sarktastic
New Fish
... or part time? And this is with 92 million not in the work force?
Welcome to Obama's Imerica
Welcome to Obama's Imerica
PALTRY PARTICIPATION
62.8%
The labor-force participation rate fell in August to 62.8% from 62.9% the prior month. The August rate matches the lowest level since the late 1970s. The smaller share of Americans participating in the workforce suggests the economy’s potential to grow is more limited today compared to previous decades. Fed economists, in a recent report, say that the decline in the share of Americans holding or seeking jobs is largely the product of longer-term factors such as a rising number of retirees rather than the aftermath of a particularly awful recession.
Well that's positive
“I’m skeptical that we’re going to see much of a bounce-back in labor force participation,” said Krueger. “A large share of the decline is a result of retirement.”
There were patches of improvement in today’s report. The number of Americans employed part-time because they couldn’t find full-time work dropped by 234,000 in August.
The underemployment rate -- which includes part-time workers who’d prefer a full-time position and people who want to work but have given up looking -- dropped to 12 percent, the lowest since October 2008, from 12.2 percent.
The number of long-term unemployed, those out of work for 27 weeks or more, totaled 2.96 million, the fewest since 2.7 million in January 2009.
Comparing numbers to 2009 is like comparing Sark to Ty.
60% of the people working is not good news. The Obama administration wouldn't have changed the way unemployment is counted if the numbers didn't suck so bad.
We're in recovery summer 5 now and the recovery is almost a phantom of the imagination of the 30% that still think Obama has a clue.
Matching the lowest rate since the 70's is horrible news no matter how you spin it. Now we need a Reagan to come along and clean things up.
Comparing numbers to 2009 is like comparing Sark to Ty.
60% of the people working is not good news. The Obama administration wouldn't have changed the way unemployment is counted if the numbers didn't suck so bad.
We're in recovery summer 5 now and the recovery is almost a phantom of the imagination of the 30% that still think Obama has a clue.
Matching the lowest rate since the 70's is horrible news no matter how you spin it. Now we need a Reagan to come along and clean things up.
2009 comparisons are valid because that was the end of the recession, no?
And what 60% are you talking about? The 62.8% participation rate? The participation rate has been in the 60s forever even during King Ronald the Great's reign.
![]()
http://bit.ly/1pUCS5eComparing numbers to 2009 is like comparing Sark to Ty.
60% of the people working is not good news. The Obama administration wouldn't have changed the way unemployment is counted if the numbers didn't suck so bad.
We're in recovery summer 5 now and the recovery is almost a phantom of the imagination of the 30% that still think Obama has a clue.
Matching the lowest rate since the 70's is horrible news no matter how you spin it. Now we need a Reagan to come along and clean things up.
2009 comparisons are valid because that was the end of the recession, no?
And what 60% are you talking about? The 62.8% participation rate? The participation rate has been in the 60s forever even during King Ronald the Great's reign.
![]()
What part of lowest since the 70's did you miss?
What end of the recession?
Comparing numbers to 2009 is like comparing Sark to Ty.
60% of the people working is not good news. The Obama administration wouldn't have changed the way unemployment is counted if the numbers didn't suck so bad.
We're in recovery summer 5 now and the recovery is almost a phantom of the imagination of the 30% that still think Obama has a clue.
Matching the lowest rate since the 70's is horrible news no matter how you spin it. Now we need a Reagan to come along and clean things up.
2009 comparisons are valid because that was the end of the recession, no?
And what 60% are you talking about? The 62.8% participation rate? The participation rate has been in the 60s forever even during King Ronald the Great's reign.
![]()
What part of lowest since the 70's did you miss?
What end of the recession?
http://bit.ly/1pUCS5eComparing numbers to 2009 is like comparing Sark to Ty.
60% of the people working is not good news. The Obama administration wouldn't have changed the way unemployment is counted if the numbers didn't suck so bad.
We're in recovery summer 5 now and the recovery is almost a phantom of the imagination of the 30% that still think Obama has a clue.
Matching the lowest rate since the 70's is horrible news no matter how you spin it. Now we need a Reagan to come along and clean things up.
2009 comparisons are valid because that was the end of the recession, no?
And what 60% are you talking about? The 62.8% participation rate? The participation rate has been in the 60s forever even during King Ronald the Great's reign.
![]()
What part of lowest since the 70's did you miss?
What end of the recession?