PDA

View Full Version : 90,000,000 Americans have given up looking for work



Janice
04-08-2012, 03:20 PM
http://i.imgur.com/6Sgf9.jpg

Record 87,897,000 Americans Not in the Labor Force

Amid disappointing unemployment numbers that fell 80,000 jobs short of projections, another number is raising eyebrows: the number of Americans not in the labor force has hit a record high 87,897,000.

This figure explains why overall unemployment dropped from 8.3% to 8.2%, as the Department of Labor's unemployment figure does not include people who have given up hope and are not actively seeking employment.

When the number of individuals who have stopped looking for a job and/or who are working part-time but desire full-time employment is included--a figure known as the "underemployment rate" -- real unemployment stands at 19.1%.

Breitbart.com (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/07/record-87897000-americans-not-in-the-labor-force)

---------------------------------------------

19.1% real unemployment eh? And the U.S. plunges into the longest, deepest recession since World War II... and it's going to get worse, analysts predict. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1091072/U-S-plunges-longest-deepest-recession-World-War-II--going-worse-analysts-predict.html) Marvelous how you can keep the whole thing afloat by simply printing and distributing more money. So what happens when inflation hits? How does hyperinflation sound?

So whats 0bozo's answer?

Raise taxes.

Tipsycatlover
04-08-2012, 03:41 PM
I hate to say it, but in the end, if it gets worse, it will ultimately be better. It is still at a point where libs can lie and get away with it.

Rockntractor
04-08-2012, 10:42 PM
Our total population is 311,591,917
90,000,000 Americans giving up looking for work can't be correct.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=population&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:US&ifdim=country&hl=en_US&dl=en_US

ralph wiggum
04-08-2012, 10:47 PM
Our total population is 311,591,917
90,000,000 Americans giving up looking for work can't be correct.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=population&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:US&ifdim=country&hl=en_US&dl=en_US

Kids must be included in that total. :D

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

Janice
04-09-2012, 12:46 AM
Kids must be included in that total. :D

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

Plus we have 57 states now, remember?

:popcorn:

Starbuck
04-09-2012, 09:05 AM
There are 131 million non farm jobs available to us in the US. That's less than there were in 2000, when the population was 281 million people.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

It is evident from history that there needs to be 47% as many jobs in the US as there are people.

So if our population is now at 311 million, there should be 147 million jobs. But there aren't. There are only 131 million.

We are at least 16 million jobs short.

See the problem?:apologetic:

Rockntractor
04-09-2012, 09:55 AM
There are 131 million non farm jobs available to us in the US. That's less than there were in 2000, when the population was 281 million people.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

It is evident from history that there needs to be 47% as many jobs in the US as there are people.

So if our population is now at 311 million, there should be 147 million jobs. But there aren't. There are only 131 million.

We are at least 16 million jobs short.

See the problem?:apologetic:

This makes sense, but the 90,000,000 figure doesn't.

DumbAss Tanker
04-09-2012, 10:03 AM
Whatever the right number is, we all know that if it's bad, it's somehow Bush's fault.

:rolleyes:

Odysseus
04-09-2012, 10:58 AM
This makes sense, but the 90,000,000 figure doesn't.

Yeah, it does. The labor force is basically everybody of working age (16-65) who are "participating workers," which is defined as "people actively employed or seeking employment." The 90 million figure is comprised of "students, retired people, stay-at-home parents, people in prisons or similar institutions, people employed in jobs or professions with unreported income, as well as discouraged workers who cannot find work." This is where the numbers get, shall we say, interesting...

The BLS defines discourage workers as:


"Persons not in the labor force who want and are available for a job and who have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months (or since the end of their last job if they held one within the past 12 months), but who are not currently looking because they believe there are no jobs available or there are none for which they would qualify."

Even though a discourage worker might still be seeking a job, the government uses some accounting chicanery to determine that he ought to be removed from the unemployment rate after long-term unemployment and he is then simply deemed to be "discouraged" by the bean counters.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Persons_not_in_the_labor_force_selected_indicators _quarterly_averages_1994%E2%80%932009_not_seasonal ly_adjusted.png

The real test of the strength of the job market is the labor participation rate, which is the flat percentage of the population that is considered gainfully employed. That percentage is usually around 71-73% in the US, but the current rate is 66.7%, a significantly lower percentage, especially when you take other factors into account.

The chart below shows that rate from 1950 to now. The two critical takeaways are that the rise of the participation rate from 1950-1990 was the result of more women entering the workforce, and that the current rate is the lowest it has been since the mid-1980's. Adjusted for the variation in women's employment, and it's worse than any time since the Great Depression.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/US_Labor_Participation_Rate_1948-2011_by_gender.svg/720px-US_Labor_Participation_Rate_1948-2011_by_gender.svg.png

Rockntractor
04-09-2012, 12:14 PM
Yeah, it does.

It is out of control, we can't survive this intact.

Starbuck
04-09-2012, 01:41 PM
Whatever the right number is, we all know that if it's bad, it's somehow Bush's fault.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, that's gonna be a tough one in the debates. See, when Bush took over there were 131 million jobs and when he left there were 137 million jobs. Now we're back to 131 million. Gee, Barry, what'd ya do with all those jobs I left you with?.....:biggrin-new:
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

linda22003
04-09-2012, 01:55 PM
It's a total of people NOT in the labor force, not people who have given up looking for work. My father is not in the labor force. It's not because he can't find a job, it's because he's almost 92 years old and he's really not interested.

Odysseus
04-09-2012, 02:14 PM
It's a total of people NOT in the labor force, not people who have given up looking for work. My father is not in the labor force. It's not because he can't find a job, it's because he's almost 92 years old and he's really not interested.

I went into the breakdown of the numbers above. Discouraged workers are a portion of those people not in the labor force, and their status is basically the government's way of excluding them from the official unemployment rate. The critical numbers are 137 million, which is the number of jobs in the US at the start of Obama's term, and 131 million, which is the current number. Obama has to explain where those six million jobs went.

Arroyo_Doble
04-09-2012, 02:30 PM
I went into the breakdown of the numbers above. Discouraged workers are a portion of those people not in the labor force, and their status is basically the government's way of excluding them from the official unemployment rate. The critical numbers are 137 million, which is the number of jobs in the US at the start of Obama's term, and 131 million, which is the current number. Obama has to explain where those six million jobs went.

This is a link by month: The Link (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?data_tool=XGtable)

In January of 2009, the number was 133,561,000. March of 2012 was at 132,821,000.

Not quite 6 million.

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_CES0000000001_2002_2012_all_period_ M03_data.gif

Hawkgirl
04-09-2012, 05:03 PM
Expect the numbers to get much worse once the full effect of Obamacare is seen. The healthcare field, once the most stable of industries, is going to take a massive hit. The unintended consequence of Obamascare.

Janice
04-10-2012, 08:32 AM
http://i.imgur.com/hrGAA.jpg

Obama’s cooked jobs books
Fudging the official unemployment rate isn’t working

In March, 120,000 jobs were created, while more than 330,000 people dropped out of the workforce. For self-serving reasons, the Obama administration spins this as good news.

According to government math, March unemployment declined by .1 percent even though more Americans were out of work. This is because the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) doesn’t count people as officially unemployed if they are not looking for a job. So even though the “not in labor force” figure is at a record high of nearly 88 million people, the administration can keep reporting a drop in unemployment by counting only those it wants to count.

A growing number of analysts are realizing that these subjective government figures don’t reflect reality in the workplace. An analysis from Bank of America/Merrill Lynch Global Research shows that the percentage of employed Americans has basically flatlined for the past two years while the reported unemployment rate has been dropping. This is unprecedented; these two figures have reliably tracked together for at least the past 20 years. The only reason they have decoupled recently is because the Obama administration has stopped counting millions of out-of-work Americans as part of the official workforce. This widening gap is the smoking gun behind the phony unemployment numbers.

Election-year politics have something to do with the growing disconnect. A January report that appeared in the Zero Hedge website noted that if the logic of reporting progressively fewer labor-force participants continued, “America will officially have no unemployed when the Labor Force Participation rate hits 58.5 percent, which should be just before the presidential election.” Three months later, the trend continues. >>>

The government naturally wants to put as good a face on the ostensible recovery as possible, but the official unemployment figures are painfully out of step with reality. If three Americans are quitting the workforce for every one who finds a job, this is not a recovery. It is a national jobs crisis.

Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/9/obamas-cooked-jobs-books/)

Meanwhile the GOP leadership rather than call these clowns out, continue to act like the band playing on the Titanic (America) as it descends into a watery grave it may never recover from.

Arroyo_Doble
04-10-2012, 08:52 AM
The only reason they have decoupled recently is because the Obama administration has stopped counting millions of out-of-work Americans as part of the official workforce. This widening gap is the smoking gun behind the phony unemployment numbers.

Is the Washington Times arguing that the BLS has changed their method of calculating the unemployment numbers?

Starbuck
04-10-2012, 10:27 AM
Is the Washington Times arguing that the BLS has changed their method of calculating the unemployment numbers?

I think you know the answer to that one, but then you always know the answer to every 'question' that you ask. Fine for court room attorneys; a little irritating from you.

Perhaps we (you and I) can agree that the method of calculating unemployment figures is more typical of a bureaucrat than a pragmatist and leaves lots of room for interpretation. And interpretation is really what the article is about.
In fact, the whole affair reminds me of trying to interpret The Bible; one person goes this way, another, that.

Almost everyone in America agrees that the employment situation is woefully inadequate, and has resulted in an unemployment situation that will ruin a great many people. It is bad.
We need 150 million jobs in America to make the economic engine run without sputtering. And that's a fact.


In January of 2009, the number was 133,561,000. March of 2012 was at 132,821,000.


Oops. You're right. I got on the wrong column.
Not to wriggle out from underneath my mistake, but it is also a fact that Americans are expanding the workforce by the amount of 1.5 million people per year. So now we have 18 million more people to employ in 2012 than we did in 2000.

The employment situation is bad, "Dooble". Bad. Two branches of government have it within their power to correct it, and we are getting very little from either branch that is not spin. And the problem with spin, of course, is that it goes nowhere.

Arroyo_Doble
04-10-2012, 10:40 AM
I think you know the answer to that one, but then you always know the answer to every 'question' that you ask. Fine for court room attorneys; a little irritating from you.

Perhaps we (you and I) can agree that the method of calculating unemployment figures is more typical of a bureaucrat than a pragmatist and leaves lots of room for interpretation. And interpretation is really what the article is about.
In fact, the whole affair reminds me of trying to interpret The Bible; one person goes this way, another, that.

You have to compare results using the same method for there to be any validity to numbers. If the BLS has suddenly changed the method for calculating unemployment, that is pretty damn big and needs to be addressed. If they haven't, and we are comparing valid numbers, then what is the Washington Times trying to say? Are they arguing that they want to change the method for calculating unemployment? If so, should we do so retroactively?


Almost everyone in America agrees that the employment situation is woefully inadequate, and has resulted in an unemployment situation that will ruin a great many people. It is bad.
We need 150 million jobs in America to make the economic engine run without sputtering. And that's a fact.

Oops. You're right. I got on the wrong column.
Not to wriggle out from underneath my mistake, but it is also a fact that Americans are expanding the workforce by the amount of 1.5 million people per year. So now we have 18 million more people to employ in 2012 than we did in 2000.

I agree that the employment situation isn't where it needs to be. I would also like to know how the front end of the Boomer generation retiring is affecting it. There was a report I read (economic opinion piece I could find if you like ... but it was opinion) that stated our problem in the near future will be a shrinking labor force.

Also, if you look at the BLS link, you will see that the growth in jobs mostly occurred during the 90's. The Aughts were a lost decade.


The employment situation is bad, "Dooble". Bad. Two branches of government have it within their power to correct it, and we are getting very little from either branch that is not spin. And the problem with spin, of course, is that it goes nowhere.

And it makes you dizzy.

Odysseus
04-10-2012, 11:02 AM
Is the Washington Times arguing that the BLS has changed their method of calculating the unemployment numbers?

That's exactly what they are saying. The article notes that the administration is creating ficticious jobs that are not reflected in the household survey, but they are doing more than that. In in order to understand the change, you have to understand the different calculations. The BLS uses six measures of Unemployment. They are:

U1:[88] Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
U2: Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
U3: Official unemployment rate per the ILO definition occurs when people are without jobs and they have actively looked for work within the past four weeks.[1]
U4: U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
U5: U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
U6: U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons (underemployment).

By revising the criteria by which the U3 is created, the BLS can adjust the rate up or down. They've done this by manipulating the Labor Participation Rate by increasing the number of "discouraged" workers arbitrarily. Here was how they calculated the drop to 8.2% last January:


The number of unemployed people reportedly dropped by 128k from October to November. Add this to the 200k less employed persons and the total comes to 328k less people employed in November than in October.

So where does the 0.2% decrease in unemployment come from?

Those listed as "Not in labor force" increased by 419k people from October to November. The "Civilian labor force" reported by BLS has decreased by 339k from October to November.

Subtract the 328k loss in employment from the 419k loss to the labor force and you end up with 91k, which is 0.14% of the labor force reported in November.

The remainder of the difference can be chalked up to using more exact figures than the rounded off numbers provided by the BLS and then rounding up the percentage. The figures given have all been rounded to the nearest thousand.

Another inaccuracy in the figures is that Table A-15 shows the "official unemployment rate" as 8.6% for November, down from 9% in October, while Table A-2 has the figure at 8.3% and 8.5% respectively.

With this in mind, consider the figures from September to October, where there was reportedly a gain in employment of 198k jobs and a loss of only 41k reported "Not in labor force". The BLS also reports a 0.2% decrease in unemployment from September to October, exactly the same as from October to November.
http://voices.yahoo.com/obama-administration-cooking-books-10762803.html

The arbitrary reductions in the labor force are how they keep the U3 number down.

Janice
04-10-2012, 12:03 PM
The arbitrary reductions in the labor force are how they keep the U3 number down.

And dont forget the number of jobs "available" universe. As in 2 million employers have simply gone out of business since 0bama was immaculated. With a shrinking "jobs universe" one can argue the unemployment rate is down when it is in fact exactly the opposite.

Starbuck
04-10-2012, 12:29 PM
......There was a report I read (economic opinion piece I could find if you like ... but it was opinion) that stated our problem in the near future will be a shrinking labor force.......

Actually, that is an item I have some interest in, if you could find it.

I have written previously about the problem China has created with their one-child policy, and most experts now see that China has created a pig-through-the-python kind of slow, irreversible disaster in the making. At some point - not too far out, either - China's population will suddenly begin to decrease.
That has already happened in Russia, where the population peaked at 148 million about 15 years ago, is now at 142 million and is predicted to be 111 million by 2050. And they can't reverse it; the people simply won't go that direction.
And in Europe there is not a single country with a birth rate of above 2.0, which is the birth rate necessary for a population to grow. Add to that the increased death rate for us Baby Boomers (not an American phenomenon) and the population will begin to decrease very soon.

The lack of jobs were are now experiencing may very well be replaced by a lack of labor at some point in the future, but for now I think it is important that Executive (Talkin' about you, Barry) and Legislative branches get busy and pass legislation, reduce expenditures, and take whatever action they can to make it happen.
I'll even go a bit further: I'll say that there is no reason to do anything - anything at all! - that is not intended to create jobs in America or decrease the expense of governing.

Arroyo_Doble
04-10-2012, 01:15 PM
Actually, that is an item I have some interest in, if you could find it.

I have written previously about the problem China has created with their one-child policy, and most experts now see that China has created a pig-through-the-python kind of slow, irreversible disaster in the making. At some point - not too far out, either - China's population will suddenly begin to decrease.
That has already happened in Russia, where the population peaked at 148 million about 15 years ago, is now at 142 million and is predicted to be 111 million by 2050. And they can't reverse it; the people simply won't go that direction.
And in Europe there is not a single country with a birth rate of above 2.0, which is the birth rate necessary for a population to grow. Add to that the increased death rate for us Baby Boomers (not an American phenomenon) and the population will begin to decrease very soon.

The lack of jobs were are now experiencing may very well be replaced by a lack of labor at some point in the future, but for now I think it is important that Executive (Talkin' about you, Barry) and Legislative branches get busy and pass legislation, reduce expenditures, and take whatever action they can to make it happen.
I'll even go a bit further: I'll say that there is no reason to do anything - anything at all! - that is not intended to create jobs in America or decrease the expense of governing.



The latest reading on weekly jobless claims showed a drop of 5,000 to 348,000. This brought the 4-week average down a touch to 355,000; the lowest level since March 2008.

Regardless of recent improvements, our 8.3% unemployment rate is stuck near the highest levels seen since the dark days of the early 1980's. And if you ask ten people to name the biggest worry in today's economy, most will say high unemployment.

According to Conor Sen of Minaynville.com, the country's worries may be overstated. He says we're less than a decade away from the biggest challenge not being too few jobs for American workers, but rather a workforce too small to fill the demand.

"Ten years ago we saw for every new retiree there were ten new workers in the work force," Sen tells me in the attached video. "Ten years from now we're going to see the opposite; we're going to see ten retirees for every new worker."

As a function of simple math Sen concludes the unemployment picture is apt to improve "much faster than people think."

The natural push back on Sen's theory is the inability of U.S. corporations to create jobs domestically in the face of cheaper labor available overseas. Sen says those issues are taking care of themselves as well.

"The U.S. workforce is the most productive in the world and our productivity rate continues to improve. At the same time wages in China, partially due to the depreciating dollar, have been skyrocketing over the past few years." As a result, according to Sen, "our manufacturing workers are becoming much more competitive in the world markets."

The Link (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/too-many-jobs-look-ahead-next-labor-market-144556623.html)

Odysseus
04-10-2012, 01:21 PM
I'll even go a bit further: I'll say that there is no reason to do anything - anything at all! - that is not intended to create jobs in America or decrease the expense of governing.

I wouldn't go that far. Countries that are declining tend to lash out in their death spirals, especially if they see a way to extort what they need from neighboring states. This is North Korea's MO and has been for decades. Also, there are countries whose populations aren't declining, and they tend to be cauldrons of instability, such as Yemen, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. These countries will be exporting their children, just as the British and French did during the European colonial period, with the same intent, but much less benign methods. We will need to maintain our defense capabilities and work to reverse the tide of demographic collapse. The former will cost money, the latter will actually save it, by removing many of the social programs that we currently fund that destroy families.

Janice
04-10-2012, 02:16 PM
The natural push back on Sen's theory is the inability of U.S. corporations to create jobs domestically in the face of cheaper labor available overseas. Sen says those issues are taking care of themselves as well.

The Link (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/too-many-jobs-look-ahead-next-labor-market-144556623.html)

Im just guessing... but I wouldnt be surprised if having the highest corp tax rate in the world might have something to do with big business taking their business over seas to a friendlier work environment too.

After all... the old maxim applies now as much as it ever did. Perhaps even more:

The more you punish an activity, the less you are going to have of it.

And we now have a fed govt that is at war w/the private sector and relishes the opportunity to impede and/or punish success and/or prosperity at every turn imaginable. Nationwide brown outs and blackouts and a Chicago style ghetto on a national scale are just in birds eye view. We JUST NEED 4 MORE years.

Starbuck
04-10-2012, 02:46 PM
I wouldn't go that far. Countries that are declining tend to lash out in their death spirals, especially if they see a way to extort what they need from neighboring states. This is North Korea's MO and has been for decades. Also, there are countries whose populations aren't declining, and they tend to be cauldrons of instability, such as Yemen, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. These countries will be exporting their children, just as the British and French did during the European colonial period, with the same intent, but much less benign methods. We will need to maintain our defense capabilities and work to reverse the tide of demographic collapse. The former will cost money, the latter will actually save it, by removing many of the social programs that we currently fund that destroy families.

When you think about it national defense is one of the truest, most intelligent forms of stimulus spending in that jobs are created both in the uniformed ranks and in the industries that support them. I don't believe we will be able to reverse our coming population decline because population decline is so complex. But, as you say, we always need to be ready to defend ourselves.

txradioguy
04-10-2012, 02:55 PM
Not too hard to figure out. Shrink the amount of jobs in the workforce universe...the percentage of those unemployed looks much smaller.

If the 2 million jobs that have magically disappeared over the last couple years were still factored in the unemployment rate would be almost 11%.

Articulate_Ape
04-10-2012, 03:04 PM
They can cook the books all they want, but it won't matter because such accounting legerdemain always gets trumped by the "plague factor". The government can claim that there is no plague, or it isn't that bad, but when everyone knows ten or more people who have it or have died of it, everyone knows it's a plague.

Odysseus
04-10-2012, 03:26 PM
When you think about it national defense is one of the truest, most intelligent forms of stimulus spending in that jobs are created both in the uniformed ranks and in the industries that support them. I don't believe we will be able to reverse our coming population decline because population decline is so complex. But, as you say, we always need to be ready to defend ourselves.

More importantly, it's unique in terms of government spending, because of the competition factor. Most government programs exist in a competitive vaccuum, because they suppress private sector activities that could compete, and because if they fail, they can impose more taxes or other revenue enhancements to keep the program in business. The Post Office is a great example of this. But military technology is one of the few areas where there is competition, but it's not obvious, because the competition isn't just between contractors, but between nations. A failure to properly modernize, equip, train or sustain the armed forces results in the most glaring kind of failure, defeat in war. It's the most basic kind of competition, one that predates economic competition in markets. Tribes fought wars long before they traded goods. When a company fails, its competitors provide the same goods and services, or better them, but when a nation fails, it retreats from the world.

Arroyo_Doble
04-10-2012, 05:24 PM
They can cook the books all they want .....

This is the second time in this thread I have seen something like that. Odie used the word "arbitrary."

Incredible claims demand incredible proof.

Odysseus
04-11-2012, 12:08 AM
This is the second time in this thread I have seen something like that. Odie used the word "arbitrary."

Incredible claims demand incredible proof.

One would think that the proof would have to be credible, to be proof.

Regardless, the changes in the labor force have reduced the labor participation rate to an all-time low. The proof was provided, you just don't want to see it.

Janice
04-26-2012, 05:30 PM
http://i.imgur.com/bGXNX.jpg

According to the Washington Times, a study suggests the outflow of Mexican illegals has exceeded the inflow for the first time since the Great Depression. The bad news is the reason for this outcome is that under Obama there are not enough jobs, even those that native-born Americans will not do. Mexican illegal immigrants are increasingly braving their own country's drug violence in lieu of braving the bad economy in the U.S.

Read:

In this economy, U.S. needs border fence to keep Mexicans in
Washington Times Study (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/24/hurt-in-this-bad-economy-us-needs-border-fence-to-/)

DumbAss Tanker
04-30-2012, 10:32 AM
This is the second time in this thread I have seen something like that. Odie used the word "arbitrary."

Incredible claims demand incredible proof.

After the parade of bald-faced public chicanery involved in the CBO's farcical cost analysis of Obamacare, there is nothing at all incredible about claims of government statistical manipulation.

txradioguy
04-30-2012, 11:48 AM
This is the second time in this thread I have seen something like that. Odie used the word "arbitrary."

Incredible claims demand incredible proof.

IT's all right there in the numbers. Open your eyes...uncork your head and look. 2 million jobs have just magically disappeared since Obama took office.

The ONLY way the job universe shrinks...is if someone or some organizataion manipulates the numbers.

Now who would want to do that?

Starbuck
04-30-2012, 12:02 PM
IT's all right there in the numbers. Open your eyes...uncork your head and look. 2 million jobs have just magically disappeared since Obama took office.

The ONLY way the job universe shrinks...is if someone or some organizataion manipulates the numbers.

Now who would want to do that?

The number of jobs available peaked at 138 million just before Bush left office. 132 Million when he turned it over to Obama.

The number of jobs available is virtually at a standstill ever since, but the number of workers increases at a rate of about 1.5 million per year, so there are 6 million more people looking for a job now, than 4 years ago.

We need 150 million jobs to be available to support a population of 300 million people. 155 million would be better.