Unemployment under 6%

[aubfaninga 16]

Can we have a logical discussion about this "people leaving the workforce"?

[AURaptor 1,122]

What's to discuss? Workforce participation is at lows not seen in decades.

[aubfaninga 16]

What's to discuss? Workforce participation is at lows not seen in decades.

Do you feel that this is a completely negative thing?

[DKW 86 7,419]

What's to discuss? Workforce participation is at lows not seen in decades.

Do you feel that this is a completely negative thing?

OMG, there you have it folks. STUPID just got put into words.

[AUUSN 823]

What's to discuss? Workforce participation is at lows not seen in decades.

Do you feel that this is a completely negative thing?

I'll answer that. I dont think it is. With massive outsourcing, where are the jobs?

[TexasTiger 12,829]

What's to discuss? Workforce participation is at lows not seen in decades.

Do you feel that this is a completely negative thing?

OMG, there you have it folks. STUPID just got put into words.

Yes, you did.

[AURaptor 1,122]

What's to discuss? Workforce participation is at lows not seen in decades.

Do you feel that this is a completely negative thing?

Very much so, yes. 18 Trillion $ in debt, and this President wants to put more people on the govt tab.

He literally is trying to break the system, so that it will be " fundamentally transformed " into a more equal, fair, read SOCIALIST society.

I strongly oppose that.

[WarTim 3,456]

What's to discuss? Workforce participation is at lows not seen in decades.

Do you feel that this is a completely negative thing?

Very much so, yes. 18 Trillion $ in debt, and this President wants to put more people on the govt tab.

He literally is trying to break the system, so that it will be " fundamentally transformed " into a more equal, fair, read SOCIALIST society.

I strongly oppose that.

Ditto

[autigeremt 6,598]

It's a great thing that more Americans are no longer working but receiving "temporary" assistance that goes on for years and years. The productivity is outstanding, morale is through the roof, and everyone is feeling like a million bucks. It does wonders for the human psyche. Not to mention it's a great way for government to control the individual through entitlements. Better yet, it opens up a whole new world for graduates out of college. Drive up student loan debt, owe it to the government with interest, pay a fine or somehow purchase into the ACA, the list goes on and on and on......you can't ask for a better future for the U.S.A.

[aubfaninga 16]

What's to discuss? Workforce participation is at lows not seen in decades.

Do you feel that this is a completely negative thing?

Very much so, yes. 18 Trillion $ in debt, and this President wants to put more people on the govt tab.

He literally is trying to break the system, so that it will be " fundamentally transformed " into a more equal, fair, read SOCIALIST society.

I strongly oppose that.

But if they are "out of the workforce" they are not on unemployment. This is fact A

If unemployment numbers stay where they are right now in most states many people will lose any chance at Food Stamps unless they start looking for a job.

While I don't see the number of people out of the workplace a positive thing I could see a lot of numbers change dramatically by the end of 2016.

In theory if unemployment stays or lowers the rest of this year...#1 The workplace participation numbers will increase and #2 Less people on welfare

(This would drive DKW nuts)

[RunInRed 16,385]

Any sound "leaving the workforce" discussion has to start with a macro analysis of the baby boomer generation entering retirement age (DYK retirements account for over half of the fall in the participation rate?) ...

Aging baby boomers, those Americans born between 1946 and 1964, account for approximately half of the drop in the labor force participation rate since 2007, according to a report released. The remaining decline stems from “cyclical factors” fairly typical of historic economic recessions and more difficult-to-explain “residual factors” from the crisis.

...

“We wouldn’t expect the participation rate to return to its pre-crisis levels and in fact, we weren’t expecting that even prior to the crisis,” Furman said at a forum on labor market challenges hosted by the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project Thursday in Washington.

The participation rate started rising in the early 60s as women entered the labor force and later as baby boomers hit their prime working ages, reached a peak of 67 percent in 2000 and since then has generally fallen. It’s been dragged down by a leveling off of female participation, the retirements of baby boomers and shocks of the financial crisis.

Learn more: http://www.usnews.co...on-rate-decline

BUT BUT BUT .... OBAMA'S OBAMA'S OBAMA'S FAULT!

[autigeremt 6,598]

What's to discuss? Workforce participation is at lows not seen in decades.

Do you feel that this is a completely negative thing?

Very much so, yes. 18 Trillion $ in debt, and this President wants to put more people on the govt tab.

He literally is trying to break the system, so that it will be " fundamentally transformed " into a more equal, fair, read SOCIALIST society.

I strongly oppose that.

But if they are "out of the workforce" they are not on unemployment. This is fact A

If unemployment numbers stay where they are right now in most states many people will lose any chance at Food Stamps unless they start looking for a job.

While I don't see the number of people out of the workplace a positive thing I could see a lot of numbers change dramatically by the end of 2016.

In theory if unemployment stays or lowers the rest of this year...#1 The workplace participation numbers will increase and #2 Less people on welfare

(This would drive DKW nuts)

People getting jobs due to the loss of entitlements doesn't make sense. Mainly because the entitlements won't end just because they have been out of a job for several months/years. Unemployment may stop, but the other things keep coming in.

Celebrating the current unemployment number is easy.....being realistic about the unemployment number? Not so much. Until we grow our industrial might we may never get back to the job participation rate we had been used to for a couple of decades.

[AURaptor 1,122]

But if they are "out of the workforce" they are not on unemployment. This is fact A

That's not a FACT, that's your supposition. And even those who may not be getting assistance, they're still not putting into the Federal govt any payroll taxes, and aren't likely spending much at all, there by not generating much in the way of purchasing power, buying goods, or paying much in the way of sales taxes.

If unemployment numbers stay where they are right now in most states many people will lose any chance at Food Stamps unless they start looking for a job.

Until Obama asks for yet another extension.

While I don't see the number of people out of the workplace a positive thing I could see a lot of numbers change dramatically by the end of 2016.

Wait, that's like 6 years after Joe and Barry declared 2010 the " Summer of Recovery ! "

In theory if unemployment stays or lowers the rest of this year...#1 The workplace participation numbers will increase and #2 Less people on welfare

(This would drive DKW nuts)

More people on food stamps and " disability " than ever before. Your belief that if #'s just magically drop, just a little, then all will be shiny and fine.

[autigeremt 6,598]

Any sound "leaving the workforce" discussion has to start with a macro analysis of the baby boomer generation entering retirement age (DYK retirements account for over half of the fall in the participation rate?) ...

Aging baby boomers, those Americans born between 1946 and 1964, account for approximately half of the drop in the labor force participation rate since 2007, according to a report released. The remaining decline stems from “cyclical factors” fairly typical of historic economic recessions and more difficult-to-explain “residual factors” from the crisis.

...

“We wouldn’t expect the participation rate to return to its pre-crisis levels and in fact, we weren’t expecting that even prior to the crisis,” Furman said at a forum on labor market challenges hosted by the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project Thursday in Washington.

The participation rate started rising in the early 60s as women entered the labor force and later as baby boomers hit their prime working ages, reached a peak of 67 percent in 2000 and since then has generally fallen. It’s been dragged down by a leveling off of female participation, the retirements of baby boomers and shocks of the financial crisis.

Learn more: http://www.usnews.co...on-rate-decline

BUT BUT BUT .... OBAMA'S OBAMA'S OBAMA'S FAULT!

Tell that to all these college grads who can't find work anywhere other than Target or your local eatery. Tell that to the soldier, airman, sailor, marine, coastie coming off of active duty. Is that Obama's fault? Not really.....but he hasn't done much to address it and he once again promised to do so. But hey....he's a pie in the sky liberal. What more can you ask for?

[aubfaninga 16]

It's a great thing that more Americans are no longer working but receiving "temporary" assistance that goes on for years and years. The productivity is outstanding, morale is through the roof, and everyone is feeling like a million bucks. It does wonders for the human psyche. Not to mention it's a great way for government to control the individual through entitlements. Better yet, it opens up a whole new world for graduates out of college. Drive up student loan debt, owe it to the government with interest, pay a fine or somehow purchase into the ACA, the list goes on and on and on......you can't ask for a better future for the U.S.A.

tisk tisk tisk.... Your entire sarcastic rant completely overlooked the title of this thread with the under 6% thing. "temporary assistance" plans are only put in place... wait for it...... "TEM-PORRRRRR-ar-ILY" to ward off the sting of recession and HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT RATES.

With lower unemployment rates and no recession the Welfare Laws of 1996 will be back into place.

[aubfaninga 16]

What's to discuss? Workforce participation is at lows not seen in decades.

Do you feel that this is a completely negative thing?

Very much so, yes. 18 Trillion $ in debt, and this President wants to put more people on the govt tab.

He literally is trying to break the system, so that it will be " fundamentally transformed " into a more equal, fair, read SOCIALIST society.

I strongly oppose that.

But if they are "out of the workforce" they are not on unemployment. This is fact A

If unemployment numbers stay where they are right now in most states many people will lose any chance at Food Stamps unless they start looking for a job.

While I don't see the number of people out of the workplace a positive thing I could see a lot of numbers change dramatically by the end of 2016.

In theory if unemployment stays or lowers the rest of this year...#1 The workplace participation numbers will increase and #2 Less people on welfare

(This would drive DKW nuts)

People getting jobs due to the loss of entitlements doesn't make sense. Mainly because the entitlements won't end just because they have been out of a job for several months/years. Unemployment may stop, but the other things keep coming in.

Celebrating the current unemployment number is easy.....being realistic about the unemployment number? Not so much. Until we grow our industrial might we may never get back to the job participation rate we had been used to for a couple of decades.

Read the Welfare Laws written in 1996.

[aubfaninga 16]

Any sound "leaving the workforce" discussion has to start with a macro analysis of the baby boomer generation entering retirement age (DYK retirements account for over half of the fall in the participation rate?) ...

Aging baby boomers, those Americans born between 1946 and 1964, account for approximately half of the drop in the labor force participation rate since 2007, according to a report released. The remaining decline stems from “cyclical factors” fairly typical of historic economic recessions and more difficult-to-explain “residual factors” from the crisis.

...

“We wouldn’t expect the participation rate to return to its pre-crisis levels and in fact, we weren’t expecting that even prior to the crisis,” Furman said at a forum on labor market challenges hosted by the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project Thursday in Washington.

The participation rate started rising in the early 60s as women entered the labor force and later as baby boomers hit their prime working ages, reached a peak of 67 percent in 2000 and since then has generally fallen. It’s been dragged down by a leveling off of female participation, the retirements of baby boomers and shocks of the financial crisis.

Learn more: http://www.usnews.co...on-rate-decline

BUT BUT BUT .... OBAMA'S OBAMA'S OBAMA'S FAULT!

Tell that to all these college grads who can't find work anywhere other than Target or your local eatery. Tell that to the soldier, airman, sailor, marine, coastie coming off of active duty. Is that Obama's fault? Not really.....but he hasn't done much to address it and he once again promised to do so. But hey....he's a pie in the sky liberal. What more can you ask for?

Did FOX news not give you the memo??? The people that are actively looking for jobs do not count toward the "out of workplace" number. Stay within the lines please.

[autigeremt 6,598]

Any sound "leaving the workforce" discussion has to start with a macro analysis of the baby boomer generation entering retirement age (DYK retirements account for over half of the fall in the participation rate?) ...

Aging baby boomers, those Americans born between 1946 and 1964, account for approximately half of the drop in the labor force participation rate since 2007, according to a report released. The remaining decline stems from “cyclical factors” fairly typical of historic economic recessions and more difficult-to-explain “residual factors” from the crisis.

...

“We wouldn’t expect the participation rate to return to its pre-crisis levels and in fact, we weren’t expecting that even prior to the crisis,” Furman said at a forum on labor market challenges hosted by the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project Thursday in Washington.

The participation rate started rising in the early 60s as women entered the labor force and later as baby boomers hit their prime working ages, reached a peak of 67 percent in 2000 and since then has generally fallen. It’s been dragged down by a leveling off of female participation, the retirements of baby boomers and shocks of the financial crisis.

Learn more: http://www.usnews.co...on-rate-decline

BUT BUT BUT .... OBAMA'S OBAMA'S OBAMA'S FAULT!

Tell that to all these college grads who can't find work anywhere other than Target or your local eatery. Tell that to the soldier, airman, sailor, marine, coastie coming off of active duty. Is that Obama's fault? Not really.....but he hasn't done much to address it and he once again promised to do so. But hey....he's a pie in the sky liberal. What more can you ask for?

Did FOX news not give you the memo??? The people that are actively looking for jobs do not count toward the "out of workplace" number. Stay within the lines please.

IF they don't have a job, they are out of a job. I haven't watched a news broadcast in three weeks other than to watch the SOTU. Did you not get that memo?

[aubfaninga 16]

That's not a FACT, that's your supposition.

Until Obama asks for yet another extension.

Wait, that's like 6 years after Joe and Barry declared 2010 the " Summer of Recovery ! "

More people on food stamps and " disability " than ever before. Your belief that if #'s just magically drop, just a little, then all will be shiny and fine.

#1

Fact - if you are not actively looking for a job you cannot get unemployment.

#2

GOD forbid the novel idea that Governors have sway in their states SNAP benefits.

#3

"summer of Recovery" as in ACA will bankrupt the country and cause unemployment numbers out the roof by 2014,, oh wait 2015???

#4

I have more faith in the direction we are going then electing another Bush into office.

2 Bush terms equaled loss in my 401K plan.

With Clinton and Obama my 401K plan has made money.

So I just need to decide between another Bush term or another Clinton-Obama 2.0 term??? hmmmm

[AURaptor 1,122]

That's not a FACT, that's your supposition.

Until Obama asks for yet another extension.

Wait, that's like 6 years after Joe and Barry declared 2010 the " Summer of Recovery ! "

More people on food stamps and " disability " than ever before. Your belief that if #'s just magically drop, just a little, then all will be shiny and fine.

#1

Fact - if you are not actively looking for a job you cannot get unemployment.

#2

GOD forbid the novel idea that Governors have sway in their states SNAP benefits.

#3

"summer of Recovery" as in ACA will bankrupt the country and cause unemployment numbers out the roof by 2014,, oh wait 2015???

#4

I have more faith in the direction we are going then electing another Bush into office.

2 Bush terms equaled loss in my 401K plan.

With Clinton and Obama my 401K plan has made money.

So I just need to decide between another Bush term or another Clinton-Obama 2.0 term??? hmmmm

I hope the latter doesn't come to pass, for either candidate. I'm sick of both.

But you can blame the Dem controlled Congress for your 401 loss, not Bush's 2 terms.

We're in a very bad direction, if you'd been paying attention, on our economic situation , as well as the world political stage. Yes, mostly due to Obama.

[aubfaninga 16]

Any sound "leaving the workforce" discussion has to start with a macro analysis of the baby boomer generation entering retirement age (DYK retirements account for over half of the fall in the participation rate?) ...

Aging baby boomers, those Americans born between 1946 and 1964, account for approximately half of the drop in the labor force participation rate since 2007, according to a report released. The remaining decline stems from “cyclical factors” fairly typical of historic economic recessions and more difficult-to-explain “residual factors” from the crisis.

...

“We wouldn’t expect the participation rate to return to its pre-crisis levels and in fact, we weren’t expecting that even prior to the crisis,” Furman said at a forum on labor market challenges hosted by the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project Thursday in Washington.

The participation rate started rising in the early 60s as women entered the labor force and later as baby boomers hit their prime working ages, reached a peak of 67 percent in 2000 and since then has generally fallen. It’s been dragged down by a leveling off of female participation, the retirements of baby boomers and shocks of the financial crisis.

Learn more: http://www.usnews.co...on-rate-decline

BUT BUT BUT .... OBAMA'S OBAMA'S OBAMA'S FAULT!

Tell that to all these college grads who can't find work anywhere other than Target or your local eatery. Tell that to the soldier, airman, sailor, marine, coastie coming off of active duty. Is that Obama's fault? Not really.....but he hasn't done much to address it and he once again promised to do so. But hey....he's a pie in the sky liberal. What more can you ask for?

Did FOX news not give you the memo??? The people that are actively looking for jobs do not count toward the "out of workplace" number. Stay within the lines please.

IF they don't have a job, they are out of a job. I haven't watched a news broadcast in three weeks other than to watch the SOTU. Did you not get that memo? ;)/>

People can't find work or they are above working for less than 20 dollars an hour?

Snyder-Lance and Kelloggs in Columbus has had a hard time filling positions. KIA has even had to hold job fairs recently.

I have no desire to find another job but I can bet that I could find one making at least 12 dollars an hour within a month. It is crazy how many people that I have met that feel they are above a manufacturing job just because they went to college.

[aubfaninga 16]

I hope the latter doesn't come to pass, for either candidate. I'm sick of both.

But you can blame the Dem controlled Congress for your 401 loss, not Bush's 2 terms.

We're in a very bad direction, if you'd been paying attention, on our economic situation , as well as the world political stage. Yes, mostly due to Obama.

I can't see any other choice right now than a Clinton or Bush vote. Time will tell

[AURaptor 1,122]

Scott Walker, Ted Cruz , John Kasich, lead my list of far better candidates.

Hillary is simply a tired, old Lefty who has exactly zero positive on her resume. Nothing. Her real claim to fame ? Being Bill's wife and first lady. That's it.

Also, those 'giving up' looking for work don't constitute a + for the administration or our country. These are able bodied people of working age, with experience and or value, who are simply being forced to sit on the sidelines. There's nothing for them to do, an no way for them to succeed in life.

The American dream ? More like an American nightmare !

But you seem fine w/ that, huh ?

[aubfaninga 16]

Scott Walker, Ted Cruz , John Kasich, lead my list of far better candidates.

Hillary is simply a tired, old Lefty who has exactly zero positive on her resume. Nothing. Her real claim to fame ? Being Bill's wife and first lady. That's it.

Also, those 'giving up' looking for work don't constitute a + for the administration or our country. These are able bodied people of working age, with experience and or value, who are simply being forced to sit on the sidelines. There's nothing for them to do, an no way for them to succeed in life.

The American dream ? More like an American nightmare !

But you seem fine w/ that, huh ?

Forget politics for a few seconds.

I have been preaching about 2 job openings for a month now. They frown when they learn it starts at 12 dollars an hour or they feel too proud to work in manufacturing. Low wages and hard work is the roots the American dream was built upon. There is a healthy number of people that claim they want work but really they want a dream job with high wages and easy to no effort and they will not settle for less.

OK. Back to party bashing

[aubfaninga 16]

Scott Walker, Ted Cruz , John Kasich, lead my list of far better candidates.

Hillary is simply a tired, old Lefty who has exactly zero positive on her resume. Nothing. Her real claim to fame ? Being Bill's wife and first lady. That's it.

Also, those 'giving up' looking for work don't constitute a + for the administration or our country. These are able bodied people of working age, with experience and or value, who are simply being forced to sit on the sidelines. There's nothing for them to do, an no way for them to succeed in life.

The American dream ? More like an American nightmare !

But you seem fine w/ that, huh ?

One more thing but don't tell anyone.

I MIGHT actually vote for John Kasich over Clinton if he ran. MIGHT!!! shhhhh