29.7 Million Seek Work
People ask, why all the talk about dogs and contraceptives? The reason is: jobs.
Tomorrow the Labor Department will release its April employment report. If the rate goes down, the administration will brag a bit, but they won't dwell on it. They know that the unemployment rate does not reflect the actual number of people who need work. Did you ever wonder how many of them are really out there?
Let's put it in pre-recession, real numbers perspective. In July 2007, at the peak of the bling-years boom, there were 146.1 million people employed, 7.1 million unemployed, and 4.5 million working part-time "for economic reasons," which, added to the unemployed, gives the number for "underemployed” (U6). There were 78.7 million people not in the labor force. The unemployment rate was 4.6%.
Last month, in March 2012, there were 142 million employed, 12.7 million unemployed, 7.7 million U6, and 87.9 million "not in the labor force". The unemployment rate is now (supposedly) 8.2%.
With 154.7 million in the labor force, 1% represents about 1.55 million people. The unemployment rate is 3.6% higher, so there ought to be about 5.4 million less people working than five years ago. That's not true. There are indeed 5.6 million more unemployed, but there are also a staggering 9.2 million more people "not in the labor force," most often because they can't find a job. That means the total number of additional people actually out of work compared to 2007 is 14.8 million, or 9.7% of the labor force. Add that to the original 4.6%, and the actual rate of unemployment is about 14.3%. Also, there are 3.2 million more people working part-time jobs because they can't find full-time work. Let’s add. Today, there are 18 million more people not working or unable to find the job they want than in 2007. Add in the original 7.1 million already unemployed in 2007, plus the original 4.6 million U6, and the total is 29.7 million. In a universe of 155 million workers, the real U6 rate is thus approximately 19%. This is all Dept. of Labor data, offering an apples to apples comparison.
These 29.7 million people are anonymous, nameless, faceless. But the President's team knows they are out there, and that they are highly likely to vote. So they don't want to talk about jobs. They want to change the subject. Hence, more talk about dogs and contraceptives.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/03/Real-Unemployment-rate
29,700,000
#1
Posted 04 May 2012 - 10:38 AM
I'm simply saying that the argument of "It's in the constitution, thus that right must be defended" is silly.---cbfalcon
#2
Posted 04 May 2012 - 10:54 AM
There are indeed 5.6 million more unemployed, but there are also a staggering 9.2 million more people "not in the labor force," most often because they can't find a job.
"We have 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day."
John Boehner on Monday, September 19th, 2011 in a television interview
#3
Posted 04 May 2012 - 10:55 AM
Pity bump #466
#4
Posted 04 May 2012 - 10:56 AM
How many enter the work force every day?
I'm simply saying that the argument of "It's in the constitution, thus that right must be defended" is silly.---cbfalcon
#5
Posted 04 May 2012 - 10:57 AM
#6
Posted 04 May 2012 - 11:03 AM
Thank goodness for your Galag websites. At least YOU'RE staying informed.Yet the major Networks are each spending at least an hour a day on NON STORIES like the "TANorexic",....stupid fluff!!!
#7
Posted 04 May 2012 - 11:06 AM
Galag? WTF does a village in India have to do with anything, Mr. Informed?Thank goodness for your Galag websites. At least YOU'RE staying informed.
I'm simply saying that the argument of "It's in the constitution, thus that right must be defended" is silly.---cbfalcon
#8
Posted 04 May 2012 - 11:08 AM
If I mispelled the name of a conspiracy theory, lunatic website, then I'll consider that a good thing. hthGalag? WTF does a village in India have to do with anything, Mr. Informed?
#9
Posted 04 May 2012 - 12:28 PM
"We have 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day."
John Boehner on Monday, September 19th, 2011 in a television interview
One doesn't "seek work" when one retires, so I'm not sure WTF this has to do with the 29,700,000 folks who are seeking a job.
I'm simply saying that the argument of "It's in the constitution, thus that right must be defended" is silly.---cbfalcon
#10
Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:33 PM
One doesn't "seek work" when one retires, so I'm not sure WTF this has to do with the 29,700,000 folks who are seeking a job.
I don't know, I didn't write that misleading title. Maybe you should ask the mystery man who wrote your uncredited (and unlinked) article why he chose to include them as part of that 29.7m when they shouldn't be, or find more honest sources.
#11
Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:35 PM
Why is it, most people against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fock in the 1st place? - George Carlin
#12
Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:36 PM
I don't see where he said "retired" anywhere in the article.I don't know, I didn't write that misleading title. Maybe you should ask the mystery man who wrote your uncredited (and unlinked) article why he chose to include them as part of that 29.7m when they shouldn't be, or find more honest sources.
I'm simply saying that the argument of "It's in the constitution, thus that right must be defended" is silly.---cbfalcon
#13
Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:46 PM
I don't see where he said "retired" anywhere in the article.
There are indeed 5.6 million more unemployed, but there are also a staggering 9.2 million more people "not in the labor force," most often because they can't find a job.
I love the totally unsupported speculation there, without a hint of analysis. "Not in the labor force" includes retirees, as I explained (and linked to, before you even ask) to you about a week ago.
I know you'd love to have one of your little circular-reasoning-jerks here, but I'm really not interested. Good luck.
#14
Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:47 PM
How many political threads you've made in the last 6 months?
#15
Posted 04 May 2012 - 01:59 PM
So, you are saying retirees go in the "not in the labor force" column. The article states there are currently 87.9 Million "not in the labor force".I don't know, I didn't write that misleading title. Maybe you should ask the mystery man who wrote your uncredited (and unlinked) article why he chose to include them as part of that 29.7m when they shouldn't be, or find more honest sources.
So you are claiming the article is including the 87.9 Million in his 29.7 Million figure?
I think you may want to re-do your math.
I'm simply saying that the argument of "It's in the constitution, thus that right must be defended" is silly.---cbfalcon
#16
Posted 04 May 2012 - 02:02 PM
So, you are saying retirees go in the "not in the labor force" column. The article states there are currently 87.9 Million "not in the labor force".
So you are claiming the article is including the 87.9 Million in his 29.7 Million figure?![]()
![]()
![]()
I think you may want to re-do your math.
I think you may want to re-do your reading; he's including the total increase since 2007, as I already quoted.
#17
Posted 05 May 2012 - 06:03 AM
#18
Posted 05 May 2012 - 12:55 PM
- NY Jets go 13-3 and win the AFC east (wrong)
- Sanchez and Tebow makes the AFC ProBowl roster (wrong)
- No rookie QBs will finish in the top 15 @ the QB position using FFToday scoring (way wrong)
- NE Patriots will not make playoffs (wrong)
edit: Oh well. Not too good. I'll try harder next year!
J-E-T-S! Jets! Jets! Jets!
Rex is the best coach in the NFL.
#19
Posted 07 May 2012 - 08:41 AM
i thought 29,700,000 was your amount of obama posts.
how original
Why is it, most people against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fock in the 1st place? - George Carlin










