Everything is trending up under Obama.

[CitadelGrad]

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/gr ... NS15000000



Thank you, President Obama.

[Skjellyfetti]

Looks to me like that number has been trending up since at least 1980.

You're right, though. It's all on Obama.

[CitadelGrad]

Looks to me like that number has been trending up since at least 1980.

You're right, though. It's all on Obama.

Um, actually it started a plateau that lasted almost all of the 80s. It accelerated to its fastest rate under Obama. Fuck, don't you even know how to read the simplest of graphs?

[89Hen]

Aren't baby boomers reaching retirement age?

[Skjellyfetti]

Aren't baby boomers reaching retirement age?

Careful. If you point that out you are a brainless liberal.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=27738&p=586376&hil ... rs#p586376" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Skjellyfetti]

Also, since CitadelGrad's chart isn't % of population... only the actual number of people outside the workforce... it doesn't account for change in population.

Would be interesting to see that as a percent of population or alongside population growth.



The US population in 1990 was ~250,000,000. There were approximately 63,000,000 outside of the workforce in 1990 according to the chart. That's roughly 25.2%

The US population in 2010 was ~310,000,000. There were approximately 82,000,000 outside of the workforce in 2010. That's roughly 26.4%.

Not a huge difference, imo.


And that 1.2% difference isn't all on Obama.

[CitadelGrad]

Aren't baby boomers reaching retirement age?

Retirees aren't included as part of the labor force.

[Skjellyfetti]

Retirees aren't included as part of the labor force.

The "Not in the labor force" statistic used in your chart includes retirees, students, etc.

Not in the labor force
Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CitadelGrad]

Also, since CitadelGrad's chart isn't % of population... only the actual number of people outside the workforce... it doesn't account for change in population.

Would be interesting to see that as a percent of population or alongside population growth.



The US population in 1990 was ~250,000,000. There were approximately 63,000,000 outside of the workforce in 1990 according to the chart. That's roughly 25.2%

The US population in 2010 was ~310,000,000. There were approximately 82,000,000 outside of the workforce in 2010. That's roughly 26.4%.

Not a huge difference, imo.


And that 1.2% difference isn't all on Obama.

Total population does not matter. The measure is the number of people eligible to be included in the labor force, not total population. As baby boomers get older the number of retirees increases, thus reducing the rate of growth in the eligible pool. There are many more retirees now than in 1990 when baby boomers were in their prime earning years. That means that while the rate of growth of people eligible to be included in the labor force is slowing, the growth of the number of people who are eligible to be in the labor force but aren't is accelerating. Clearly, the greatest acceleration has occurred under Obama.

In other words, your assumptions are fucked up. That's nothing new for you though.

[Skjellyfetti]

Total population does not matter. The measure is the number of people eligible to be included in the labor force, not total population. As baby boomers get older the number of retirees increases, thus reducing the rate of growth in the eligible pool. There are many more retirees now than in 1990 when baby boomers were in their prime earning years. That means that while the rate of growth of people eligible to be included in the labor force is slowing, the growth of the number of people who are eligible to be in the labor force but aren't is accelerating. Clearly, the greatest acceleration has occurred under Obama.

Again.

Your graph is not "labor force" but "not in labor force." Your statistic INCLUDES retirees.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The measure is the number of people eligible to be included in the labor force

No. It's not.





In other words, your assumptions are fucked.

[CitadelGrad]

The number of people of retirement age who are looking for work is at an all-time high. In other words, very few people can afford to retire now.

I know that the graph is not "labor force", but the obvious point that you have missed is that you can't define "not in the labor force" unless you first define who is eligible to be counted in the labor force.

The number of retirees has virtually no impact on these numbers. As I pointed out in the first paragraph, a very large number of those who have reached retirement age are looking for work or have recently looked for work. The baby boom begins with those born in 1944. Only those born between 1944 and 1946 have reached official retirement age.

Let's see you try to spin this chart.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

[Bronco]

-
Another up for BHO

New HIV infections up 50 percent in gay black men

Reuters ^ | 8/3/11 | Julie Steenhuysen

Chicago - The number of Americans newly infected with HIV remained stable between 2006 and 2009, but infections rose nearly 50 percent among young black gay and bisexual men, U.S. experts said on Wednesday. New data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveal progress since the peak of the HIV epidemic in the 1980s. But the sharp increases in infection rates among young black men who have sex with men show there is much more work to do, they said.(Snip) While blacks represent 14 percent of the U.S. population, they accounted for 44 percent of new HIV

[Bronco]

-
A record up

Barack Obama has already held more re-election fundraising events than every elected president since Richard Nixon combined, according to figures to be published in a new book.

Obama is also the only president in the past 35 years to visit every electoral battleground state in his first year of office.

The figures, contained a in a new book called The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign by Brendan J. Doherty, due to be published by University Press of Kansas in July, give statistical backing to the notion that Obama is more preoccupied with being re-elected than any other commander-in-chief of modern times.

Campaigner in chief?

Barack Obama has been assiduously visiting swing states; he is pictured earlier this week speaking in Iowa Doherty, who has compiled statistics about presidential travel and fundraising going back to President Jimmy Carter in 1977, found that Obama had held 104 fundraisers by March 6th this year, compared to 94 held by Presidents Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush combined.

Since then, Obama has held another 20 fundraisers, bringing his total to 124. Carter held four re-election fundraisers in the 1980 campaign, Reagan zero in 1984, Bush Snr 19 in 1992, Clinton 14 in 1996 and Bush Jnr 57 in 2004.


(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

[CitadelGrad]

Here's some further analysis on the adjustments that were included in the data. If you take out their predictions, the data is actually much worse.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/addbacks- ... irth-death

[Ivytalk]

AnalJelly is licking his wounds under an icon of Barry Sortero.

[kalm]

Is retiree numbers based on age? Because quite a few companies government agencies have offered early retirement to trim their payroll and I'm guessing quite a few people have taken it.

Regardless, Obama gets to share in the blame for not turning it around, but he certainly did not create the trend.

[HI54UNI]

Don't forget the national debt!