES 11,918,000 who have dropped out since OBAMA.

Just can't make these things up.

Labor Force Participation Remains at 36-Year Low

December 5, 2014 - 9:17 AM

(CNSNews.com) - The labor force participation rate remained at a 36-year low of 62.8 percent in November, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The participation rate, which is the percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population who participated in the labor force by either having a job during the month or actively seeking one, was 62.8 percent in November which matches the percentage since March 1978.

In November, according to BLS, the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population, consisting of all people 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, reached 248,844,000. Of those, 156,397,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.

The 156,397,000 who participated in the labor force was 62.8 percent of the 248,844,000 civilian noninsttutional population, which matches the 62.8 percent rate in April, May, June, August and October of 2014 as well as the participation rate in March of 1978. The participation rate hit its lowest level of 62.7 percent in September 2014.

Another 92,447,000 people did not participate in the labor force. These Americans did not have a job and were not actively trying to find one. When President Obama took office in January 2009, there were 80,529,000 Americans who were not participating in the office, which means that since then, 11,918,000 Americans have left the workforce.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/labor-force-participation-remains-36-year-low-0

Contrary to the belief of 2seaoat, the POPULATION of workers in America has GROWN every year. BOF and 2seaoat believe that because baby boomers, like myself, are retiring NO ONE IS REPLACING THEM.

I know, stunning isn't it?

Contrary to the belief of 2seaoat, the POPULATION of workers in America has GROWN every year. BOF and 2seaoat believe that because baby boomers, like myself, are retiring NO ONE IS REPLACING THEM.


Well this might explain why you are having difficulty with the concept. The largest bubble of population remains the babyboomers. When they broke the sexism of the workplace, women participated at record numbers along with the large bubble of babyboomers in their prime for work. This pushed participation rates to all time highs. However, when that large bubble retires at 10k a day, and that bubble has most of the Nation's wealth which allows for early retirement, the participation numbers are reduced. It is not a question of somebody replacing that person, rather the percentage of population represented at the high of the participation, and the 15 year downward trend of participation as less women and babyboomer participate.

Chrissy tried every which way by playing with the stats that the babyboomers were not the largest population bubble. It was easy to correct her because she used arbitrary cut offs trying to argue that there are more young people below 18......most of which are not counted in the participation. It is the large % of the babyboomers and their retirement which directly addresses the babyboomer who set the participation records. This is not hard to understand, and it is directed for the slow witted. It has nothing to do with conservative or liberal, because economics is a science which you have demonstrated repeatedly that you did not get higher education courses in economics. No big deal. This is way too much fun. Oh and where did I ever say nobody is replacing babyboomers who retire? I did not. I have simply said more are retiring than are coming into the labor market. However, with almost 400k new jobs a month.......the asz kicker will smile all the way to Hillary doing the twist at the ball, and in fact any job creation over 300k will offset boomer retirements.

2seaoat wrote:Contrary to the belief of 2seaoat, the POPULATION of workers in America has GROWN every year. BOF and 2seaoat believe that because baby boomers, like myself, are retiring NO ONE IS REPLACING THEM.


Well this might explain why you are having difficulty with the concept.  The largest bubble of population remains the babyboomers.  When they broke the sexism of the workplace, women participated at record numbers along with the large bubble of babyboomers in their prime for work.  This pushed participation rates to all time highs.   However, when that large bubble retires at 10k a day, and that bubble has most of the Nation's wealth which allows for early retirement, the participation numbers are reduced.   It is not a question of somebody replacing that person, rather the percentage of population represented at the high of the participation, and the 15 year downward trend of participation as less women and babyboomer participate.

Chrissy tried every which way by playing with the stats that the babyboomers were not the largest population bubble.   It was easy to correct her because she used arbitrary cut offs trying to argue that there are more young people below 18......most of which are not counted in the participation.  It is the large % of the babyboomers and their retirement which directly addresses the babyboomer who set the participation records.  This is not hard to understand, and it is directed for the slow witted.   It has nothing to do with conservative or liberal, because economics is a science which you have demonstrated repeatedly that you did not get higher education courses in economics.  No big deal.  This is way too much fun.  Oh and where did I ever say nobody is replacing babyboomers who retire?  I did not.  I have simply said more are retiring than are coming into the labor market.   However, with almost 400k new jobs a month.......the asz kicker will smile all the way to Hillary doing the twist at the ball, and in fact any job creation over 300k will offset boomer retirements.

All that to try to say there are more eligible workers today than 60, or 100 or 200 years ago.

All that to try to say there are more eligible workers today than 60, or 100 or 200 years ago.

Again, that is not what I said. Nor is it relevant. Reread what I said, and try to comprehend. It may simply be reading comprehension, because you do have a tendency to misquote folks.

Markle wrote:FOURTH TIME...a FACT PROVEN THREAD HATED BY PROGRESSIVES  Like their beloved DailyKOS, CENSORSHIP REIGNS

Posted for the FOURTH time and will be deleted by the children of this forum.  Why?

BOF, like the main stream media, touts a meager 321,000 new jobs. IGNORES 11,918,000 who have dropped out since OBAMA. 12/6/2014 at 5:58 pm

FOURTH attempt at the FACTS. Something my far left Progressive good friends seem to find.

BOF, like the main stream media, touts a meager 321,000 new jobs. IGNORES 11,918,000 who have dropped out since OBAMA.

Just can't make these things up.

Labor Force Participation Remains at 36-Year Low

December 5, 2014 - 9:17 AM

(CNSNews.com) - The labor force participation rate remained at a 36-year low of 62.8 percent in November, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The participation rate, which is the percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population who participated in the labor force by either having a job during the month or actively seeking one, was 62.8 percent in November which matches the percentage since March 1978.

In November, according to BLS, the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population, consisting of all people 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, reached 248,844,000. Of those, 156,397,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.

The 156,397,000 who participated in the labor force was 62.8 percent of the 248,844,000 civilian noninsttutional population, which matches the 62.8 percent rate in April, May, June, August and October of 2014 as well as the participation rate in March of 1978. The participation rate hit its lowest level of 62.7 percent in September 2014.

Another 92,447,000 people did not participate in the labor force. These Americans did not have a job and were not actively trying to find one. When President Obama took office in January 2009, there were 80,529,000 Americans who were not participating in the office, which means that since then, 11,918,000 Americans have left the workforce.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/labor-force-participation-remains-36-year-low-0

Contrary to the belief of 2seaoat, the POPULATION of workers in America has GROWN every year. BOF and 2seaoat believe that because baby boomers, like myself, are retiring NO ONE IS REPLACING THEM.

I know, stunning isn't it?

You realize that we can all read this thread, right? You realize that you have yet to defend your posting of the LPR, right?

One more time for Markle:

OK, Markle.  You obviously cling to this economic data point.  This is your chance to make your case and explain to all of us exactly why it is that you feel the Labor Force Participation rate is the end-all economic data point. You seem to be under the impression that posting the same chart again and again is a valid, substantive entry into any discussion, no matter the topic.  This is your chance to lay out why you feel that is the case.

I'll just go ahead and get this out of the way now to save you the time.  The labor force participation rate:





So there it is. This is the holy-grail of all economic data points in Markle-land.   Notice the long rising trend that lasts between the years 1963 and 2000.  Many would attribute that to cultural changes that took hold in the US during that time.  We evolved from a society in which women had a very specific roll - a homemaker - to a society in which women are empowered to gain education and work.  This is just one factor perhaps among many.  That said, Makle likely discounts conventional wisdom and instead has his own theories to explain that increase, and I suspect they're all political.

Also notice the peak in the year 2000 and the subsequent decline.  Some would say the peak was the end of the "dot com" era in which we saw massive gains in productivity in large part due to widespread adoption of computers and the internet in business.  What followed was a steady trend of automation combined with a massive aging cohort (baby boomers) that were reaching retirement age and that began to exit the workforce.  But here again, I'm sure Markle has his own theories and I'm sure they're all based in politics.

So, with that said, the floor is yours, Markle.  Let's hear it.  Tell us all why the labor force participation rate is the end-all economic data point that trumps everything from jobless claims, to GDP, to retail sales, to consumer confidence, to the employment situation.  Enlighten us as to why we see the movements that we do in this data point, which clearly are long long running trends.  

Please proceed, governor....

http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/donald-trump-obamas-jobless-figures-phony/

According to John Williams, an economist known for arguing the government reports manipulated “shadow statistics” of economic data for political purposes, decreased in the unemployment rate as reported by the BLS have become virtually “meaningless.”
Williams argues the real unemployment rate for November is 23 percent.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/donald-trump-obamas-jobless-figures-phony/#OlKujLrX4Rk4tceU.99



Obamanomics: an economy of part-time jobs
In August 2013, the House Ways and Means Committee documented that seven of every eight new employees under Obama have been part-time employees, as approximately 90 percent of all jobs created in the U.S. economy since 2009 have been part time.

Williams has contended the Obama administration intentionally manipulates unemployment numbers to understate the economic pain still being caused by an economic recovery that is anemic at best in terms of jobs creation.


Some people have to be uneducated to think that benchmarks used to measure unemployment over the last thrity years have been materially changed. It is one thing to say that the river gage should go a half mile up the stream to better measure a tributary which falls below that gage and results in under reporting of river levels, and all together another argument that the historical data collected at a river gage for a 110 years has been manipulated by government. Those benchmarks and historical trends tell a very consistent story. However, if a thunderstorm dumps 6 inches of rain on watershed south of the 110 year gage, and the fact that it does not accurately measure that rainfall is not a question of manipulation, but comparing apples to oranges. The economist use these established tools not out of manipulation. but from science and the need to have continuity and consistency when looking at historical data.

FIFTH attempt at the FACTS. Something my far left Progressive good friends seem to find.

BOF, like the main stream media, touts a meager 321,000 new jobs. IGNORES 11,918,000 who have dropped out since OBAMA.

Just can't make these things up.

Labor Force Participation Remains at 36-Year Low

December 5, 2014 - 9:17 AM

(CNSNews.com) - The labor force participation rate remained at a 36-year low of 62.8 percent in November, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The participation rate, which is the percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population who participated in the labor force by either having a job during the month or actively seeking one, was 62.8 percent in November which matches the percentage since March 1978.

In November, according to BLS, the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population, consisting of all people 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, reached 248,844,000. Of those, 156,397,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.

The 156,397,000 who participated in the labor force was 62.8 percent of the 248,844,000 civilian noninsttutional population, which matches the 62.8 percent rate in April, May, June, August and October of 2014 as well as the participation rate in March of 1978. The participation rate hit its lowest level of 62.7 percent in September 2014.

Another 92,447,000 people did not participate in the labor force. These Americans did not have a job and were not actively trying to find one. When President Obama took office in January 2009, there were 80,529,000 Americans who were not participating in the office, which means that since then, 11,918,000 Americans have left the workforce.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/labor-force-participation-remains-36-year-low-0

Contrary to the belief of 2seaoat, the POPULATION of workers in America has GROWN every year. BOF and 2seaoat believe that because baby boomers, like myself, are retiring NO ONE IS REPLACING THEM.

I know, stunning isn't it?

http://www.moneycrashers.com/what-is-national-us-unemployment-rate/

Flaws with Unemployment Calculations

There are multiple reasons why unemployment calculations are not completely accurate:

1. The number of people left out of the work force is staggering. Millions of people have recently left the work force. The number of unemployed Americans would be more than a third higher if these people were included, which would in turn significantly increase the unemployment rate. Statistics also don’t reflect the number of recent grads who have declared themselves not looking for work.
   
2. The household survey uses a limited sample size. Although 60,000 households may seem like a lot, it is hardly representative of the 115 million or so that exist in the United States. It is difficult to know how well these 60,000 households represent the country as a whole. Many factors go into the determination of who is unemployed, such as education, ethnicity, and geography (which can vary state to state, city to city, or even street to street). If a particular group was overrepresented or underrepresented, the figure can be strongly biased.
   
3. Many people are included as employed when they don’t earn a livable income. Just because someone is classified as employed doesn’t mean they can survive off their income. They are the “under-employed” and are not represented in the federal unemployment rate. I have a friend whose employer only gives her work four days every two weeks, so she still has to live with her parents. Although she is technically employed, she cannot make ends meet with her part-time job. Furthermore, some are considered self-employed, but their business doesn’t earn substantial income. Many other jobs, such as farm workers or tourist companies, offer seasonal employment, so someone classified as employed may only work for a couple of months.
   
4. The business survey double counts people who have multiple jobs. If you work on a fryline at KFC, do auto body work, and help out with a landscaping company, you will add three jobs to the survey. In other words, your part-time job may end up “counting” for someone who is actually unemployed. This makes it difficult to know how many people really have jobs, especially in times when many must find a second job just to get by.
   
5. Overlap can cause confusion. Some people fall into a couple of unemployment situations. For example, students are normally left out of the work force. However, if a high school student starts looking for a job, they become part of the work force and are classified as unemployed until they find one. People are also counted as employed if they just lost their job, but worked during the week of reference the statistician was using.
   
6. People are classified as employed as long as they “technically” still have a job. Often, someone is placed on temporary leave due to a variety of issues, but it’s clear they are at risk of losing their job permanently. Others have to leave for medical reasons, but may not be able to return to work. These people may know they won’t go back to work again, but until their employment status is sorted out, they are classified as employed.
   

11,918,000 who have dropped out since OBAMA.

Please take a deep breath and try to explain what you mean by drop out. Do you consider a person 55 who has taken early retirement to be one of those drop outs?

55 is too young to retire considering the hits most people of this age took in 08-10 in the stock market

2seaoat wrote:11,918,000 who have dropped out since OBAMA.

Please take a deep breath and try to explain what you mean by drop out.  Do you consider a person 55 who has taken early retirement to be one of those drop outs?

What part of drop out is not clear to you?

As for your early retirement, how many people in this economy are in a position to retire early?  Fewer than ever.  In fact, MORE people are working past their Social Security retirement age.

So everyone who has retired, have been replaced by new workers coming out of school OR illegal aliens.  We have millions and millions of those.

Most of my friends are early retirees who can live quite modestly. Do not think your health will improve with age, or that retirement is a destination.....it is a journey which is best started early. Those drop outs are a great thing.

2seaoat wrote:Most of my friends are early retirees who can live quite modestly.  Do not think your health will improve with age, or that retirement is a destination.....it is a journey which is best started early.  Those drop outs are a great thing.

Very few and far more working past retirement age.

Very few and far more working past retirement age.




I cannot argue with that, but it depends on when they retire and the type of work they seek after retirement. I have friends who work as starters on golf courses during the summer not for the money, but for the free golf and something to get them out of the house. I have one friend who had a big independent insurance agency in the 90s who rides a scooter on a nature trail for the Park District, not so much for the money, but to do something. I have friends who work as part time bartenders, day care a couple days a week, and part time accounting. Even some are doing a little real estate, but you have to get the right broker for the same. I have friends who travel the world working with optimist club delivering eyeglasses, and working in hospital on a volunteer basis at information desks. I certainly do not need a 4k square foot house and all the nonsense I did for years.....semi retirement is a great way to drop out......it is a dream come true.....I spend the day with the grand kids after working about eight hours today........10k a day dropping out or partially getting back in is a good thing for most.

2seaoat wrote:Very few and far more working past retirement age.




I cannot argue with that, but it depends on when they retire and the type of work they seek after retirement.  I have friends who work as starters on golf courses during the summer not for the money, but for the free golf and something to get them out of the house.   I have one friend who had a big independent insurance agency in the 90s who rides a scooter on a nature trail for the Park District, not so much for the money, but to do something.   I have friends who work as part time bartenders, day care a couple days a week, and part time accounting.  Even some are doing a little real estate, but you have to get the right broker for the same.  I have friends who travel the world working with optimist club delivering eyeglasses, and working in hospital on a volunteer basis at information desks.   I certainly do not need a 4k square foot house and all the nonsense I did for years.....semi retirement is a great way to drop out......it is a dream come true.....I spend the day with the grand kids after working about eight hours today........10k a day dropping out or partially getting back in is a good thing for most.

AGAIN...


Oh, and the broker has little or nothing to do with someone being successful.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/donald-trump-obamas-jobless-figures-phony/

According to John Williams, an economist known for arguing the government reports manipulated “shadow statistics” of economic data for political purposes, decreased in the unemployment rate as reported by the BLS have become virtually “meaningless.”
Williams argues the real unemployment rate for November is 23 percent.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/donald-trump-obamas-jobless-figures-phony/#OlKujLrX4Rk4tceU.99



Obamanomics: an economy of part-time jobs
In August 2013, the House Ways and Means Committee documented that seven of every eight new employees under Obama have been part-time employees, as approximately 90 percent of all jobs created in the U.S. economy since 2009 have been part time.

You realize that Williams doesn't tell you how he arrives at the 23% figure, right? He just tells you a number and expects you to take his word for it.

Is that good enough for you, TEO?

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/donald-trump-obamas-jobless-figures-phony/

According to John Williams, an economist known for arguing the government reports manipulated “shadow statistics” of economic data for political purposes, decreased in the unemployment rate as reported by the BLS have become virtually “meaningless.”
Williams argues the real unemployment rate for November is 23 percent.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/donald-trump-obamas-jobless-figures-phony/#OlKujLrX4Rk4tceU.99



Obamanomics: an economy of part-time jobs
In August 2013, the House Ways and Means Committee documented that seven of every eight new employees under Obama have been part-time employees, as approximately 90 percent of all jobs created in the U.S. economy since 2009 have been part time.

You realize that Williams doesn't tell you how he arrives at the 23% figure, right?  He just tells you a number and expects you to take his word for it.  

Is that good enough for you, TEO?

Did you even read the article....?

Williams calculates his “ShadowStats Alternative Unemployment Rate” by adding to the BLS U-6 numbers the long-term discouraged workers, i.e., those workers who have not looked for work in more than a year, but still consider themselves to be unemployed.

"...Oh, and the broker has little or nothing to do with someone being successful..." --- That is an absolute lie...I can speak from experience. I had one broker in particular who outright stole my client...another who looked the other way while a particular agent sneaked around getting info from other agents' floor duty...another who was enjoined in a lawsuit because of a developer's fraudulent practices. It most certainly makes a difference who your broker is.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/donald-trump-obamas-jobless-figures-phony/

According to John Williams, an economist known for arguing the government reports manipulated “shadow statistics” of economic data for political purposes, decreased in the unemployment rate as reported by the BLS have become virtually “meaningless.”
Williams argues the real unemployment rate for November is 23 percent.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/donald-trump-obamas-jobless-figures-phony/#OlKujLrX4Rk4tceU.99



Obamanomics: an economy of part-time jobs
In August 2013, the House Ways and Means Committee documented that seven of every eight new employees under Obama have been part-time employees, as approximately 90 percent of all jobs created in the U.S. economy since 2009 have been part time.

You realize that Williams doesn't tell you how he arrives at the 23% figure, right?  He just tells you a number and expects you to take his word for it.  

Is that good enough for you, TEO?

Did you even read the article....?

Williams calculates his “ShadowStats Alternative Unemployment Rate” by adding to the BLS U-6 numbers the long-term discouraged workers, i.e., those workers who have not looked for work in more than a year, but still consider themselves to be unemployed.

I stand corrected. He has changed since the last time I saw his numbers posted on a forum.

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/donald-trump-obamas-jobless-figures-phony/

According to John Williams, an economist known for arguing the government reports manipulated “shadow statistics” of economic data for political purposes, decreased in the unemployment rate as reported by the BLS have become virtually “meaningless.”
Williams argues the real unemployment rate for November is 23 percent.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/donald-trump-obamas-jobless-figures-phony/#OlKujLrX4Rk4tceU.99



Obamanomics: an economy of part-time jobs
In August 2013, the House Ways and Means Committee documented that seven of every eight new employees under Obama have been part-time employees, as approximately 90 percent of all jobs created in the U.S. economy since 2009 have been part time.

You realize that Williams doesn't tell you how he arrives at the 23% figure, right?  He just tells you a number and expects you to take his word for it.  

Is that good enough for you, TEO?

Did you even read the article....?

Williams calculates his “ShadowStats Alternative Unemployment Rate” by adding to the BLS U-6 numbers the long-term discouraged workers, i.e., those workers who have not looked for work in more than a year, but still consider themselves to be unemployed.

I stand corrected.  He has changed since the last time I saw his numbers posted on a forum.  

*****CHUCKLE*****

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

Floridatexan wrote:
"...Oh, and the broker has little or nothing to do with someone being successful..."  --- That is an absolute lie...I can speak from experience.  I had one broker in particular who outright stole my client...another who looked the other way while a particular agent sneaked around getting info from other agents' floor duty...another who was enjoined in a lawsuit because of a developer's fraudulent practices.  It most certainly makes a difference who your broker is.

When you're a newbie, the broker makes some difference.

"It's the brokers fault" is an excuse used by many failed agents. My guess is, that would be the first one grabbed by semi-retired President Obama if he went into real estate.

Your broker probably "stole" your client because you were screwing up the potential sale. I've been in the business 40 years and had one agent steal a customer from me. Paid her back many times over.

You sure weren't very particular where you chose to work. Sounds like a personal problem.