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
Posted by EthanL
Auburn,AL
Member since Oct 2011
6963 posts
Posted on 9/6/14 at 11:52 am to
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
Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
49771 posts
Posted on 9/6/14 at 11:53 am to
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 by EthanL
Auburn,AL
Member since Oct 2011
6963 posts
Posted on 9/6/14 at 12:06 pm to
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 by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
49771 posts
Posted on 9/6/14 at 12:09 pm to
What are some of the many good indicators you mentioned?
Posted by mmcgrath
Indianapolis
Member since Feb 2010
35810 posts
Posted on 9/6/14 at 12:19 pm to
quote:

Carter must have really sucked because it has taken Obama 6 years to accomplish what Carter did in 4.
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.

So Clinton > Carter > Reagan > Bush (your pick)

amiright?
Posted by Homesick Tiger
Greenbrier, AR
Member since Nov 2006
54765 posts
Posted on 9/6/14 at 12:22 pm to
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 by son of arlo
State of Innocence
Member since Sep 2013
4577 posts
Posted on 9/6/14 at 12:29 pm to
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 by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
58701 posts
Posted on 9/6/14 at 12:30 pm to
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
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 3Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram