- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Labor force participation drops to 62.8%, lowest since Carter administration
Posted on 9/6/14 at 11:52 am to Homesick Tiger
Posted on 9/6/14 at 11:52 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
No, it's like saying we won 55-0 with only 10 ten men on the field. However, considering the participation rate thingy, if we keep putting less men on the field each game guess what finally happens?
God. Why would you do this to yourself.
My point was that there are too many good economic indicators right now, to take one seemingly 'bad' one and make hay out of it. If that's what it takes to be a rank-and-file Satan to any good news, it's going to be a sad life I guess
2
Posted on 9/6/14 at 11:53 am to EthanL
What are some of these many good economic indicators? Are you under the impression participation rate is an irrelevant number?
This post was edited on 9/6/14 at 11:53 am
Posted on 9/6/14 at 12:06 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
What are some of these many good economic indicators? Are you under the impression participation rate is an irrelevant number?
It's not an irrelevant number. If an absolute dolt visited this board however, you guys would convince him that it is the most important number there is when it comes to the economy.
Posted on 9/6/14 at 12:09 pm to EthanL
What are some of the many good indicators you mentioned?
Posted on 9/6/14 at 12:19 pm to dante
quote:Actually, according to the chart, Carter raised the participation rate in 4 years more than Reagan did in 8. And based on levels Clinton is the best President ever.
Carter must have really sucked because it has taken Obama 6 years to accomplish what Carter did in 4.
So Clinton > Carter > Reagan > Bush (your pick)
amiright?
Posted on 9/6/14 at 12:22 pm to EthanL
quote:
Why would you do this to yourself.
You can't comprehend that if we keep putting less men on the field we eventually get our arse stomped? You can't comprehend that if less people are working that eventually we will get our arse kicked economically?
You look at the little(immediate)picture of things. A person with common sense looks at the big picture down the road. You guys on the left are the credit card of American economics. Spend now, worry about paying it back later.
Good luck with that shite.
Posted on 9/6/14 at 12:29 pm to EthanL
quote:
Labor-mutha-fricking Participation Rate.
Wow. Less people working AS A PERCENTAGE, than ever before.
There's something to this line of thinking I can't put my finger on. I wonder if you're thinking the rich corps make all the money and govt is the champion who arbitrates how the unfairly earned profits are distributed to the masses. If you'd factor population growth into the equation, you'd see that's pretty stupid.
If you ever get into a management position, PERCENTAGES are a useful metric.
Posted on 9/6/14 at 12:30 pm to EthanL
quote:
The OVERWHELMING data points to a stable-to-good economy. Every sector is hiring. Positive growth for several months. Stock Market reaching new levels every week. The UE number falling.
It's like you didn't even read the title of the thread. * In the past year the working-age population rose by 2,270,000.
* In the last year the labor force rose by 524,000.
This post was edited on 9/6/14 at 12:36 pm
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News