90 million plus people don't want a job...gave up

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/giving-up-40-women-28-men-39-youth-dont-want-a-job/article/2556177


Nearly four in 10 Americans, or 92 million, are not in the labor force and now there’s a reason why: They have simply given up and don’t want to work.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the largest group of people not in the labor force are those who don’t want a job, a remarkable statement on the nation’s work ethic. The federal job counter said that 85.9 million adults last month didn’t want a job, or 93 percent of all adults not in the labor force.

My question is ..who's feeding these millions of mouths and paying their cable bill ? Or putting a roof over their heads ?

Designed to fail. Radical changes usually happen at the point of a precipice. If only there were examples we could study.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/giving-up-40-women-28-men-39-youth-dont-want-a-job/article/2556177


Nearly four in 10 Americans, or 92 million, are not in the labor force and now there’s a reason why: They have simply given up and don’t want to work.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the largest group of people not in the labor force are those who don’t want a job, a remarkable statement on the nation’s work ethic. The federal job counter said that 85.9 million adults last month didn’t want a job, or 93 percent of all adults not in the labor force.

Example of the lefts work ethic. They teach it. And remember, according to nancy polosi, now these people can do ART!

It's my understanding that these people who are no longer looking for employment did so because all their earlier efforts failed.

Now you say it's because they don't want to work.  Source?

Amen! I am one of those people. I am eternally grateful to President Obama!

If people don't work, who's going to pay for all your freebies?

Nice one!

That said, if anyone cares to continue this conversation about the labor force participation rate, please proceed. We have already hashed this out and have reached a...well...I guess you could call it a "consensus". No republicans have yet been able to produce any intelligent arguments as to 1) why the LPR is important and 2) why it is influenced by short term politics.

But, by all means, the floor is yours, Queen.

Please proceed, governor

If people don't work, who's going to pay for all your freebies?



Do you understand the largest percentage of our population is represented by the population bubble called the babyboom? Do you realize that most of those folks lived their working lives successfully saving for retirement? Do you realize that those people not 65 are still considered in the work pool?

I am 62. I have basically been working part time in a semi retired state for the last year. The eight guys I play poker with from high school, only two are still working full time. Two were able to quit their jobs and enjoy early retirement because they have health issues and now are fully insured.(both diehard Republicans who hate Obama), and with more than enough savings to enjoy their retirement without even social security.

T is retired. Is he living off the government teat, or has he worked and saved? This use of the retiring babyboomers who are retiring at 10k a day with most below 65 is a tactic of manipulation for the useful idiots. It is funny who falls for this.

boards of FL wrote:Nice one!

That said, if anyone cares to continue this conversation about the labor force participation rate, please proceed.  We have already hashed this out and have reached a...well...I guess you could call it a "consensus".   No republicans have yet been able to produce any intelligent arguments as to 1) why the LPR is important and 2) why it is influenced by short term politics.  

But, by all means, the floor is yours, Queen.

Please proceed, governor

Well you have this over bloated government handing out the little freebies like cheap candy, someone has to pay for it.

We have the GOV creating all these new government regulatory agencies, 157 new agencies just for obamacare alone.

1% pays 24% of all taxes in the country. The bottom ~50% pay nothing. The middle class pay the rest and they are being killed off.

Your plan is to bring in millions of illegals, make them citizens and allow them to drive down the wages for the nation< this is the GOV's solution and these low wage jobs don't create a usable tax>. It may not be your plan, but the left is on board with it because well, they are stupid.

How you can sit there and say the labor force is not important is beyond me. I know you know better. Or do you think that all we have to do is to continue to tax the living fuck out of businesses to pay for the welfare state will work for how long?

Short term solutions come from short sighted people. Leaders don't use bandaids, they implement cures.

boards of FL wrote:Nice one!

That said, if anyone cares to continue this conversation about the labor force participation rate, please proceed.  We have already hashed this out and have reached a...well...I guess you could call it a "consensus".   No republicans have yet been able to produce any intelligent arguments as to 1) why the LPR is important and 2) why it is influenced by short term politics.  

But, by all means, the floor is yours, Queen.

Please proceed, governor

You're kidding right?

2seaoat wrote:If people don't work, who's going to pay for all your freebies?



Do you understand the largest percentage of our population is represented by the population bubble called the babyboom?  Do you realize that most of those folks lived their working lives successfully saving for retirement?  Do you realize that those people not 65 are still considered in the work pool?

I am 62.  I have basically been working part time in a semi retired state for the last year.  The eight guys I play poker with from high school, only two are still working full time.  Two were able to quit their jobs and enjoy early retirement because they have health issues and now are fully insured.(both diehard Republicans who hate Obama), and with more than enough savings to enjoy their retirement without even social security.

T is retired.  Is he living off the government teat, or has he worked and saved?   This use of the retiring babyboomers who are retiring at 10k a day with most below 65 is a tactic of manipulation for the useful idiots.  It is funny who falls for this.

I have some news for you old man.

In the 2010 Census, the number of people under age 18 was 74.2 million (24.0 percent of the total population). The younger working-age population, ages 18 to 44, represented 112.8 million persons (36.5 percent). The older working-age population, ages 45 to 64, made up 81.5 million persons (26.4 percent). Finally, the 65 and over population was 40.3 million persons (13.0 percent).
http://www.census.gov/population/age/

So lets do some simple arithmetic....

under age 18 =24%
ages 18 to 44 =36.5%
ages 45 to 64 = 26.4%
total working age = 86.9%

Lets take out that last group which is ridiculous because I fit into that group. You still have 60.5% of the population under 44 years old.

So give me a break that its all the baby boomers fault. Its a tired old fucking lie and Im sick of hearing it. Go change your diaper.

And, ....

.... Markle waves the white flag ....

.... again.

lol

So lets do some simple arithmetic....

I hope your job does not have to rely on those skills. You just confirmed what I have posted. Thank you.

However, just to help you a little bit with your obvious aptitude deficiency.....how many six year olds do you know who work a full time job? How many of those over sixty four are part of the babyboom generation who have already retired and were part of the labor participation rate dropping over the last five years? Do you want to try again, or should I have Boards help you with your aptitude deficiency. I thought the health field required good math skills.

2seaoat wrote:So lets do some simple arithmetic....

I hope your job does not have to rely on those skills.  You just confirmed what I have posted.  Thank you.

However, just to help you a little bit with your obvious aptitude deficiency.....how many six year olds do you know who work a full time job?  How many of those over sixty four are part of the babyboom generation who have already retired and were part of the labor participation rate dropping over the last five years?  Do you want to try again, or should I have Boards help you with your aptitude deficiency.  I thought the health field required good math skills.

so your saying the census is wrong. LOL

Go figure. Because I posted exactly what the census said.

I understand at your age you may not be able to read or understand data. So sorry, continue on with your unicorn fantasies

So it is not a math deficiency, but a conceptual deficiency. I guess Boards is watching football games, but I will try to help you if you are willing to learn. Using the census figures is not the same as the labor market stats in the United States. You foolishly included people under 18, you fail to compare apples to apples which the babyboomers have a good percentage who have now reached the age of 65, and then you fail to properly frame the labor pool population. You then skew your analysis trying to create a fiction that the babyboom population is smaller than your 18 to 44, without even understanding what is the definition of those who fit in that category. Thank you for posting though, because even with your butchered math and inability to conceptualize, you have shown why the labor participation rate has been trending down for many years which corresponds with the babyboomers retiring.

2seaoat wrote:So it is not a math deficiency, but a conceptual deficiency.  I guess Boards is watching football games, but I will try to help you if you are willing to learn.  Using the census figures is not the same as the labor market stats in the United States.  You foolishly included people under 18, you fail to compare apples to apples which the babyboomers have a good percentage who have now reached the age of 65, and then you fail to properly frame the labor pool population.  You then skew your analysis trying to create a fiction that the babyboom population is smaller than your 18 to 44, without even understanding what is the definition of those who fit in that category.  Thank you for posting though, because even with your butchered math and inability to conceptualize, you have shown why the labor participation rate has been trending down for many years which corresponds with the babyboomers retiring.

I foolishly didn't do anything. My premise is that more than half the country is not at retirement age, and yet you are saying its people retiring causing the low work force.

While you continue to buy into the LIE that its people who are old leaving the work force, you forget gen X, millennia's are out of the work force in droves.

retirement age ( 65 ) people are only about 18% of the population.

add in the 60 year olds and its about half. Those people are not retiring at a significant rate. They are half of the work force.

Its younger people who are NOT in the work force. wake up to reality ol man.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat03.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/14/youth-unemployment_n_6158238.html

But guess what? It's not mid-lifers discouraged about their re-employment prospects sitting on the sidelines: It's their kids.

Patience is not one of my virtues, but you do realize the labor participation rate is a historical index? You do realize the population bubble which IS the largest grouping in our population twenty years ago was at its peak participation. That as that bubble started retiring five years ago lo and behold the labor participation rates began to drop. Your absurd proposition that retired people only represent 18% of the population only confirms how lost you are. You say this without any indication of the actual retirement age of Americans, not the arbitrary date eligibility for social security. How many people do you know who have retired in their fifties and now enjoy life and pick up some part time work to supplement their savings and pensions? So when you use the 18%, it is not a lie, but a total lack of conceptualization of what is happening in America. The babyboomers had productive years which allowed them in record numbers to retire early. Please explain your understanding of why the participation rate has declined, and if you are going to use your math skills......keep it simple.....like adding and subtraction.

Sal wrote:And, ....

.... Markle waves the white flag ....

.... again.

lol

Really? Where?

If anyone has to ask those two questions...seriously, they re-emphasize what was said about the supporters of ObamaCare by Jonathan Gruber.

2seaoat wrote:Patience is not one of my virtues, but you do realize the labor participation rate is a historical index?  You do realize the population bubble which IS the largest grouping in our population twenty years ago was at its peak participation.   That as that bubble started retiring five years ago lo and behold the labor participation rates began to drop.  Your absurd proposition that retired people only represent 18% of the population only confirms how lost you are.   You say this without any indication of the actual retirement age of Americans, not the arbitrary date eligibility for social security.  How many people do you know who have retired in their fifties and now enjoy life and pick up some part time work to supplement their savings and pensions?  So when you use the 18%, it is not a lie, but a total lack of conceptualization of what is happening in America.  The babyboomers had productive years which allowed them in record numbers to retire early.  Please explain your understanding of why the participation rate has declined, and if you are going to use your math skills......keep it simple.....like adding and subtraction.

By the looks of your word salad, you have surrendered again.
What is the definition of "labor force participation rate"? What does "labor force participation rate" mean?

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the labor force participation rate is the "share of the population 16 years and older working or seeking work."

Ok - now what is the "civilian labor force"?

This group consists of people who are classified as being either employed or unemployed.

http://www.davemanuel.com/investor-dictionary/labor-force-participation-rate/

2seaoat wrote:Patience is not one of my virtues, but you do realize the labor participation rate is a historical index?  You do realize the population bubble which IS the largest grouping in our population twenty years ago was at its peak participation.   That as that bubble started retiring five years ago lo and behold the labor participation rates began to drop.  Your absurd proposition that retired people only represent 18% of the population only confirms how lost you are.   You say this without any indication of the actual retirement age of Americans, not the arbitrary date eligibility for social security.  How many people do you know who have retired in their fifties and now enjoy life and pick up some part time work to supplement their savings and pensions?  So when you use the 18%, it is not a lie, but a total lack of conceptualization of what is happening in America.  The babyboomers had productive years which allowed them in record numbers to retire early.  Please explain your understanding of why the participation rate has declined, and if you are going to use your math skills......keep it simple.....like adding and subtraction.

You just keep pushing the lie you've been told. There is no help for you.

The unemployment rate is the highest in the YOUNGER GROUP seaoat.

##Unemployment was higher for the 15–24 year age group than for the labour force overall. In 2013, the unemployment rate for this age group was 18.4 percent.

Over a million adults are not in the labour force
##Over a million adults (people aged 15 years and over) were not in the labour force in 2013 – up 10.0 percent since 2006. Almost 1 in 3 people (32.9 percent) aged 15 and over were not in the labour force.
##Women made up 60.0 percent of those not in the labour force.

Rise in employment for people aged 65 years and over
##The percentage of people aged 65 years and over who were employed nearly doubled since 2001. In 2013, 22.1 percent of those aged 65 years and over were employed compared with 11.4 percent in 2001.

http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-about-national-highlights/work.aspx

Older people are still working and younger people are NOT.

HELLO..............................................