If this is your recovery, you can keep it

[billvon 2,998]

>That "93 million" is counting (roughly) 30 million people who are full time
>students and 40 million who are retired.

Right. And people who are on disability (10 million) and people who are raising children and are not working other jobs (12 million.) That accounts for 92 of those 93 million, assuming the above numbers (30 and 40 million) are correct. The remainder are people who are working off the books, and people who are wealthy and do not need to work.

[turtlespeed 221]

billvon

>No. Not retired people. Nice try. Figure is based on those who are working
>age and have dropped out of the workforce because they cannot find jobs

Here's the explanation from the article I linked to that you couldn't be bothered to read:

=======================
Refresher Course: Inside the Jobless Numbers

Are we undercounting the unemployment numbers—or overcounting? How the BLS gathers and calculates the numbers, and why it matters.

By GENE EPSTEIN
July 18, 2015
The unemployment rate has never been the object of as much attention from the markets and the media as it is now, sparked by the keen interest taken in its monthly fluctuations by policy makers at the Federal Reserve.

Despite the heightened focus, there are a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions about how the rate is calculated. Some people assume the Bureau of Labor Statistics compiles the rate from the unemployment-insurance rolls. On that basis, they fault the BLS for undercounting the unemployed. But that’s just one myth among many about this cornerstone measure of economic pain and labor-market slack.

To estimate the unemployment rate, the BLS actually relies on the monthly Current Population Survey conducted for it by the Census Bureau. While the data are highly imperfect in their own way, we think the Federal Reserve is right to view the official unemployment rate as the best available information, while also keeping its eye on ancillary measures of “labor underutilization.”

In fact, a close look at BLS methods suggests that, if anything, the official unemployment rate may be overcounting rather than undercounting the unemployed.

Let’s break it down. There are 2.2 million people currently receiving unemployment-insurance benefits, against a BLS estimate of 8.3 million unemployed as of June. As mentioned, the BLS arrived at that figure via the Current Population Survey (also known as the Household Survey), which consists of interviews with 60,000 households nationwide, done face to face and by telephone.

These households are a representative sample of those deemed eligible for employment: the “civilian noninstitutional population” 16 and over, where “civilian” excludes the armed forces, and “noninstitutional” excludes people in prison, hospitals, mental institutions, and nursing homes.

According to the June figures, that came to 250.6 million people: 148.7 million employed, and 101.9 million not employed. Of those 101.9 million, 8.3 million were deemed unemployed, with the remaining 93.6 million listed as “not in the labor force.”
. . .

A word about those 93.6 million folks 16 and over who are neither employed nor unemployed, and thus “not in the labor force.”

Many nonparticipants are still in school, of course, and many others are retired. Many are on federal disability, legitimately or not, and probably supplementing their income by working off the books. Many are working in the illegal drug trade and in other illegal activities. Some are independently wealthy. Still others are busy raising their children and doing volunteer work—jobs that don’t pay.

Those who believe the unemployment rate is underestimating unemployment are in error.
=========================

I can see the math, I can see the figures.

Why isn't there any, or at least any I can find with google, independant figures?
Is there an oversight committee that verifies these figures?
Or do you just trust the government to lead you to these figures?

Do yall just completely dismiss these allegations?
http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/
Are they that preposterous?
I haven't seen them proven incorrect . . .

I simply do not trust the administration, especially one that would include HRC and Harry Reid.

I feel the need for the questions to be addressed and confirmed by an independent firm before they can be trusted..

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,027]

turtlespeed

I feel the need for the questions to be addressed and confirmed by an independent firm before they can be trusted..

I didn't trust GWB and Cheney, but I was prepared to believe their figures for US soldiers' deaths in Iraq.

You'd need a HUGE conspiracy to falsify data from a government agency. Too many people are involved, not all of whom are party hacks of either stripe. No way it can possibly happen.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

You didn't factcheck, did you? (Again)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 221]

kallend

You didn't factcheck, did you? (Again)

I'm too cynical to trust a single interweb site to give me my facts.
I look at several different sources.

There are enough questions around on all news sites that lead me to question the validity.

Are you of the mind that the government is above cover ups and hidden schemes?

I will admit that by bias against the far left extremes colors my questions. Are you willing to admit that your opinions are colored by your bias against conservatism?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 221]

kallend

You didn't factcheck, did you? (Again)

I tried to find out where Gallup stood politically, and was unable to find a difinitive answer.

I'm sure you will consider them to the right of center.

But then that depends on what you consider as center.

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[JerryBaumchen 1,369]

Hi turtle,

Quote

I simply do not trust the administration, especially one that would include . . . Harry Reid.

Harry Reid is not in the Obama administration. He is in the legislative branch of the gov't, not the executive branch.

Did you not know that?

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,998]

>Harry Reid is not in the Obama administration. He is in the legislative branch of
>the gov't, not the executive branch.

Did you "fact check" that? Because Reid seems like he should be in the administration. It feels truthy.

[turtlespeed 221]

billvon

>Harry Reid is not in the Obama administration. He is in the legislative branch of
>the gov't, not the executive branch.

Did you "fact check" that? Because Reid seems like he should be in the administration. It feels truthy.

Yes - I misspoke.

or mis typed.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,465]

turtlespeed

***>Harry Reid is not in the Obama administration. He is in the legislative branch of
>the gov't, not the executive branch.

Did you "fact check" that? Because Reid seems like he should be in the administration. It feels truthy.

Yes - I misspoke.

or mis typed.

So you looked it up on multiple websites and still got it wrong?

[turtlespeed 221]

SkyDekker

******>Harry Reid is not in the Obama administration. He is in the legislative branch of
>the gov't, not the executive branch.

Did you "fact check" that? Because Reid seems like he should be in the administration. It feels truthy.

Yes - I misspoke.

or mis typed.

So you looked it up on multiple websites and still got it wrong?

No. I lumped the elks together.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 2,027]

turtlespeed

***You didn't factcheck, did you? (Again)

I'm too cynical to trust a single interweb site to give me my facts.
I look at several different sources.



I'm not writing of internet sites. To get a whole government agency to falsify data is just about impossible because someone is going to leak.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

turtlespeed

I will admit that by bias against the far left extremes colors my questions. Are you willing to admit that your opinions are colored by your bias against conservatism?

don't hold your breath - one side is pure evil, the other is all light and unicorns and happy shiny hope


the complete inability to acknowledge that both sides are -
generally populated by good people with good intentions (yet tragically poor ability to link to horrific long term impacts) - and specifically led by, essentially, pure evil power mad tyrants -

is the main reason we'll keep sliding into poverty and extreme crapulence and relatively poor personal hygiene. except for CrW dogs - they won't really notice the difference

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Bolas 5]

rehmwa

***I will admit that by bias against the far left extremes colors my questions. Are you willing to admit that your opinions are colored by your bias against conservatism?

don't hold your breath - one side is pure evil, the other is all light and unicorns and happy shiny hope


And both think they're the "good" one.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,998]

>don't hold your breath - one side is pure evil, the other is all light and unicorns
>and happy shiny hope

Evil gets a bad rap here. And I heard that unicorns are criminals, drug dealers and rapists.

[normiss 803]

Some here might even refer to them as "thugs".

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>don't hold your breath - one side is pure evil, the other is all light and unicorns
>and happy shiny hope

Evil gets a bad rap here. And I heard that unicorns are criminals, drug dealers and rapists.

why are you such a 'unicornist'?

do you just hate pegasi because of the wings?

typical

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[normiss 803]

You try cleaning up glittery rainbow poop.

[turtlespeed 221]

normiss

You try cleaning up glittery rainbow poop.

Voldemort was a lefty and he drank unicorn blood.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rehmwa 2]

normiss

You try cleaning up glittery rainbow poop.

can't - pisses off the union thugs, I don't want my thumbs broke....again

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

Only 63% of those of working age in the workforce

Maybe you will believe the Washington (com)Post?

Or the highly neutral politifact?

Only 63% of those of working age in the workforce

Maybe you will believe the Washington (com)Post?

Or the highly neutral politifact?

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economy-added-169k-jobs-in-august-as-the-recovery-grinds-along/2013/09/06/696820dc-16ef-11e3-a2ec-b47e45e6f8ef_story.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

The grinding pace of recovery has hollowed out the workforce. Government data showed that only 63.2 percent of working-age Americans have a job or are looking for one, the lowest proportion since 1978. Nearly 90 million people are now considered out of the labor force, up 1.7 million from August 2012.

Cant wait to see how this is refuted /popcorn

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[rushmc 23]

Anvilbrother

Quote

The grinding pace of recovery has hollowed out the workforce. Government data showed that only 63.2 percent of working-age Americans have a job or are looking for one, the lowest proportion since 1978. Nearly 90 million people are now considered out of the labor force, up 1.7 million from August 2012.

Cant wait to see how this is refuted /popcorn

The report is linked in the article too

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,998]

>Only 63% of those of working age in the workforce

Sounds about right based on the 93 million number. The remainder are on disability, taking care of kids (or doing some other unpaid job) too wealthy to have to work, retired early, or working illegally and not reporting it. See my post above.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Only 63% of those of working age in the workforce

Sounds about right based on the 93 million number. The remainder are on disability, taking care of kids (or doing some other unpaid job) too wealthy to have to work, retired early, or working illegally and not reporting it. See my post above.

Your post above is in error
Just like your post about wages

Speaking of working illegally
Of the jobs reported created last month?
There is another number that states that more us citizens lost their jobs than the number that was created

I wonder who is working those jobs then?
Seems like you know that already

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln