Mango smacked you around like a bitch.
Head trauma!!! Lmao. Wonder why you or con man joe backed out of bets on disability and soup kitchens. You're too dumb to understand he is conning you. But deep down...you both know....which is why you are both scared shitless to show your faces anywhere I am.
Big alpha males. Lmao
come on Ace get with the program don't quote his post to reply nothing to see in them anyway
02-03-2017, 03:10 PM<input type="checkbox" class="postimod" id="post_imod_checkbox_12028101" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 10.89px; position: absolute; right: 10px; top: 5px;">
vitterd
RX Local
[h=2]This message is hidden because vitterd is on your ignore list.[/h]View Post
Remove user from ignore list
02-03-2017, 03:10 PM<input type="checkbox" class="postimod" id="post_imod_checkbox_12028101" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-family: Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 10.89px; position: absolute; right: 10px; top: 5px;">
vitterd
RX Local
[h=2]This message is hidden because vitterd is on your ignore list.[/h]View Post
Remove user from ignore list
<
for those unaware the participation rate is the percentage of the population over 16 years old and actually working.
unemployment rate = (people on unemployment+people working)/people on unemployment
basically unemployment doesn't count the people out of work that don't get unemployment check.
Wont the participation rate go down because the baby boomers are now retired? They meet the criteria of being over 16 but not working. Thus you should see that curve going down irrespective of either president or political affiliation. To be a more effective measure it would need to take that out of the equation.
No,
actually it refers to the number of people who are either employed or are actively looking for work.
- The labor force participation rate is the percentage of the population that is either employed or unemployed (that is, either working or actively seeking work)
- People with jobs are employed.
- People who are jobless, looking for a job, and available for work are unemployed.
- The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed.
| Total population | 24,512,311 |
| Military personnel | (98,539) |
| People below 16 years of age | (4,240,102) |
| People in elderly care centers | (1,232,130) |
| Non-institutionalized civilian population (A) | 18,941,540 |
<tbody style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">
</tbody>
| Non-institutionalized civilian population (A) | 18,941,540 |
| House wives whose sole activity is home-making | (3,424,204) |
| People who did not look for job in last 4 weeks | (831,304) |
| Volunteers | (313,200) |
| Labor force (B) | 14,372,832 |
<tbody style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">
</tbody>
| Labor force participation rate (B/A) | 75.88% |
<tbody style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;">
</tbody>
Looks like a dumb measure. The only way it goes higher if there are less home makers (which can happen if they need to make money and join the workforce), or if they volunteer and no longer volunteer or if the number of people without a job.....just look for a job.
Would not be a metric to put much credence in terms of how effective any president or administration is. In the 1950's and 1960's the house wives number was significantly higher. My wife didnt work for a period of time when our kids were younger.....by choice.....had nothing to do with who was in office.
Terrible arguement by whoever posted this.
Would not be a metric to put much credence in terms of how effective any president or administration is. In the 1950's and 1960's the house wives number was significantly higher. My wife didnt work for a period of time when our kids were younger.....by choice.....had nothing to do with who was in office.
Terrible arguement by whoever posted this.
