Unemployment Down In Every State For The First Time In 30 Years Under President Obama

[Embers84]

Unemployment Down In Every State For The First Time In 30 Years Under President Obama


Economic News Release

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/srgune.nr0.htm


Regional and State Unemployment, 2014 Annual Average Summary

For release 10:00 a.m. (EST) Wednesday, March 4, 2015 USDL-15-0323



REGIONAL AND STATE UNEMPLOYMENT -- 2014 ANNUAL AVERAGES


In 2014, annual average unemployment rates declined in all 50 states and the District
of Columbia, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment-population
ratios increased in 35 states and the District of Columbia, decreased in 12 states, and
were unchanged in 3 states. The U.S. jobless rate decreased by 1.2 percentage points
to 6.2 percent in 2014, while the national employment-population ratio increased by
0.4 point to 59.0 percent.

Regional Unemployment

All four regions had annual average unemployment rate declines from 2013, with the
Midwest and Northeast having the largest decreases (-1.4 percentage points each). The
Midwest, at 5.8 percent, had the lowest regional unemployment rate in 2014, while the
West, at 6.8 percent, had the highest rate. (See table 1.)

Among the nine geographic divisions, the West North Central had the lowest annual
average unemployment rate, 4.6 percent in 2014. The Pacific had the highest jobless rate,
7.2 percent. All nine divisions had over-the-year unemployment rate declines, the largest
of which occurred in the East North Central (-1.7 percentage points) and Middle Atlantic
(-1.5 points).



State Unemployment

Annual average unemployment rates decreased from 2013 to 2014 in all 50 states and the
District of Columbia. This was the first year since 1984 in which all states and the
District had over-the-year rate declines. The largest rate decline occurred in Illinois
(-2.0 percentage points), followed by Colorado, North Carolina, and Ohio (-1.8 points
each). Twenty additional states had over-the-year jobless rate decreases of at least
1.0 percentage point.

North Dakota had the lowest annual average unemployment rate (2.8 percent) in 2014.
Nebraska (3.3 percent) and South Dakota (3.4 percent) had the next lowest jobless rates.
Eleven additional states had annual average unemployment rates under 5.0 percent.
Mississippi and Nevada had the highest jobless rates (7.8 percent each) among the states,
followed by Rhode Island (7.7 percent). The District of Columbia also had a jobless rate
of 7.8 percent.

Regional Employment-Population Ratios

In 2014, all four regions had over-the-year increases in their employment-population
ratios--the proportion of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years of age and
older who are employed. The Midwest had the largest increase (+0.8 percentage point).
The Midwest also had the highest employment-population ratio, 61.3 percent, while the
South had the lowest, 57.9 percent. (See table 2.)

Eight of the 9 geographic divisions had over-the-year increases in their employment-
population ratios, with the largest of these occurring in the East North Central
(+1.0 percentage point). The East South Central had the only ratio decline over the
year (-0.9 percentage point). The West North Central had the highest proportion of
employed persons, 65.3 percent in 2014, while the East South Central had the lowest
proportion, 53.6 percent.

State Employment-Population Ratios

In 2014, Hawaii and Indiana had the largest over-the-year increases in their employment-
population ratios (+1.4 percentage points each), followed by Louisiana (+1.2 points)
and Connecticut (+1.1 points). Sixteen additional states had increases of at least
0.5 percentage point. Mississippi and Tennessee had the largest decreases in their
employment-population ratios (-1.2 percentage points each). Four other states had
declines of at least 0.5 percentage point.

North Dakota had the highest proportion of employed persons, 70.8 percent in 2014.
Four other states in the West North Central division had the next highest ratios:
Nebraska, 68.9 percent; Iowa, 67.3 percent; Minnesota, 67.0 percent; and South Dakota,
66.9 percent. West Virginia had the lowest employment-population ratio among the states,
49.7 percent. West Virginia has had the lowest employment-population ratio each year
since the series began in 1976. Three states had the lowest employment-population
ratios in their series in 2014: Kentucky, 54.8 percent; Mississippi, 50.1 percent;
and New Mexico, 53.6 percent.

_____________
The Regional and State Employment and Unemployment news release for January 2015 is scheduled to be released on Tuesday, March 17, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. (EDT).

The Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment news release for January 2015 is scheduled to be released on Friday, March 20, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. (EDT).

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/srgune.nr0.htm

 

[Tenacity]

Embers,

The Labor Participation Rate is horrible, the worse in decades.

 

[( . )( . )]

Libstain shill back on it's SS rotation.

I notice you've gone from claiming 96% of working age Americans are currently employed crackup to bullsh!t figures by state.

 

[Tictac]

The slowest recovery since The Great Depression and lowest labor participation rates since world War II.

See embers, anyone can cherry pick numbers.

You don't know what you are talking about, you are just vomiting proglib pap.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Here's something that's even more interesting.

16 million Americans have dropped out of the labor force in the last 10 years: The growth of long-term unemployment, low wage labor, and distorted employment figures.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

The amount of outright blatant lies in "official" statistics is absolutely disgusting.

What's even more disgusting is if somebody is unemployed, all their friends are unemployed, they see these numbers and STILL believe them.

I honestly think the U.S. is so far gone there's some kind of collective cognitive dissonance happening.

 

[Leporello]

1. Some of the decline in the labor participation rate is due to people retiring. Ever hear of the Baby Boomers?

2. The decline on the LFPR started well before Obama came into office - but we wouldn't want to actually consider its causes, would we? Nah, let's just blame OBUMMER.

3. The books are cooked!!! Benghazi! Solyndra! Wheres the birth certificate!?!?

 

[Tenacity]

I'm in BOLD

1. Some of the decline in the labor participation rate is due to people retiring. Ever hear of the Baby Boomers?

Not to this extent, the main issue with the labor participation rate is the fact that the economy is changing to a Specialized Skill Economy where the good careers (middle class and up) will be in relation to the STEM fields of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math founded careers. So the divide is getting worse.

2. The decline on the LFPR started well before Obama came into office - but we wouldn't want to actually consider its causes, would we? Nah, let's just blame OBUMMER.

No it's not Obama's fault, it's not the fault of any one politician, but we have had horrible trade policies and other policies over the last 30 years that have contributed to this mess.


3. The books are cooked!!! Benghazi! Solyndra! Wheres the birth certificate!?!?

 

[Embers84]

The U.S. Recovered From The Recession Faster Than Every Country But Germany

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/10/us-economic-recovery_n_4935182.html





Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhar...performs-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/


This is the best private sector jobs creation performance in American history.

President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President. So we compared his performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 1980s with that of President Obama and his performance during this ‘Great Recession.’

As this unemployment chart shows, President Obama’s job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan.

President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his sixth year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite today’s number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration.

“We forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015. A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms.”

What’s now clear is that the Obama administration policies have outperformed the Reagan administration policies for job creation and unemployment reduction. Even though Reagan had the benefit of a growing Boomer class to ignite economic growth, while Obama has been forced to deal with a retiring workforce developing special needs. During the eight years preceding Obama there was a net reduction in jobs in America. We now are rapidly moving toward higher, sustainable jobs growth.

When President Obama took office America was gripped in an offshoring boom, started years earlier, pushing jobs to the developing world. Manufacturing was declining in America, and plants were closing across the nation.

This week the Institute for Supply Management(ISM) released its manufacturing report, and it surprised nearly everyone. The latest Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) scored 59, two points higher than July and about that much higher than prognosticators expected. This represents 63 straight months of economic expansion, and 25 consecutive months of manufacturing expansion.

Economically, President Obama’s administration has outperformed President Reagan’s in all commonly watched categories. Simultaneously the current administration has reduced the deficit, which skyrocketed under Reagan. Additionally, Obama has reduced federal employment, which grew under Reagan (especially when including military personnel,) and truly delivered a “smaller government.” Additionally, the current administration has kept inflation low, even during extreme international upheaval, failure of foreign economies (Greece) and a dramatic slowdown in the European economy.





Barack Obama says U.S. economy is creating jobs at fastest pace since 1999

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-says-us-economy-creating-jobs-fastest/

The economy is "creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999."— Barack Obama on Tuesday, January 20th, 2015 in the State of the Union address

True



President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address was notable for its celebratory language about the state of the economy, following a recovery that was widely considered long and slow.

Here’s one of the claims Obama made: "Tonight, after a breakthrough year for America, our economy is growing and creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999."

We initially read this to mean that both the economy and the number of jobs had been growing at the fastest pace since 1999. That would have been a problematic claim, since the final figures for growth in gross domestic product in 2014 aren’t in yet. However, when we asked the White House press office for clarification, they responded that the president was making two separate claims -- first, that the economy is growing, and second, that the United States is creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999.

The first of those claims is clearly true -- except for one quarter of negative growth in the first quarter of 2014, the economy has been expanding -- but we weren’t sure about the second part. So we decided to take a closer look at Obama’s claim that the economy is "creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999."

Looking at job growth over the course of the calendar year

We looked at total nonfarm employment from December of one year to December of the next, using official figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here’s what we found:

Time period
Total job growth

Dec. 1998 to Dec. 1999
3,177,000

Dec. 1999 to Dec. 2000
1,946,000

Dec. 2000 to Dec. 2001
- 1,735,000

Dec. 2001 to Dec. 2002
- 508,000

Dec. 2002 to Dec. 2003
105,000

Dec. 2003 to Dec. 2004
2,033,000

Dec. 2004 to Dec. 2005
2,506,000

Dec. 2005 to Dec. 2006
2,085,000

Dec. 2006 to Dec. 2007
1,140,000

Dec. 2007 to Dec. 2008
- 3,576,000

Dec. 2008 to Dec. 2009
- 5,087,000

Dec. 2009 to Dec. 2010
1,058,000

Dec. 2010 to Dec. 2011
2,083,000

Dec. 2011 to Dec. 2012
2,236,000

Dec. 2012 to Dec. 2013
2,331,000

Dec. 2013 to Dec. 2014
2,952,000


So Obama’s on target: The job growth during calendar year 2014 was higher than any year going back to 1999.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...
So Obama’s on target: The job growth during calendar year 2014 was higher than any year going back to 1999.

This is akin to giving Californians an award for not using as much water as any other state in the nation without taking into account that they're having a massive drought.

 

[dasein]

Cite more Huffington post and Hartung blogs, both irredeemably partisan biased.

Congratulating Obama on job numbers is like congratulating a serial killer who killed 10 people a year since 2008 for only killing 2 so far this year.

 

[Embers84]

Cite more Huffington post and Hartung blogs, both irredeemably partisan biased.

Actual government archived data statistics that are reported by Huffington and Forbes are not partisan biased. They can be viewed on any government data site, which shows the same exact numbers as they reported.

Also politifact a non partisan group, has confirmed that President Obama was correct when he stated that U.S. economy is creating jobs at fastest pace since 1999 which shows a good strong recovery. Bush and his failed republican policies, who was the worst job creating President in history, never accomplished Obama's feat of 60+ months of private sector job growth or created as many jobs as Obama has. In fact, Bush was losing 200,000 - 500,000 jobs a month, leading us to a near Great Depression. Then you have republican candidates, who want to drag us back to those dark days once again.

The slowest recovery since The Great Depression.

First of all, if Bush didn't lead us into a near Great Depression with his failed republican economics, there would be no need for a recovery of this nature.

You guys act like Bush handed Obama a pristine economy and he ruined it with his policies. It was Bush's sh1tty policies that destroyed our economy, and it was up to Obama to fix it with his. Our country is in better shape today, than when Obama came into office the day Bush left.

Second, the U.S. economy under President Obama, is creating the most jobs since 1999, when President Bill Clinton lead with the greatest job creation and recovery in history cleaning up Reagan's and Bush's debt and mess. So, that is saying something, not to mention, the U.S. has recovered faster than any country besides Germany.

Third, if the GOP didn't block Obama's jobs bills, including a bill to stop outsourcing jobs to countries like India and China, the recovery would even be better creating millions of more jobs.

So as usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

Embers,

The Labor Participation Rate is horrible, the worse in decades.

lowest labor participation rates since world War II.

So what? The Labor Participation Rate has nothing to do with a President, and it will continue to be low until the year 2030. This is just an useless right wing talking point trying to discredit the President that you right wingers parrot.

A President has no control over the participation rate, he can not force you to work if you decide not to work. A President has no control if a person leaves the work force to go back to school to get skills for a better job. A President has no control if a person decides to retire. All of those factors determine the numbers in the Labor Participation Rate.

The President's only job is to make jobs available to people who want them and are willing to work.

For years, every economist, politician, media reporter, anybody with half a brain knew that the Labor Participation Rate would be in decline from the years 2011- 2030, due to the largest segment of the population retiring which are the baby boomers. Every economist predicted that the rate would be at the lowest in our history during this time, dropping the normal participation rate. The participation rate was at the highest peak during the years all the boomers were working. Boomers have been retiring since 2011, and have been dropping the participation rate number ever since. For right wingers to use that as a stat to blame Obama is a joke, when no matter who is President, will have lower participation rate numbers until the year 2030.


Here is a look at it in detail.


Labor Force Participation Rate in the United States decreased to 62.70 percent in March of 2015 from 62.80 percent in February of 2015. Labor Force Participation Rate in the United States averaged 63.01 percent from 1950 until 2015, reaching an all time high of 67.30 percent in January of 2000 and a record low of 58.10 percent in December of 1954. Labor Force Participation Rate in the United States is reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate

63.01 percent from 1950 until 2015
62.70 percent in March of 2015
58.10 percent in December of 1954

You can clearly see the average rate was 63.01% and has dropped a little off to 62.70% in March of 2015. The decline in the rate is contributed to the start of the oldest baby boomers retiring which was expected to happen.

For right wingers to make this an issue is a complete joke.




http://www.businessinsider.com/baby-boomers-are-retiring-2014-2




Baby Boomers' Impact on Participation Rate Big, Expected

Retirements account for nearly half of the fall in the participation rate

Aging baby boomers, those Americans born between 1946 and 1964, account for approximately half of the drop in the labor force participation rate since 2007, according to a report released Thursday from the White House Council of Economic Advisers. The remaining decline stems from “cyclical factors” fairly typical of historic economic recessions and more difficult-to-explain “residual factors” from the crisis.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-big-part-of-labor-participation-rate-decline



Baby Boomers Retire

Here's a look at what you need to know about the Baby Boomer generation, the generation of Americans born between 1946, the end of World War II, and 1964. They are the largest generation of Americans born in U.S. history.

Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years.

On January 1, 2011, the oldest Baby Boomers will turn 65. Every day for the next 19 years, about 10,000 more will cross that threshold. By 2030, when all Baby Boomers will have turned 65, fully 18% of the nation’s population will be at least that age, according to Pew Research Center population projections.

Today, just 13% of Americans are ages 65 and older.

The 79 million member Baby Boomer generation accounts for 26% of the total U.S. population. By force of numbers alone, they almost certainly will redefine old age in America, just as they’ve made their mark on teen culture, young adult life and middle age.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/12/20/baby-boomers-approach-65-glumly/




What Baby Boomers’ Retirement Means For the U.S. Economy

For decades, the retirement of the baby boom generation has been a looming economic threat. Now, it’s no longer looming — it’s here. Every month, more than a quarter-million Americans turn 65. That’s a trend with profound economic consequences. Simply put, retirees don’t contribute as much to the economy as workers do. They don’t produce anything, at least directly. They don’t spend as much on average. And they’re much more likely to depend on others — the government or their own children, most often — than to support themselves.

The recession may have delayed the inevitable for a time. The financial crisis wiped away billions in retirement savings, forcing many Americans to work longer than planned. But the stock market has since rebounded, and there are signs that more Americans are at last feeling confident enough to leave the workforce. The labor force participation rate for older Americans — the share of those 55 and older who are working or actively looking for work — has fallen over the past year after rising through the recession and early years of the recovery. Roughly 17 percent of baby boomers now report that they are retired, up from 10 percent in 2010.1

Now that the wave has begun, nothing is likely to stop it. The Census Bureau on Tuesday released a pair of reports that show just how dramatic an impact the graying of the population will have in coming decades.

Nearly a quarter of Americans were born between 1946 and 1964, the typical definition of the baby boom generation. That’s more than 75 million people. In their heyday, the boomers were an unprecedented economic force, pushing up rates of homeownership, consumer spending and, most important of all, employment. It’s no coincidence that the U.S. labor force participation rate — the share of the adult population that has a job or is trying to find one — hit a record high in the late 1990s, when the boomers were at the peak of their working lives.

It’s been downhill ever since. The participation rate hit a 36-year low last month, and while there are multiple reasons for the decline, the aging of the baby boom generation is a dominant factor. In 2003, 82 percent of boomers were part of the labor force; a decade later, that number has declined to 66 percent, and it will only continue to fall.

All else equal, fewer workers means less economic growth. One way to measure this is a figure known as the “dependency ratio,” or the number of people outside of working age (under 18 or over 64) per 100 adults between age 18 and 64.2 The higher the ratio, the worse the news: If more of the population is young or old that leaves fewer working-age people to support them and contribute to the economy.

The U.S. dependency ratio has been improving in recent decades, falling from 65 in 1980 to 61 in 2000 to 59 in 2010. But now the trend is set to reverse. By 2020, the Census Bureau estimates, the U.S. dependency ratio will be back to 65; in 2030, it will be 75, the worst since the 1960s and 1970s, when the baby boomers were children.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-baby-boomers-retirement-means-for-the-u-s-economy/

 

[Tictac]

Love the way your posts get longer and longer as you get your a** handed to you by reality Embers.

It's your 'tell'.

LOL

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Love the way your posts get longer and longer as you get your a** handed to you by reality Embers.

It's your 'tell'.

LOL

BUSTED!!! :crackup:

 

[Poonani Maker]

I've been workin HARD for over a decade now, and make pretty well beyond the nat'l average. While I ain't "hurtin'" it simply amazes me that IF I didn't make what I make, then I'd feel pretty damn hopeless of ever getting ahead. I mean, I see others with so much and wonder "How?" Because I am workin HARD all these years and (because of the COST of everything going up Even while the dollar rises) not given up (like many have), I can still only buy a "big" thing maybe once every 7 or 8 years. I see so many buyin "big" things once every 1 or 2 years and I KNOW they ain't pullin in what I'm pullin in, so my question is "How do they Do it?" Is it inheritance? Is it the combined income of a marriage (where these days a woman makes as much or more than the husband)? and then there's the baby boom aged people who are riding high at the moment because the stock exchange is at peak levels, so THEY are buying the 400 to 600K homes. I read where, in the "recovery" Most of the homes being built are the "over $350K homes" and not the "starter" homes or middle-ground homes. And we know that millenials don't buy homes (or cars for that matter) because they are sooo ransacked with tuition and/or house-note sized debt from that.

So to just TRY and have a GOOD job, and you are Still almost like running on a hamster wheel, barely able to save much (for a "big" purchase, at least). So I am on the TryHard side (I guess middle class as they say), while others are on the "I give up" side. THEN there's the "we don't have to Work" side because of "who our families are" or "I'm incredibly determined to sacrifice and Risk it all to be exceptional and make it BIG, with my indelible influence from my big brain" side. The people who are able to Forge a way to Big Gains financially are the geniuses. I am not that, and did not want to put that much faith in myself to place that much risk on myself to do what most others can't do (run a successful business). I work with people who Do (for over a decade or more) remain in business for themselves and are content with whatever they're making (as it is working). These people clearly have the brains, even if "liberal" and dare I say "weird." Just some Odd odd rich people out there fellas. I mean where they almost Worship their fvckin little dogs and think of a human (like YOU) as just, Nothin. You are the Poor "help" haha, well, ok, but so you can make twice (or 3 and 4 times) as much as me because you're so smart or you got financing from your connections/family or whatever, eh, I really don't care, cause at least I am ABLE to buy a "big" ticket item every 7-10 years. I'm grateful for that, as I know that Many, MANY other Americans (and people world-wide) cannot based on the sheer HARD-knuckled work they perform day in and day out.

 

[Embers84]

Haha!! Yep, ass handed to Him over and over.

:crackup:

You're agreeing with a senile man who doesn't even know what he's talking about. That figures, because you had no idea what you were agreeing and disagreeing with yourself in that other thread. If you can read, you can see his ass got handed to him, and he is only projecting because he made an ass out of himself, just like you did again.

Love the way your posts get longer and longer as you get your a** handed to you by reality Embers.

It's your 'tell'.

LOL

Sorry old timer, but your ass got handed to you. You have no idea what you're talking about.

lowest labor participation rates since world War II

Your claim is that the current labor participation rate is the lowest since World War II. That is false, and you don't know what you're talking about parroting the propaganda from your right wing media.



Current Participation Rate
62.70 percent in March of 2015

Lowest Participation Rate
58.10 percent in December of 1954




The current rate is 62.70%

The lowest rate was 58.10% in 1954. That was not during World War II old man. So, it is not the lowest like you claim when the current rate is 62.70% higher than the 58.10% low in 1954. Your old ass got handed to you. What are you going to say now? :crackup:


Current Participation Rate
62.70 percent in March of 2015

Lowest Participation Rate
58.10 percent in December of 1954

Average Participation Rate
63.01 percent from 1950 until 2015


http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...icipation-rate


Labor Force Participation Rate in the United States decreased to 62.70 percent in March of 2015 from 62.80 percent in February of 2015. Labor Force Participation Rate in the United States averaged 63.01 percent from 1950 until 2015, reaching an all time high of 67.30 percent in January of 2000 and a record low of 58.10 percent in December of 1954. Labor Force Participation Rate in the United States is reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 

[Tictac]

If "The president has no control over the labor force participation rate" (your words Embers) which is the key determinant of the denominator of the unemployment rate, then he has no control over the labor force, the numerator of the unemployment rate.

Q.E.D.

Mouth breather.

 

[Embers84]

If "The president has no control over the labor force participation rate" (your words Embers) which is the key determinant of the denominator of the unemployment rate, then he has no control over the labor force, the numerator of the unemployment rate.

Q.E.D.

Mouth breather.

A President IS directly responsible for job creation and job loss. That directly affects the economy and unemployment rate, and somewhat affects the Labor Participation Rate.

A President is NOT directly responsible for the Labor Participation Rate, when other factors determine the rate like people retiring.

Retiring directly affects the labor participation rate, meaning the Labor Rate will decrease with each new retiree, which a President has NO control over.

The Baby Boomers are the largest segment of the U.S. population and are starting to retire by the thousands. The President can not control who decides to retire or not. Therefore, he is NOT directly responsible for that factor that determines the Labor Participation Rate.

What does it mean to participate? It means to join in. If a person is unwilling to join in and participate in the work force voluntarily, that is NOT the fault of a President. If a person voluntarily decides to drop out of the work force, that is NOT the fault of a President, since he can not force you to work.

For years, every economist and politician knew that the Labor Participation Rate would drop dramatically from 2011-2030 due to the boomers retiring. They are the main labor force in our country. You should know that as well old man, because you are one too.

Right Wingers like you, are trying to make this a bogus issue to blame Obama, when this was well known for years that it would happen. Making up lies saying it's "the lowest of all time of any President" when the stats show different. It is barely under the average, and the main reason it is, because of more people retiring due to their old age. That was expected to happen.

Keep on trying old man to use bogus issues because you have none. All you do is parrot your right wing TV and radio giving you false and biased information you recite like an idiot.

Dumb Ass.

 

[Tictac]

So being a left-wing, liberal progressive parrot is your thing. I was asking if you wanted a cracker pages ago.

Most of the people here started by trying to have a discussion.

You embers, in typical knee-jerk lefty fashion, puke up liberal left pap as though it does something other than identify you as a myopic fool.

You're my first 'ignore'. Bye.

 

[Embers84]

So being a left-wing, liberal progressive parrot is your thing. I was asking if you wanted a cracker pages ago.

Most of the people here started by trying to have a discussion.

You embers, in typical knee-jerk lefty fashion, puke up liberal left pap as though it does something other than identify you as a myopic fool.

You're my first 'ignore'. Bye.

Average Labor Participation Rate
63.01 percent from 1950 until 2015

Current Labor Participation Rate
62.70 percent in March of 2015

So, a 0.31% down tick in the Labor Participation Rate, due to old people retiring since there are more of them retiring now than ever before (and will continue to at huge rates until 2030), and you right wingers are trying to use that as an issue against Obama. That's really pathetic and proves that you and the right have nothing to use against Obama. Which is why you have nothing to say and are running away with egg on your face.

You're the fool, because you made yourself look like one each time you tried to argue with me. You never intended to have a decent discussion with me or with anybody here. All you do is throw out insults calling people names and you get mad when people return them in kind.

I'm not parroting anything, I simply look up and investigate information learning the facts before I come to a conclusion. I don't sit there like a zombie repeating what a bunch of right wing hacks tell me who are looking for ratings from gullible fools like you watching and listening on radio and TV. If more people investigated what the right tells them, they would see they are liars and would actually be informed instead of being misinformed as you are. The right are a bunch of sheep who believe everything that is told to them, but when they are challenged on those claims, they have no facts since they don't know any better.

I'm glad you're ignoring me, that way I won't have to read your insulting and delusional comments. Typical right winger, running away when they are hit with the truth and can't say anything but parting insults.