- 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
Record 95,102,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Up 18% Since Obama Took Office
Posted on 1/6/17 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 1/6/17 at 2:11 pm
quote:
Record 95,102,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Number Grew 18% Since Obama Took Office in 2009
By Susan Jones | January 6, 2017 | 8:49 AM EST
Barack Obama's presidency began with a record number of Americans not in the labor force, and it's ending the same way.
The final jobs report of the Obama presidency, released Friday, shows that the number of Americans not in the labor force has increased by 14,573,000 (18.09 percent) since January 2009, when Obama took office, continuing a long-term trend that began well before Obama was sworn in.
In December, according to the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, a record 95,102,000 Americans were not in the labor force, 47,000 more than in November; and the labor force participation rate was 62.7 percent, a tenth of a point higher than in November.
The participation rate dropped to a 38-year low of 62.4 percent on Obama's watch . . .
LINK
21
Posted on 1/6/17 at 2:12 pm to NC_Tigah
But the job growth.
But the GDP.
But the uninsured are insured.
But the IRS isn't a weapon.
But, but, but...
But the GDP.
But the uninsured are insured.
But the IRS isn't a weapon.
But, but, but...
Posted on 1/6/17 at 2:13 pm to NC_Tigah
But those 11m fast food jobs we added!
Success!
Success!
Posted on 1/6/17 at 2:15 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The final jobs report of the Obama presidency, released Friday, shows that the number of Americans not in the labor force has increased by 14,573,000 (18.09 percent) since January 2009, when Obama took office, continuing a long-term trend that began well before Obama was sworn in.
If this was a trend before Obama was sworn in, then how can this be pinned on him?
Posted on 1/6/17 at 2:17 pm to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
If this was a trend before Obama was sworn in, then how can this be pinned on him?
It's not so much about pinning it on someone, as it is about keeping these people in check when they make ridiculous claims.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 2:17 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Record 95,102,000 Americans Not in Labor Force
Well that's embarrassing....
Posted on 1/6/17 at 2:17 pm to NC_Tigah
I find the labor participation rate to be tricky to interpet. On one hand, it is an obvious sign of workforce; on the other hand, while we have 100% participation between my wife and I, we would both prefer it to be 50% if the financial aspects were more feasible.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 2:18 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Up 18%
Posted on 1/6/17 at 2:19 pm to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
this was a trend before Obama was sworn in, then how can this be pinned on him?
Well it definitely shits all over the liberal claims that Obama has presided over a fantastic economy.
But only stupid people believe that.
And by "long before" they mean a year before he took office...aka the housing collapse and resulting recession.
This post was edited on 1/6/17 at 2:20 pm
Posted on 1/6/17 at 2:21 pm to NC_Tigah
didnt we use to call that unemployed?
Posted on 1/6/17 at 2:21 pm to NC_Tigah
Do they say how many of those are 65 and older?
Posted on 1/6/17 at 2:21 pm to NC_Tigah
That # doesn't include retirees either. dims like to claim it does.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 2:22 pm to Crimson Wraith
quote:Yes it does.
That # doesn't include retirees either. dims like to claim it does.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 2:22 pm to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
If this was a trend before Obama was sworn in, then how can this be pinned on him?
Because it only got worse under him while he claimed the opposite citing the unemployment rate. All he did was convince more people to stop looking for work, not make less people "unemployed."
This shows 18% more people are not employed than when he took over. Not 2%, not 5%, 18%...
This post was edited on 1/6/17 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 1/6/17 at 2:24 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Yes it does.
No it doesn't. Labor participation includes those seeking for work but stopped looking. It does not include retirees as they are no longer a part of the workforce.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 2:24 pm to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
If this was a trend before Obama was sworn in, then how can this be pinned on him?
Did you notice that they didn't give a number to this continuing trend? My bet is that it is far, far less than his 18% over prior 8 year periods.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 2:25 pm to Lsuchs
quote:It's a troubling number, but it's far more deceiving than the rate given population growth.
This shows 18% more people are not employed than when he took over. Not 2%, not 5%, 18%...
Posted on 1/6/17 at 2:25 pm to BugAC
quote:
Well that's embarrassing...
why, the labor force has grown slower than the population, baby boomers retired, college kids stay in school longer now. there are all kinds of reason the lpr is low but lets blame it on the black president.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 2:25 pm to NC_Tigah
What is this total number out of? Eligible work force or total population?
Posted on 1/6/17 at 2:26 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
That # doesn't include retirees either. dims like to claim it does.
Yes it does.
Well, then that report is a bit misleading as well. That's why I asked if there was a breakdown of those 65 and older. It's a very important demographic to account for. This is why I hate all these unemployment reports that both sides put out. They're all misleading.
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News