5.4%

bluehenbillk · Post by **bluehenbillk** » Fri May 08, 2015 5:44 am

It's getting harder than ever to find good, qualified people to fill jobs....

Baldy · Post by **Baldy** » Fri May 08, 2015 7:03 am

bluehenbillk wrote:It's getting harder than ever to find good, qualified people to fill jobs....

When 93,000,000+ are not in the workforce, you are very correct.

Post by **travelinman67** » Fri May 08, 2015 7:31 am

Good news...

Post by **Grizalltheway** » Fri May 08, 2015 7:35 am

Baldy wrote:
bluehenbillk wrote:It's getting harder than ever to find good, qualified people to fill jobs....
When 93,000,000+ are not in the workforce, you are very correct.

Yeah, damn all those kids and boomer retirees. Get to work!

Post by **HI54UNI** » Fri May 08, 2015 8:21 am

bluehenbillk wrote:It's getting harder than ever to find good, qualified people to fill jobs....

Then you aren't paying enough.

Chizzang · Post by **Chizzang** » Fri May 08, 2015 8:25 am

bluehenbillk wrote:It's getting harder than ever to find good, qualified people to fill jobs....

Depends on if you're Costco or Wal-Mart..?

CitadelGrad · Post by **CitadelGrad** » Fri May 08, 2015 1:38 pm

Part time jobs soared by 437K, full time jobs fell by 252K. As a result, wage growth fell from 0.2% Mar to 0.1% Apr. Labor participation rate @ 69.45%, lowest since 1977. March numbers revised downward (surprise, surprise).

BDKJMU · Post by **BDKJMU** » Fri May 08, 2015 11:01 pm

CitadelGrad wrote:Part time jobs soared by 437K, full time jobs fell by 252K. As a result, wage growth fell from 0.2% Mar to 0.1% Apr. Labor participation rate @ 69.45%, lowest since 1977. March numbers revised downward (surprise, surprise).

Actually its worse than that.

"AMERICANS NOT IN LABOR FORCE HITS NEW RECORD HIGH: 93,194,000

...The labor force participation rate came in at 62.8 percent."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -93194000/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Meanwhile, the Real unemployment rate, the U6, stands at 10.8%....

BDKJMU · Post by **BDKJMU** » Fri May 08, 2015 11:02 pm

So according to the BLS:
157.072 million in labor force (62.8%)
93.194 million not in labor force (31.8%)
8.549 million unemployed (5.4%)
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That drop to (a bogus) 5.4% is due to MILLIONS that have dropped out of the labor force. Now if we could just get the final 8.549 million to drop out of the labot force, we could have 0.0% unemployment!

BDKJMU · Post by **BDKJMU** » Fri May 08, 2015 11:05 pm

"MOST NET JOB GAINS WENT TO IMMIGRANTS SINCE RECESSION

.....In December 2007 the number of foreign-born workers was 22,810,000. By April 2015, the number had increased to 24,819,000 or a net job growth of more than 2 million.

For native-born workers that number in December 2007 was 123,524,000 by April of this year the number of employed native-born Americans was 123,769,000 or a net job growth of 245,000.....

...As Breitbart News has reported, in previous months net job growth since the recession had gone entirely to immigrants, with native-born Americans experiencing a net job loss."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... recession/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **Ibanez** » Sat May 09, 2015 6:25 pm

BDKJMU wrote:"MOST NET JOB GAINS WENT TO IMMIGRANTS SINCE RECESSION

.....In December 2007 the number of foreign-born workers was 22,810,000. By April 2015, the number had increased to 24,819,000 or a net job growth of more than 2 million.

For native-born workers that number in December 2007 was 123,524,000 by April of this year the number of employed native-born Americans was 123,769,000 or a net job growth of 245,000.....

...As Breitbart News has reported, in previous months net job growth since the recession had gone entirely to immigrants, with native-born Americans experiencing a net job loss."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... recession/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not going to read Breitbart. That site makes Fox News look neutral. But, what is the cause? Lower wages that Americans won't accept?

Post by **travelinman67** » Sat May 09, 2015 6:59 pm

Ibanez wrote:
BDKJMU wrote:"MOST NET JOB GAINS WENT TO IMMIGRANTS SINCE RECESSION

.....In December 2007 the number of foreign-born workers was 22,810,000. By April 2015, the number had increased to 24,819,000 or a net job growth of more than 2 million.

For native-born workers that number in December 2007 was 123,524,000 by April of this year the number of employed native-born Americans was 123,769,000 or a net job growth of 245,000.....

...As Breitbart News has reported, in previous months net job growth since the recession had gone entirely to immigrants, with native-born Americans experiencing a net job loss."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... recession/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'm not going to read Breitbart. That site makes Fox News look neutral. But, what is the cause? Lower wages that Americans won't accept?

Kalm

Lite

Post by **Ibanez** » Sat May 09, 2015 7:16 pm

travelinman67 wrote:
Ibanez wrote:
I'm not going to read Breitbart. That site makes Fox News look neutral. But, what is the cause? Lower wages that Americans won't accept?
Kalm

Lite

No. I won't read it for the same reason you would dismiss HuffPo.

Post by **Grizalltheway** » Sat May 09, 2015 7:59 pm

Ibanez wrote:
travelinman67 wrote:
Kalm

Lite

No. I won't read it for the same reason you would dismiss HuffPo.

But that's DIFFERENT! Commie.

Post by **travelinman67** » Sat May 09, 2015 9:53 pm

Ibanez wrote:
travelinman67 wrote:
Kalm

Lite

No. I won't read it for the same reason you would dismiss HuffPo.

Wrong again, Illiterato.

I read Huffpo daily, along with about 20+ other news services. And although rare, I have cited Huffpo.

Once again, please dispute the actual data cited by BDKJMU, as posted by Breitbart.

You won't.

Because you can't.

Next.

CID1990 · Post by **CID1990** » Sun May 10, 2015 4:20 am

Ibanez wrote:
travelinman67 wrote:
Kalm

Lite

No. I won't read it for the same reason you would dismiss HuffPo.

Ive found that reading huffpo, slate, and the atlantic is quite enlightening

rolling stone is a good source for lefty groupthink, too

then i read natty review and other similar magazines

George Carlin once said that he believed that the truth was somewhere between New Hampshire's "live free or DIE" and Idaho's "great potatoes"

I believe the same can be said of the clickbait online media, although I find that when they are talking about something I have real life experience with, natty review and the WSJ tend to be a little closer to it

houndawg · Post by **houndawg** » Sun May 10, 2015 4:59 am

CID1990 wrote:
Ibanez wrote:
No. I won't read it for the same reason you would dismiss HuffPo.
Ive found that reading huffpo, slate, and the atlantic is quite enlightening

rolling stone is a good source for lefty groupthink, too

then i read natty review and other similar magazines

George Carlin once said that he believed that the truth was somewhere between New Hampshire's "live free or DIE" and Idaho's "great potatoes"

I believe the same can be said of the clickbait online media, although I find that when they are talking about something I have real life experience with, natty review and the WSJ tend to be a little closer to it

Famous potatoes.

houndawg · Post by **houndawg** » Sun May 10, 2015 5:06 am

BDKJMU wrote:
CitadelGrad wrote:Part time jobs soared by 437K, full time jobs fell by 252K. As a result, wage growth fell from 0.2% Mar to 0.1% Apr. Labor participation rate @ 69.45%, lowest since 1977. March numbers revised downward (surprise, surprise).
Actually its worse than that.

"AMERICANS NOT IN LABOR FORCE HITS NEW RECORD HIGH: 93,194,000

...The labor force participation rate came in at 62.8 percent."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -93194000/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Meanwhile, the Real unemployment rate, the U6, stands at 10.8%....

Great if you're hiring.

Why does everybody make such a big deal about the labor participation rate? Wasn't that what the Industrial Revolution was about? Automated labor+exploding population=lots of people with nothing to do.

Some of you jokers will whine about anything. Why not be proactive and kneecap a banker?

Post by **Ibanez** » Sun May 10, 2015 1:09 pm

travelinman67 wrote:
Ibanez wrote:
No. I won't read it for the same reason you would dismiss HuffPo.
Wrong again, Illiterato.

I read Huffpo daily, along with about 20+ other news services. And although rare, I have cited Huffpo.

Once again, please dispute the actual data cited by BDKJMU, as posted by Breitbart.

You won't.

Because you can't.

Next.

Talk about illiterate. I haven't disputed a thing. I asked a question.

CID1990 · Post by **CID1990** » Mon May 11, 2015 6:32 am

houndawg wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
Ive found that reading huffpo, slate, and the atlantic is quite enlightening

rolling stone is a good source for lefty groupthink, too

then i read natty review and other similar magazines

George Carlin once said that he believed that the truth was somewhere between New Hampshire's "live free or DIE" and Idaho's "great potatoes"

I believe the same can be said of the clickbait online media, although I find that when they are talking about something I have real life experience with, natty review and the WSJ tend to be a little closer to it
Famous potatoes.

Shows you what I know about Idaho

Other than that no self respecting balck woman wants to be Miss I Da Ho in the USA pageant

Post by **Ibanez** » Mon May 11, 2015 8:07 am

travelinman67 wrote:
Ibanez wrote:
No. I won't read it for the same reason you would dismiss HuffPo.
Wrong again, Illiterato.

I read Huffpo daily, along with about 20+ other news services. And although rare, I have cited Huffpo.

Once again, please dispute the actual data cited by BDKJMU, as posted by Breitbart.

You won't.

Because you can't.

Next.

So, I never disputed the data but Breitbart didn't offer any evidence to explain it.

Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

5.4%

5.4%

Re: 5.4%

Re: 5.4%

Re: 5.4%

Re: 5.4%

Re: 5.4%

Re: 5.4%

Re: 5.4%

Re: 5.4%

Re: 5.4%

Re: 5.4%

Re: 5.4%

Re: 5.4%

Re: 5.4%

Re: 5.4%

Re: 5.4%

Re: 5.4%

Re: 5.4%

Re: 5.4%

Re: 5.4%

Re: 5.4%