The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment
by Jim Clifton
Here's something that many Americans -- including some of the smartest and most educated among us -- don't know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.
Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.
None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job -- if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks -- the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed. That's right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast "falling" unemployment.
There's another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.
Yet another figure of importance that doesn't get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find -- in other words, you are severely underemployed -- the government doesn't count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.
There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.
And it's a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual's primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity -- it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen's talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.
Gallup defines a good job as 30+ hours per week for an organization that provides a regular paycheck. Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx), which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population, 18 years and older. We need that to be 50% and a bare minimum of 10 million new, good jobs to replenish America's middle class.
I hear all the time that "unemployment is greatly reduced, but the people aren't feeling it." When the media, talking heads, the White House and Wall Street start reporting the truth -- the percent of Americans in good jobs; jobs that are full time and real -- then we will quit wondering why Americans aren't "feeling" something that doesn't remotely reflect the reality in their lives. And we will also quit wondering what hollowed out the middle class.
Jim Clifton is Chairman and CEO at Gallup. (http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 04, 2015, 09:44:08 AM
The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment
This is the way unemployment has always been calculated, yet you aren't bothered when you tout the rates during during the years when repubs were in power. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Bo D on February 04, 2015, 10:13:49 AM
This is the way unemployment has always been calculated, yet you aren't bothered when you tout the rates during during the years when repubs were in power. :rolleyes:
Yes, but it's different now! :o
According to Forbes... (http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemoore/2014/10/06/under-obama-one-million-more-americans-have-dropped-out-of-work-force-than-have-found-a-job/)
Since Barack Obama (http://www.forbes.com/profile/barack-obama/) entered the Oval Office in January of 2009,the percentage of the working age population actually part of the labor force (either working or looking for work) has plummeted by 3 percentage points – to 62.7%. Not since early 1978 has such a low proportion of the working-age population been in the labor force. In effect, the labor force is 7.4 million smaller than it otherwise would have been had people either not stopped looking for work or, particularly with the case of younger Americans, simply failed to start looking for work. In effect, nearly as many Americans have either left the work force – or never entered — in this recovery than have found a job. That's a very distressing trend. It also explains the big dive in the official unemployment rate to 5.9%.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 04, 2015, 12:15:36 PM
According to Forbes... (http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemoore/2014/10/06/under-obama-one-million-more-americans-have-dropped-out-of-work-force-than-have-found-a-job/)
Since Barack Obama (http://www.forbes.com/profile/barack-obama/) entered the Oval Office in January of 2009,the percentage of the working age population actually part of the labor force (either working or looking for work) has plummeted by 3 percentage points – to 62.7%. Not since early 1978 has such a low proportion of the working-age population been in the labor force. In effect, the labor force is 7.4 million smaller than it otherwise would have been had people either not stopped looking for work or, particularly with the case of younger Americans, simply failed to start looking for work. In effect, nearly as many Americans have either left the work force – or never entered — in this recovery than have found a job. That's a very distressing trend. It also explains the big dive in the official unemployment rate to 5.9%.
I repeat -
This is the way unemployment has always been calculated, yet you aren't bothered when you tout the rates during during the years when repubs were in power. :rolleyes:
:wall:
Quote from: Bo D on February 04, 2015, 12:52:38 PM
I repeat -
This is the way unemployment has always been calculated, yet you aren't bothered when you tout the rates during during the years when repubs were in power. :rolleyes:
:wall:
Don't cloud the argument with facts!
Quote from: Bo D on February 04, 2015, 12:52:38 PM
I repeat -
This is the way unemployment has always been calculated, yet you aren't bothered when you tout the rates during during the years when repubs were in power. :rolleyes:
:wall:
It is STILL MISLEADING.
Quote from: Bo D on February 04, 2015, 10:13:49 AM
This is the way unemployment has always been calculated, yet you aren't bothered when you tout the rates during during the years when repubs were in power. :rolleyes:
:yes:
Okay, here is a commentary that explains exactly what I am trying to relay to you guys.....
Obama has failed on jobs
At Northwestern University last Thursday, President Obama again claimed that "y every economic measure, we are better off now than when I took office." On the following day, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released September's unemployment numbers and President Obama optimistically noted that "[t]he unemployment rate fell to under six percent for the first time in more than six years." Unfortunately, on both occasions, his optimism was overstated. A recent CNBC All-America Economic survey found that just 24 percent of Americans say they are extremely or quite confident in the president's economic policies and goals, while 44 percent say they have no confidence at all in the president on the economy. The survey put Obama's support on the economy 15 percentage points lower than in August 2010, when the unemployment rate was 9.5 percent, compared with 5.9 percent today.
What does the American public know that seems to be escaping President Obama? The reality is that our economy has been unable to create enough jobs even to keep pace with the number of people entering the employable population (those 16 years old and above who are not in an institution or serving in the military). According to the survey, the BLS uses to calculate the unemployment rate, since the president took office in January 2009, the employable population has increased by 13.7 million people. Unfortunately, the number of people employed has increased by only 4.5 million. That's 9.2 million more people than jobs. That's a serious problem.
Why, then, did the official unemployment rate decline 1.9 percentage points from 7.8 percent when the President took office to 5.9 percent in September? People dropping out of the labor force has been the primary driver reflecting the headline unemployment rate's fundamental flaw: It fails to count people as unemployed unless they have looked for work in the past month, which means that both the unemployment rate and the labor participation rate can decline because people are dropping out of the labor force rather than because they are finding jobs.
The unemployment rate's unreliability in an era of declining labor participation is hardly a secret. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen noted in March that lower labor participation can mean that the "unemployment rate is overstating the progress in the labor market."
So, how has President Obama been doing on this economic measure? The labor participation rate has been at or below 63 percent for 11 of the past 12 months. The last time it was as low as 63 percent prior to President Obama taking office was 37 years ago in April of 1978 during the Carter administration. In September, it was 62.7 percent, an Obama administration record low. Labor participation was last as low as 62.7 percent in February of 1978, also during the Carter administration.
When the president took office the labor participation rate was 65.7 percent, 3 percentage points higher than it was in September. Had September's labor participation rate been 65.7 percent, the unemployment rate would have been 10.2 percent, or 2.4 percentage points higher than when President Obama took office. In other words, but for the decline in labor participation, the unemployment rate would today be significantly higher than it was when the president took office. That means the decline in the unemployment rate to 5.9 percent in September was solely attributable to the decline in labor participation.
The president's supporters often argue that declining labor participation is the result of baby boomers retiring rather than the president's economic policies. So, let's avoid the retirement issue and look at the labor participation rate for those ages 25 to 54, prime working age Americans.
When the president took office the labor participation rate for this group was 82.8 percent. By September of this year it had declined 2.1 percentage points to 80.7 percent. Prior to President Obama taking office, the last time labor participation for this group of Americans was below 81 percent was 1984, during the early years of the Reagan Recovery. Under President Obama, it has been below 81 percent for 8 of the last 12 months.
When President Obama took office, the unemployment rate for 25- to 54-year-olds was 7.2 percent. By September of this year, it had declined to 5.4 percent. Sounds good. However, if the labor- participation rate had remained at 82.8 percent as it was when President Obama took office, September's unemployment rate would have been 7.3 percent. This is 0.1 of a percentage point higher than when President Obama took office, again demonstrating that the improvement in the unemployment rate for prime working age Americans was due entirely to a decline in labor participation. There simply aren't enough jobs and people are giving up the search.
While President Obama may not see this disparity between his speeches and reality, the American people do. We've reached the point where very few people are listening to the talking point, no matter how well stated. As the CNBC All-America Economic survey indicates, Americans know there aren't enough jobs for them or their children. They also know that President Obama has been in office for over five years. The Real Clear Politics average of eight recent polls shows President Obama's job approval rating on the economy at 41.4 percent. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 64 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the state of the economy. Nor do Americans expect much progress under this president. In a recent The Economist/YouGov poll, 67 percent of those polled thought that in six months there would be fewer or the same number of jobs as there are today.
The truth is that the economy is failing to create jobs at anything like the pace that would signal a healthy labor market. Ignoring what's really going on in economy will not reverse this trend. Releasing America's entrepreneurs to do what they do best will. Our government's increasing control over the businesses and daily lives of individual Americans has stifled that entrepreneurial spirit. We need fewer empowered bureaucrats and more unbridled entrepreneurs. We've had over five years of talking points and policies based on polling rather than economics. It's time for a change.
What you failed to mention is that this was written by Andrew Puzder, CEO of CKE Restaurants Holdings. which owns Hardee's and Carl's Jr.
Like every other CEO, he wants less regulation. But there are tons of people starting businesses out there today--it's never been easier, thanks to the internet. There are various studies that have shown the number of new companies being created is now greater than it's ever been in history, by a mile. What's hurting is the lack of disposable income to buy the goods and services from those businesses, because jobs that produce said income have been shipped to China and India--by those same CEOs who now want less regulation so that they can make even more money. Why people with ninth grade educations can't see that is beyond me.
Maybe THIS, will make more sense to you.....IT IS the SAME comparison to when Bush was in office.....I agree, why people with ninth grade educations can't see that is beyond me.
Unemployment Rate - U6 2000 - 2014 (http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp)
(http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chs=600x300&cht=ls&chco=B22222&chf=c,lg,45,FFFFFF,0,76A4FB,0.75%7Cbg,s,EFEFEF&chd=t:7.1,7.2,7.1,6.9,7.1,7.0,7.0,7.1,7.0,6.8,7.1,6.9,7.3,7.4,7.3,7.4,7.5,7.9,7.8,8.1,8.7,9.3,9.4,9.6,9.5,9.5,9.4,9.7,9.5,9.5,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.7,9.8,10.0,10.2,10.0,10.2,10.1,10.3,10.3,10.1,10.4,10.2,10.0,9.8,9.9,9.7,10.0,9.6,9.6,9.5,9.5,9.4,9.4,9.7,9.4,9.2,9.3,9.3,9.1,8.9,8.9,9.0,8.8,8.9,9.0,8.7,8.7,8.6,8.4,8.4,8.2,8.1,8.2,8.4,8.5,8.4,8.0,8.2,8.1,7.9,8.4,8.2,8.0,8.2,8.2,8.3,8.4,8.4,8.4,8.4,8.4,8.8,9.2,9.0,9.1,9.2,9.7,10.1,10.5,10.8,11.0,11.8,12.6,13.6,14.2,15.1,15.7,15.9,16.4,16.5,16.5,16.7,16.7,17.1,17.1,17.1,16.7,17.0,17.0,17.1,16.6,16.5,16.5,16.5,16.8,16.7,16.9,16.6,16.2,16.0,15.8,16.0,15.8,16.1,16.0,16.1,16.3,16.0,15.5,15.2,15.1,15.0,14.5,14.5,14.8,14.8,14.9,14.7,14.7,14.5,14.4,14.4,14.4,14.3,13.8,13.9,13.8,14.3,14.0,13.6,13.6,13.7,13.1,13.1,12.7,12.6,12.7,12.3,12.2,12.1,12.2,12.0,11.7,11.5,11.4,11.2&chds=-0,20&chg=6.666666666666667,10,6.0,0,0&chbh=r,0.5,1.5&chxt=x,y,r&chxl=0:%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2001%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2003%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2005%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2007%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2009%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2011%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2013%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C1:%7C0%7C2%7C4%7C6%7C8%7C10%7C12%7C14%7C16%7C18%7C20%7C2:%7C0%7C2%7C4%7C6%7C8%7C10%7C12%7C14%7C16%7C18%7C20)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 05, 2015, 04:01:31 PM
Maybe THIS, will make more sense to you.....IT IS the SAME comparison to when Bush was in office.....I agree, why people with ninth grade educations can't see that is beyond me.
Unemployment Rate - U6 2000 - 2014 (http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp)
(http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chs=600x300&cht=ls&chco=B22222&chf=c,lg,45,FFFFFF,0,76A4FB,0.75%7Cbg,s,EFEFEF&chd=t:7.1,7.2,7.1,6.9,7.1,7.0,7.0,7.1,7.0,6.8,7.1,6.9,7.3,7.4,7.3,7.4,7.5,7.9,7.8,8.1,8.7,9.3,9.4,9.6,9.5,9.5,9.4,9.7,9.5,9.5,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.7,9.8,10.0,10.2,10.0,10.2,10.1,10.3,10.3,10.1,10.4,10.2,10.0,9.8,9.9,9.7,10.0,9.6,9.6,9.5,9.5,9.4,9.4,9.7,9.4,9.2,9.3,9.3,9.1,8.9,8.9,9.0,8.8,8.9,9.0,8.7,8.7,8.6,8.4,8.4,8.2,8.1,8.2,8.4,8.5,8.4,8.0,8.2,8.1,7.9,8.4,8.2,8.0,8.2,8.2,8.3,8.4,8.4,8.4,8.4,8.4,8.8,9.2,9.0,9.1,9.2,9.7,10.1,10.5,10.8,11.0,11.8,12.6,13.6,14.2,15.1,15.7,15.9,16.4,16.5,16.5,16.7,16.7,17.1,17.1,17.1,16.7,17.0,17.0,17.1,16.6,16.5,16.5,16.5,16.8,16.7,16.9,16.6,16.2,16.0,15.8,16.0,15.8,16.1,16.0,16.1,16.3,16.0,15.5,15.2,15.1,15.0,14.5,14.5,14.8,14.8,14.9,14.7,14.7,14.5,14.4,14.4,14.4,14.3,13.8,13.9,13.8,14.3,14.0,13.6,13.6,13.7,13.1,13.1,12.7,12.6,12.7,12.3,12.2,12.1,12.2,12.0,11.7,11.5,11.4,11.2&chds=-0,20&chg=6.666666666666667,10,6.0,0,0&chbh=r,0.5,1.5&chxt=x,y,r&chxl=0:%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2001%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2003%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2005%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2007%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2009%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2011%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2013%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C1:%7C0%7C2%7C4%7C6%7C8%7C10%7C12%7C14%7C16%7C18%7C20%7C2:%7C0%7C2%7C4%7C6%7C8%7C10%7C12%7C14%7C16%7C18%7C20)
YES!!!! PLEASE!!!! LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE GRAPH!!!!!
Look at when unemployment started to skyrocket! Hint! It was BEFORE Obama took office.
BTW, here's one that's just a bit more accurate ...
(http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS14000000_2004_2014_all_period_M12_data.gif)
You are failing to see MY POINT. Obama is claiming how good our economy is. It isn't good, if you are talking to those who are NOT WORKING or UNDEREMPLOYED, the labor participation rate.....which is the lowest it has been since the Carter Administration.
13 MILLION more people has had to go on food stamps since Obama took office in 2009.
5.5 million Americans who have fallen into poverty since 2009.
And yet, just because the stock market is doing better, and the BIG LIE, unemployment numbers SAY they are below 6%....Tell this to the 13 Million on food stamps.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 05, 2015, 04:58:30 PM
13 MILLION more people has had to go on food stamps since Obama took office in 2009.
Yet ol' G.W. Bush holds the record for the most number of people added to the food stamp rolls.
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001 show that
under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million.
Nothing before comes close to that.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 05, 2015, 04:58:30 PM
You are failing to see MY POINT. Obama is claiming how good our economy is. It isn't good, if you are talking to those who are NOT WORKING or UNDEREMPLOYED, the labor participation rate.....which is the lowest it has been since the Carter Administration.
13 MILLION more people has had to go on food stamps since Obama took office in 2009.
5.5 million Americans who have fallen into poverty since 2009.
And yet, just because the stock market is doing better, and the BIG LIE, unemployment numbers SAY they are below 6%....Tell this to the 13 Million on food stamps.
And you want to claim that is Obama's fault? You truly are an idiot.
The real problems with the economy can be laid at the feet of Laissez Faire capitalism and capitalistic policies - all those things you corporatists just love!
If Obama really started to correct that in any manner, you RW/TP idiots would be screaming 'Socialism/Communism!, Socialist/Communist!' all over the place...
...OH! Wait! You are! ; )
Quote from: Bo D on February 05, 2015, 05:06:14 PM
Yet ol' G.W. Bush holds the record for the most number of people added to the food stamp rolls.
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001 show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.
Yo, Hank! Found anything to refute this yet?
Quote from: Y on February 08, 2015, 01:35:00 PM
And you want to claim that is Obama's fault? You truly are an idiot.
The real problems with the economy can be laid at the feet of Laissez Faire capitalism and capitalistic policies - all those things you corporatists just love!
If Obama really started to correct that in any manner, you RW/TP idiots would be screaming 'Socialism/Communism!, Socialist/Communist!' all over the place...
...OH! Wait! You are! ; )
If you owned a business would you want to have the government telling you how to run it, including what you had to pay your employees, and willingly hand over 50% or more to the government in tax's on your earnings/profits? I'd like for all of you libs/progressives,dems, to answer that one.
Quote from: me on February 09, 2015, 04:37:19 PM
If you owned a business would you want to have the government telling you how to run it, including what you had to pay your employees, and willingly hand over 50% or more to the government in tax's on your earnings/profits? I'd like for all of you libs/progressives,dems, to answer that one.
There are a myriad of government regulations that control how businesses must be run.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 10, 2015, 07:52:48 AM
There are a myriad of government regulations that control how businesses must be run.
I know that but you're ilk are wanting more controls. Now answer my question.
Quote from: me on February 10, 2015, 08:05:00 AM
I know that but you're ilk are wanting more controls. Now answer my question.
I think he did. Government has controls in that tell how a business should be ran and what percent of taxes are to be paid.
Quote from: Bo D on February 09, 2015, 03:47:37 PM
Yo, Hank! Found anything to refute this yet?
In 2001, there were around 17 million on food stamps, in 2008 there were around 27 million.
In 2009 there were around 33 million and we no have around 48 million.
I would say this will refute it.
(http://www.acting-man.com/blog/media/2014/08/Food-Stamps-Yearly.jpg)
What is worse it the COST exploded under Obama
(http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/sites/downsizinggovernment.org/files/posts/201206_blog_edwards141.jpg)
This chart show a different amount, but you can clearly see the skyrocket in participation AFTER Bush left.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uN9rXzn5lFE/TZp9PitniKI/AAAAAAAABuY/kcUPdJqIBAo/s1600/Food%2BStamps%2Bgraph.jpg)
Quote from: me on February 10, 2015, 08:05:00 AM
I know that but you're ilk are wanting more controls. Now answer my question.
What controls does my 'ilk' want? Be specific.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 10, 2015, 08:55:54 AM
I would say this will refute it.
It actually supports it.
Under Bush, the cost of the SNAP program increased every year for a total increase of $36 billion, a more than 200% increase over the cost of the program when he took office. Under Obama so far, it has increased less than $21 billion, slightly more than a 38% increase, and the costs for 2014 were $5 billion lower than for 2013.
Here's another interesting factoid: During the Reagan/Bush era in the 80's and early 90's, the cost of the program more than doubled. It decreased by more than a third during Clinton's administration.
Don't you hate those pesky facts? (http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf)
Quote from: Exterminator on February 10, 2015, 09:39:16 AM
It actually supports it.
Can the Hawk even read a graph? It's like when he posted here trying to blame unemployment on Obama when the graph he posted clearly showed it skyrocketing during the Bush administration.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 05, 2015, 04:01:31 PM
Maybe THIS, will make more sense to you.....IT IS the SAME comparison to when Bush was in office.....I agree, why people with ninth grade educations can't see that is beyond me.
Unemployment Rate - U6 2000 - 2014 (http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp)
(http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chs=600x300&cht=ls&chco=B22222&chf=c,lg,45,FFFFFF,0,76A4FB,0.75%7Cbg,s,EFEFEF&chd=t:7.1,7.2,7.1,6.9,7.1,7.0,7.0,7.1,7.0,6.8,7.1,6.9,7.3,7.4,7.3,7.4,7.5,7.9,7.8,8.1,8.7,9.3,9.4,9.6,9.5,9.5,9.4,9.7,9.5,9.5,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.6,9.7,9.8,10.0,10.2,10.0,10.2,10.1,10.3,10.3,10.1,10.4,10.2,10.0,9.8,9.9,9.7,10.0,9.6,9.6,9.5,9.5,9.4,9.4,9.7,9.4,9.2,9.3,9.3,9.1,8.9,8.9,9.0,8.8,8.9,9.0,8.7,8.7,8.6,8.4,8.4,8.2,8.1,8.2,8.4,8.5,8.4,8.0,8.2,8.1,7.9,8.4,8.2,8.0,8.2,8.2,8.3,8.4,8.4,8.4,8.4,8.4,8.8,9.2,9.0,9.1,9.2,9.7,10.1,10.5,10.8,11.0,11.8,12.6,13.6,14.2,15.1,15.7,15.9,16.4,16.5,16.5,16.7,16.7,17.1,17.1,17.1,16.7,17.0,17.0,17.1,16.6,16.5,16.5,16.5,16.8,16.7,16.9,16.6,16.2,16.0,15.8,16.0,15.8,16.1,16.0,16.1,16.3,16.0,15.5,15.2,15.1,15.0,14.5,14.5,14.8,14.8,14.9,14.7,14.7,14.5,14.4,14.4,14.4,14.3,13.8,13.9,13.8,14.3,14.0,13.6,13.6,13.7,13.1,13.1,12.7,12.6,12.7,12.3,12.2,12.1,12.2,12.0,11.7,11.5,11.4,11.2&chds=-0,20&chg=6.666666666666667,10,6.0,0,0&chbh=r,0.5,1.5&chxt=x,y,r&chxl=0:%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2001%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2003%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2005%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2007%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2009%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2011%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C2013%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C%7C1:%7C0%7C2%7C4%7C6%7C8%7C10%7C12%7C14%7C16%7C18%7C20%7C2:%7C0%7C2%7C4%7C6%7C8%7C10%7C12%7C14%7C16%7C18%7C20)
Not only that but he was totally
DISHONEST in posting those food stamp charts.
http://www.trivisonno.com/food-stamps-charts (http://www.trivisonno.com/food-stamps-charts)
A quote from the page -
"You may use any of the charts on this page on your blog as long as you include a link to this page."
Quote from: Exterminator on February 10, 2015, 09:33:53 AM
What controls does my 'ilk' want? Be specific.
They want the government to control how much employees make, how much profit companies make, and how much CEO's are paid. Then on top of that they want to tax them at over 50% on their earnings.
Now answer my question.
Quote from: me on February 09, 2015, 04:37:19 PM
If you owned a business would you want to have the government telling you how to run it, including what you had to pay your employees, and willingly hand over 50% or more to the government in tax's on your earnings/profits? I'd like for all of you libs/progressives,dems, to answer that one.
Quote from: me on February 10, 2015, 11:09:50 AM
They want the government to control how much employees make...
They already control that.
Quote...how much profit companies make, and how much CEO's are paid. Then on top of that they want to tax them at over 50% on their earnings.
Please provide your source for these inane claims.
Your question is stupid and based on lies.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 10, 2015, 12:19:16 PM
They already control that.
Please provide your source for these inane claims.
Your question is stupid and based on lies.
Nice way to avoid answering my question. Typical lib/dem/progressive way to handle a question they either can't or don't want to answer.
Quote from: me on February 10, 2015, 12:36:01 PM
Nice way to avoid answering my question. Typical lib/dem/progressive way to handle a question they either can't or don't want to answer.
Bullshit. Since no one is limiting the amount of profit a company can make or how much the CEO can be paid nor is anyone demanding any company turn over 50% of their profits, your question is about as valid as asking how someone would like it if the government demanded they be allowed to shove a carving knife up the ass of any business owner.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 10, 2015, 01:08:13 PM
Bullshit. Since no one is limiting the amount of profit a company can make or how much the CEO can be paid nor is anyone demanding any company turn over 50% of their profits, your question is about as valid as asking how someone would like it if the government demanded they be allowed to shove a carving knife up the ass of any business owner.
I do believe this administration is wanting to raise tax's on businesses, dictate a min wage, and what say constitutes full time employment.
Quote from: me on February 10, 2015, 07:13:20 PM
I do believe this administration is wanting to raise tax's on businesses, dictate a min wage, and what say constitutes full time employment.
As an aside, which would you prefer; raising the tax rates on those making 250k or more, and businesses, or raising your personal tax rate?
Quote from: Palehorse on February 10, 2015, 07:29:30 PM
As an aside, which would you prefer; raising the tax rates on those making 250k or more, and businesses, or raising your personal tax rate?
That also has nothing to do with what I asked.
Quote from: me on February 10, 2015, 07:13:20 PM
I do believe this administration is wanting to raise tax's on businesses, dictate a min wage, and what say constitutes full time employment.
What in hell do you know about running a business? Did you not run a business that went under because you didn't know how to run it. :doh:
Quote from: me on February 10, 2015, 07:35:41 PM
That also has nothing to do with what I asked.
Nice try at avoiding the question. (Which I indicated up front as an aside). So again:
Quote from: Palehorse on February 10, 2015, 07:29:30 PM
As an aside, which would you prefer; raising the tax rates on those making 250k or more, and businesses, or raising your personal tax rate?
Quote from: Palehorse on February 10, 2015, 07:47:51 PM
Nice try at avoiding the question. (Which I indicated up front as an aside). So again:
After my question is answered I will answer yours. You don't answer a question by asking a question.
Quote from: The Troll on February 10, 2015, 07:40:31 PM
What in hell do you know about running a business? Did you not run a business that went under because you didn't know how to run it. :doh:
Exactly. :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on February 10, 2015, 07:13:20 PM
I do believe this administration is wanting to raise tax's on businesses, dictate a min wage, and what say constitutes full time employment.
You believe or you can prove?
Quote from: The Troll on February 10, 2015, 07:40:31 PM
What in hell do you know about running a business? Did you not run a business that went under because you didn't know how to run it. :doh:
It was closed because I couldn't find good help dumb ass. Closing was a matter of choice not because it wasn't making money.
Now back to my original question which everyone keeps avoiding by trying to change the subject.Quote from: me on February 09, 2015, 04:37:19 PM
If you owned a business would you want to have the government telling you how to run it, including what you had to pay your employees, and willingly hand over 50% or more to the government in tax's on your earnings/profits? I'd like for all of you libs/progressives,dems, to answer that one.
Quote from: me on February 11, 2015, 09:41:22 AM
It was closed because I couldn't find good help dumb ass. Closing was a matter of choice not because it wasn't making money.
Now back to my original question which everyone keeps avoiding by trying to change the subject.
I'll answer your stupid question!
Let's see, the question was "If you owned a business would you want to have the government telling you how to run it, including what you had to pay your employees, and willingly hand over 50% or more to the government in tax's on your earnings/profits?"
My answer - No. But I don't see any cases where that is happening so I'm safe.
Move on to your next idiotic conspiracy theory.
Quote from: me on February 11, 2015, 09:41:22 AM
It was closed because I couldn't find good help dumb ass. Closing was a matter of choice not because it wasn't making money.
I would submit that that is entirely a product of your unwillingness to compensate your employees commensurate with their abilities and responsibilities.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 11, 2015, 11:42:53 AM
I would submit that that is entirely a product of your unwillingness to compensate your employees commensurate with their abilities and responsibilities.
Then you would be wrong. They were compensated well and I worked right along beside them and, in fact, they even got more breaks than I did. Not only that I paid more than the other businesses of the same type at the time it's just that no one wanted to work.
Still has nothing to do with my question.
Quote from: Bo D on February 11, 2015, 10:20:19 AM
I'll answer your stupid question!
Let's see, the question was "If you owned a business would you want to have the government telling you how to run it, including what you had to pay your employees, and willingly hand over 50% or more to the government in tax's on your earnings/profits?"
My answer - No. But I don't see any cases where that is happening so I'm safe.
Move on to your next idiotic conspiracy theory.
You don't think the min wage law is dictating what employees have to be paid? You don't think requiring them to carry ins on employees is dictating to them? I believe the hiring quotas for minorities is still in effect. Are they not talking about raising tax's on profits which, when you include all of the tax's such as state, would have them paying over 50%?
Quote from: me on February 11, 2015, 12:11:10 PM
You don't think the min wage law is dictating what employees have to be paid?
As it has since 1938, well before my birth. Maybe not yours.
Quote from: me on February 11, 2015, 12:11:10 PM
You don't think requiring them to carry ins on employees is dictating to them?
See above.
Quote from: me on February 11, 2015, 12:11:10 PM
I believe the hiring quotas for minorities is still in effect.
I can hire whoever the hell I want as long as I don't discriminate.
Quote from: me on February 11, 2015, 12:11:10 PM
Are they not talking about raising tax's on profits which, when you include all of the tax's such as state, would have them paying over 50%?
They talk about a lot of things on Faux News and those trashy sites you visit. I hear they were talking about Elvis being sighted humping a bigfoot, too.
Quote from: me on February 11, 2015, 12:01:06 PM
Then you would be wrong. They were compensated well and I worked right along beside them and, in fact, they even got more breaks than I did. Not only that I paid more than the other businesses of the same type at the time it's just that no one wanted to work.
Your story makes no sense. There are hundreds of thousands of successful companies all over the country who employ millions of people yet for some reason, you weren't able to find people who would work for you. Why do you think all of the people running those businesses are able to accomplish what you could not? I can think of numerous scenarios...lack of a viable business to start with, ineffective hiring practices, lack of adequate compensation, inability to manage and motivate employees, etc...all of them directly the responsibility of the business owner. Clearly you do not know how to run a business and that is why yours failed. Stop blaming everyone else and accept responsibility...isn't that what you conservatives preach?
QuoteStill has nothing to do with my question.
Bo D answered your stupid question.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 11, 2015, 12:36:45 PM
Your story makes no sense. There are hundreds of thousands of successful companies all over the country who employ millions of people yet for some reason, you weren't able to find people who would work for you. Why do you think all of the people running those businesses are able to accomplish what you could not? I can think of numerous scenarios...lack of a viable business to start with, ineffective hiring practices, lack of adequate compensation, inability to manage and motivate employees, etc...all of them directly the responsibility of the business owner. Clearly you do not know how to run a business and that is why yours failed. Stop blaming everyone else and accept responsibility...isn't that what you conservatives preach?
Bo D answered your stupid question.
Good grief I know of several businesses who can't find good help even though they pay damn good. There is a difference between good help and help that just puts in their time but put forth no effort. Too many people think they can stand around with their thumbs up their ass and still get paid. Try talkng to some small business owners.
Quote from: Bo D on February 11, 2015, 12:21:26 PM
As it has since 1938, well before my birth. Maybe not yours.
See above.
I can hire whoever the hell I want as long as I don't discriminate.
They talk about a lot of things on Faux News and those trashy sites you visit. I hear they were talking about Elvis being sighted humping a bigfoot, too.
Guess your comfy in your little safe liberal thinking world. So-be-it. That wool coat ya'll wear does keep you warm at least.
Quote from: me on February 11, 2015, 01:01:47 PM
Guess your comfy in your little safe liberal thinking world. So-be-it. That wool coat ya'll wear does keep you warm at least.
Is that the best you can come up with? I shot down your lies. Fess up.
Quote from: Bo D on February 11, 2015, 01:12:11 PM
Is that the best you can come up with? I shot down your lies. Fess up.
I asked a question and it was never actually answered, just drew smart assed remarks, so ya I'm resorting to lib tactics here ya might say. :razz:
Quote from: me on February 11, 2015, 01:23:01 PM
I asked a question and it was never actually answered, just drew smart assed remarks, so ya I'm resorting to lib tactics here ya might say. :razz:
I answered the damned question. You just can't handle the truth.
Quote from: Bo D on February 11, 2015, 01:25:29 PM
I answered the damned question. You just can't handle the truth.
No, you just don't see what's going on around you.
Quote from: me on February 11, 2015, 01:41:27 PM
No, you just don't see what's going on around you.
I see what's going on in your ugly world and it scares me to think that there really other people like you.
Quote from: me on February 11, 2015, 12:57:56 PM
Good grief I know of several businesses who can't find good help even though they pay damn good. There is a difference between good help and help that just puts in their time but put forth no effort. Too many people think they can stand around with their thumbs up their ass and still get paid. Try talkng to some small business owners.
Then you fire the people who won't work and hire people who will; it's really pretty straightforward. I don't have to talk to small business owners; I've owned and run successful small businesses myself so I know how it works.
Quote from: me on February 11, 2015, 01:41:27 PM
No, you just don't see what's going on around you.
And, welcome to the part of our show where 'me' shares her delusions of insight with the world. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 11, 2015, 01:48:40 PM
And, welcome to the part of our show where 'me' shares her delusions of insight with the world. :rolleyes:
Delusionally myopic ones .....
Quote from: Exterminator on February 11, 2015, 01:45:47 PM
Then you fire the people who won't work and hire people who will; it's really pretty straightforward. I don't have to talk to small business owners; I've owned and run successful small businesses myself so I know how it works.
Well goodie for you. I did not say mine wasn't successful I said I couldn't get good help that wanted to work and I chose to close it. You're forgetting what town I'm in. Although the help made good money I could not pay GM scale wages and they couldn't stand around and make money or call in sick and still get paid.
Quote from: Bo D on February 11, 2015, 02:00:54 PM
Delusionally myopic ones .....
Not since my cataract surgery. :razz:
My diagnosis is that me is ButtHurt:
Please download, and fill out the form below, (in triplicate).
Then make 50 copies of the completed form and place those within the confines of your outhouse, within convenient reach.
(http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr111/hlovett_2008/1922359_924152690949959_1232166097382734108_n_zpsaeefkl98.jpg) (http://s475.photobucket.com/user/hlovett_2008/media/1922359_924152690949959_1232166097382734108_n_zpsaeefkl98.jpg.html)
After completion of this form, please mail it to:
Consumer Complaint
ButtHurt Division
8686 Hemorrhoid Avenue.
Washington , D.C. 20330
All forms submitted will be read. You may expect a response within 120 - 240 days of receipt of submission.
Please send all forms using the USPS "return receipt requested" service, so that you may accurately gauge the timeframe within which you may expect a reply.
NOTE: Timelines are an estimate, and due to severe capacity issues imposed by congressionally mandated budgetary cuts, your actual response time may differ drastically from our normal timelines.
Inquires related to long wait times should be addressed to:
Consumer Complaint
Really ButtHurt Division
8686 Hemorrhoid Avenue.
Washington , D.C. 20330
Please be sure to include a copy of your original ButtHurt Form, along with a completed, notarized, and signed RBH Form 868686; available at:
http://www.irs.gov (http://www.irs.gov)
Quote from: Exterminator on February 11, 2015, 01:45:47 PM
Then you fire the people who won't work and hire people who will; it's really pretty straightforward. I don't have to talk to small business owners; I've owned and run successful small businesses myself so I know how it works.
That is what most employers do!
Quote from: Palehorse on February 11, 2015, 05:16:45 PM
Please download, and fill out the form below, (in triplicate).
That's the wrong version of the form, PH; she needs to use the internet version. (the remainder of the instructions are the same)
(http://mostlulz.com/images/2012/June/14/4fdaa5500a08d.jpg)
:finger01: :finger2:
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/funny/1/mooning.gif)
:party: :sm39: :rotfl:
Quote from: Bo D on February 12, 2015, 01:52:45 PM
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/funny/1/mooning.gif)
^^ Bo D posts this, and then you post that ---vv ???
Quote from: me on February 12, 2015, 02:22:44 PM
:party: :sm39: :rotfl:
:spooked: :spooked:
Quote from: Locutus on February 12, 2015, 02:46:14 PM
^^ Bo D posts this, and then you post that ---vv ???
:spooked: :spooked:
Thought it was funny is all. :biggrin:
Quote from: me on February 12, 2015, 03:48:11 PM
Thought it was funny is all. :biggrin:
247,000 jobs added last month! :wink:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 12, 2015, 03:54:20 PM
247,000 jobs added last month! :wink:
;D
I may be able to retire on time after all. I was ready to retire early until Bush's stock market crash wiped me out. :rant:
Quote from: Exterminator on February 12, 2015, 03:54:20 PM
247,000 jobs added last month! :wink:
Illegals, min wage, and underemployeed, (part time). most likely.
Quote from: Bo D on February 12, 2015, 04:05:58 PM
;D
I may be able to retire on time after all. I was ready to retire early until Bush's stock market crash wiped me out. :rant:
:rolleyes:
Quote from: me on February 12, 2015, 06:08:47 PM
Illegals, min wage, and underemployeed, (part time). most likely.
I'd kick you in the ass, but it'd kill the Gerbil. . . :kick:
Quote from: Palehorse on February 12, 2015, 07:32:56 PM
I'd kick you in the ass, but it'd kill the Gerbil. . . :kick:
Truth hurt or somethin'?
Quote from: me on February 12, 2015, 07:41:26 PM
Truth hurt or somethin'?
Fuck the gerbil ! :kick:
:sheep:
Quote from: me on February 12, 2015, 06:08:47 PM
Illegals, min wage, and underemployeed, (part time). most likely.
Wrong, as usual.
Quote from: me on February 13, 2015, 08:42:56 AM
Like you're telling me, prove it.
It seems to me that you made the first allegation here ... "Illegals, min wage, and underemployeed, (part time). most likely."
I would think the burden of proof is on you.
Quote from: Bo D on February 13, 2015, 08:50:59 AM
It seems to me that you made the first allegation here ... "Illegals, min wage, and underemployeed, (part time). most likely."
I would think the burden of proof is on you.
Of course she won't. Virtually every article on job growth lists in which sectors jobs are being added.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 13, 2015, 11:10:14 AM
Of course she won't. Virtually every article on job growth lists in which sectors jobs are being added.
Of course not. She'd rather just throw out some false innuendo and then go silent. Damn, I hate the sound of crickets but I think I'll wait to see what source she uses if she ever does answer. I'll probably laugh my ass off.
Doesn't matter what source I use even if it's right beyond a shadow of a doubt you'll have some smart crack to make to discredit it or do a character assination so why should I bother? I proved something once before in the persons own words and in print after going to great lengths so, like I said after that, I won't do it again.
Quote from: me on February 13, 2015, 03:19:39 PM
Doesn't matter what source I use even if it's right beyond a shadow of a doubt you'll have some smart crack to make to discredit it or do a character assination so why should I bother? I proved something once before in the persons own words and in print after going to great lengths so, like I said after that, I won't do it again.
So where did you come up with the idea that those new jobs added last month were "Illegals, min wage, and underemployeed, (part time). most likely." ???????
Quote from: Bo D on February 13, 2015, 03:50:28 PM
So where did you come up with the idea that those new jobs added last month were "Illegals, min wage, and underemployeed, (part time). most likely." ???????
That's usually what has shown up after it's checked. Either that or it comes out that there were more jobs lost than gained.
Quote from: me on February 13, 2015, 04:21:09 PM
That's usually what has shown up after it's checked.
Show me ONE! JUST ONE! instance where the jobs report has shown that the new jobs created were ""Illegals, min wage, and underemployeed, (part time)."
You're just getting ridiculous now.
Isn't it interesting how the RW always avoids the reality of the capitalists breaking the social contract. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Y on March 02, 2015, 05:26:17 PM
Isn't it interesting how the RW always avoids the reality of the capitalists breaking the social contract. :rolleyes:
Yep! :yes: