you anti trump guys really don't get it do you? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

directfiesta · 11-19-2016, 06:14 PM

51 folks not getting it !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

you can't figure out that America is sick to death of loudmouth assholes demanding free shit can you?

no one agrees with your loudmouth bullshit except you guys, and man o' man do you fucking cry. and you would rather see this country burn down than have anyone disagree with your hostile divisive bullshit.

maybe another time we can look around for the dumbest fucking laziest piece of shit in the US and we can go to that level, so the fuck doesn't feel bad bout himself. what a bunch of fucking boobs

Funny ... because his votes comes from country sides and farm land, which is heavily subsidized by ... the government ....

beerptrol · 11-19-2016, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gallag97

its weird how th group that claims understanding and viewing others opinion doesn't understand or attempt to view trumps opinions on the important aspects like business and trade etc...

Weird how you leave out his fear and hate mongering as part of his platform. There should be zero tolerence or understanding of that shit

noshit · 11-19-2016, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

You understand that Trump is a businessman, and buys ALL of his products from China, RIGHT?

As a businessman he knows damn well Apple cannot make it's iPhones in the US. If they did the prices would double. If Trump slaps a tariff on the same iPhones, the only change is the products become more expensive for the general population, resulting in less sales.

There you have it
Praise KEK

.

onwebcam · 11-19-2016, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

Nwe can do simple math. The amount of welfare recipients in the USA has been pretty consistent for the last 40 years. Crime is down for the last 20 years. Growth may never come back due to demographics. The stuff that you whine about is not real or is caused by some really huge changes that are not politically controlled. I think that is the divide. You guys are super uninformed as a group so it makes it hard to discuss things.

Loud mouths demanding free shit is your big beef? Employment figures have never been this good. Initial Jobless claims. Unemployment. So you are mad at welfare? Food stamps? Social Security? Not sure what the real thing is.

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) calculates the number of citizens in the Civilian Labor Force (persons classified as Employed or Unemployed) at 157,833,000 (49% of the U.S. population) and in the Not-in-Labor-Force citizens at 94,610,000 (29% of the population)."

The "Not-in-Labor-Force" is the highest it's been in nearly 40 years. As usual they just moved figures around to make the unemployment figures look good

Notice that figures takes a huge dive during Obama's Presidency.

Bladewire · 11-19-2016, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Nearly a half don't work and/or are on the government tit. You guess which half voted for whom.

You and I know a lot if country folk out of work fake disability and stay on it for life working under the table to scam the system. Let's not pretend it's blacks & illegals cheating the system, or that they are the majority, they aren't ;)

onwebcam · 11-19-2016, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

You and I know a lot if country folk out of work fake disability and stay on it for life working under the table to scam the system. Let's not pretend it's blacks & illegals cheating the system, or that they are the majority, they aren't ;)

Did I say black or illegals? I know a bunch of out of work college debt ridden white liberals. In fact I know A LOT more of them than I do government leeches.

noshit · 11-19-2016, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

You and I know a lot if country folk out of work fake disability and stay on it for life working under the table to scam the system. Let's not pretend it's blacks & illegals cheating the system, or that they are the majority, they aren't ;)

I thought it was the fear and hate mongering... But this Country Folk under the table thing seems Much More Efficient..!

0 taxes under 40k income will really add to the cheating
That bad, Bad Trump

.

beerptrol · 11-19-2016, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

You and I know a lot if country folk out of work fake disability and stay on it for life working under the table to scam the system. Let's not pretend it's blacks & illegals cheating the system, or that they are the majority, they aren't ;)

You forget that those are good white, straight , christians who like to blame others for their problems

Bladewire · 11-19-2016, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Did I say black or illegals? I know a bunch of out of work college debt ridden white liberals. In fact I know A LOT more of them than I do government leeches.

Student loans are evil and should all be erased and forgiven. Banks enslaving the youth, Anti American

onwebcam · 11-19-2016, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

Student loans are evil and should all be erased and forgiven. Banks enslaving the youth, Anti American

Obama changed that so now it's government enslavement. And while many think it's a good thing but have a look here and see what happens when government gets involved

woj · 11-19-2016, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

Student loans are evil and should all be erased and forgiven. Banks enslaving the youth, Anti American

why do you think loans should be forgiven? you don't see anything wrong with borrowing $$$ and then not paying it back? ...speaking of loans... can I borrow a $1000?

johnnyloadproductions · 11-19-2016, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

why do you think loans should be forgiven? you don't see anything wrong with borrowing $$$ and then not paying it back? ...speaking of loans... can I borrow a $1000?

Dewd, seriously, if you got a penny for every time you posted on this crazy forum you'd be at $475.49, almost halfway to thousand.

johnnyloadproductions · 11-19-2016, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Obama changed that so now it's government enslavement. And while many think it's a good thing but have a look here and see what happens when government gets involved

A lot of those people will never get credentials that are worth a damn. I've got a hot liberal friend who is in her senior year that has over $70k in loans. Yuck!

woj · 11-19-2016, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyloadproductions

Dewd, seriously, if you got a penny for every time you posted on this crazy forum you'd be at $475.49, almost halfway to thousand.

a lot easier to just borrow a $1000 from some sucker, then get that loan "forgiven"... perhaps you are up for some short term $1000 loan yourself?

Bladewire · 11-19-2016, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

why do you think loans should be forgiven? you don't see anything wrong with borrowing $$$ and then not paying it back? ...speaking of loans... can I borrow a $1000?

I didn't say loans, I said student loans, and you know exactly why, they're a bank scam. Unlike the Trump fanboys here (with multiple fake nicks) you're a Trump supporter that's smart and posts from your own knowledge and with thought. You're also a fiscal conservative like me, which I like

Bladewire · 11-19-2016, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Obama changed that so now it's government enslavement. And while many think it's a good thing but have a look here and see what happens when government gets involved

The privatized student loan problem started long before Obama and it's not a partisan issue.

onwebcam · 11-19-2016, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

I didn't say loans, I said student loans, and you know exactly why, they're a bank scam. Unlike the Trump fanboys here (with multiple fake nicks) you're a Trump supporter that's smart and posts from your own knowledge and with thought. You're also a fiscal conservative like me, which I like

It is a fact the reason college is so expensive is because of government grants. To receive the grants the colleges have to set the price of tuition higher and higher. Now government has taken over student loans and made the price even higher. The colleges themselves aren't hurting for cash and that's why tuition increases. Most of them are sitting on mountains of cash because of this. 10 Universities With the Biggest Endowments

woj · 11-19-2016, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

I didn't say loans, I said student loans, and you know exactly why, they're a bank scam. Unlike the Trump fanboys here (with multiple fake nicks) you're a Trump supporter that's smart and posts from your own knowledge and with thought. You're also a fiscal conservative like me, which I like

why are they a scam? it's a loan like any other, only differences are that:

1. often interest rates are subsidized by the government
2. can't be discharged in bankruptcy (for obvious reasons)

and to put things in perspective, according to that chart someone posted earlier, average person graduates with $35k debt... which seems like a significant amount, but if you spread it out over your entire career, it works out to <$1000/year, which works out to <2% of one's income...

Bladewire · 11-19-2016, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

why are they a scam? it's a loan like any other, only differences are that:

1. often interest rates are subsidized by the government
2. can't be discharged in bankruptcy (for obvious reasons)

and to put things in perspective, according to that chart someone posted earlier, average person graduates with $35k debt... which seems like a significant amount, but if you spread it out over your entire career, it works out to <$1000/year, which works out to <2% of one's income...

Do you have student loans? I'm thinking you're not talking from experience. There's a whole black market of "loan servicing" where loans are repacked & resold and you start paying a new company, sometimes at a new rate. When you ask to see the documents of your loan transfer it's near impossible. No authorization, No documentation from loan inception, old servicer to new servicer but the loan amount increases with no itemization. I've personally gone through this and I'm too chill right now to go into more detail and get stressed lol

It's a racket that benefits the banks & loan servicers. The only loan that can't be forgiven, give me win for the banks & interest builds on interest year after year so $40k turns to $60k Real quick

Barry-xlovecam · 11-19-2016, 08:15 PM

Why is it right for Trump, (all businesses actually,) to discharge his debts from his businesses and rip off lenders, creditors and shareholders but government debt obligations are forever?

Why is it right for an individual to discharge his private debts only?

Why is it right to rip off the public but not the government?

There should be something like a Chapter 16 bankruptcy for a citizen to have the courts reorganize his debt to the government. Not totally discharge his debt to the government but that his debt be made payable to some set percentage of his spendable income. Say this is reviewed annually ...

If equity in debt is negotiable-- then it is negotiable for all debts -- public and private -- debt equality.

Silly idea ...

Of course, the taxpayer could fund higher education, his children (or the children of the society,) to benefit and not start out a career in debt.

But no! I want my leased Cadillac and complain while I make the payments ... the end

Bladewire · 11-19-2016, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Why is it right for Trump, (all businesses actually,) to discharge his debts from his businesses and rip off lenders, creditors and shareholders but government debt obligations are forever?

Why is it right for an individual to discharge his private debts only?

Why is it right to rip off the public but not the government?

There should be something like a Chapter 16 bankruptcy for a citizen to have the courts reorganize his debt to the government. Not totally discharge his debt to the government but that his debt be made payable to some set percentage of his spendable income. Say this is reviewed annually ...

If equity in debt is negotiable-- then it is negotiable for all debts -- public and private -- debt equality.

Silly idea ...

Of course, the taxpayer could fund higher education, his children (or the children of the society,) to benefit and not start out a career in debt.

But no! I want my leased Cadillac and complain while I make the payments ... the end

Most of them don't go that deep. For most Trump fanboys it's read talking point (usually by tweet) disperse amongst the masses, and repeat.

No thought or logic, just zombie regurgitation.

Barry-xlovecam · 11-19-2016, 08:30 PM

Yep ...

"...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious."
Joseph Goebbels

Rochard · 11-19-2016, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onwebcam

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) calculates the number of citizens in the Civilian Labor Force (persons classified as Employed or Unemployed) at 157,833,000 (49% of the U.S. population) and in the Not-in-Labor-Force citizens at 94,610,000 (29% of the population)."

The "Not-in-Labor-Force" is the highest it's been in nearly 40 years. As usual they just moved figures around to make the unemployment figures look good

Notice that figures takes a huge dive during Obama's Presidency.

And why do you think that is?

The labor participation isn't based only on the economy. If it was, why did the labor participation rate peak in 2000 and has been in steady decline since then?

The large demographic of baby boomers are getting older and moving out of the labor pool. People are getting older, retiring, and moving out of the work force.

But it sounds so much better when you try to blame it Obama.

Relic · 11-19-2016, 08:53 PM

Nobody gets it but me

slapass · 11-19-2016, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onwebcam

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) calculates the number of citizens in the Civilian Labor Force (persons classified as Employed or Unemployed) at 157,833,000 (49% of the U.S. population) and in the Not-in-Labor-Force citizens at 94,610,000 (29% of the population)."

The "Not-in-Labor-Force" is the highest it's been in nearly 40 years. As usual they just moved figures around to make the unemployment figures look good

Notice that figures takes a huge dive during Obama's Presidency.

You are missing something.

We used to have an age pyramid like India - http://www.indexmundi.com/graphs/pop...ramid-2014.gif

Then we had 7 workers for every retire. The baby boomers aged and we are heading for 2 workers per retire.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/char...14/chart36.gif

We are never going to have the participation rate we had. it is not possible. It is going to get worse.
Obama made it worse due to the recession and early retirement or people pushed out who could not get back in etc. But this is a huge trend that is not really fixable by the President. Some countries are asking people to make more kids. Japan, South Korea and China have done this. Not working so well but it is doable.

Here is our current age pyramid. - http://www.indexmundi.com/graphs/pop...ramid-2016.gif

We can argue short term flucuations but long term this is a mess.

Bladewire · 11-19-2016, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

You are missing something.

We used to have an age pyramid like India - http://www.indexmundi.com/graphs/pop...ramid-2014.gif

Then we had 7 workers for every retire. The baby boomers aged and we are heading for 2 workers per retire.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/char...14/chart36.gif

We are never going to have the participation rate we had. it is not possible. It is going to get worse.
Obama made it worse due to the recession and early retirement or people pushed out who could not get back in etc. But this is a huge trend that is not really fixable by the President. Some countries are asking people to make more kids. Japan, South Korea and China have done this. Not working so well but it is doable.

Here is our current age pyramid. - http://www.indexmundi.com/graphs/pop...ramid-2016.gif

We can argue short term flucuations but long term this is a mess.

And that's why we're not tough on illegal immigration

Robbie · 11-19-2016, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

And why do you think that is?

The labor participation isn't based only on the economy. If it was, why did the labor participation rate peak in 2000 and has been in steady decline since then?

The large demographic of baby boomers are getting older and moving out of the labor pool. People are getting older, retiring, and moving out of the work force.

But it sounds so much better when you try to blame it Obama.

No, no, no.

Those figures for the Labor participation rate are based on ELIGIBLE people. NOT people of retirement age.

onwebcam · 11-19-2016, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

You are missing something.

We used to have an age pyramid like India - http://www.indexmundi.com/graphs/pop...ramid-2014.gif

Then we had 7 workers for every retire. The baby boomers aged and we are heading for 2 workers per retire.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/char...14/chart36.gif

We are never going to have the participation rate we had. it is not possible. It is going to get worse.
Obama made it worse due to the recession and early retirement or people pushed out who could not get back in etc. But this is a huge trend that is not really fixable by the President. Some countries are asking people to make more kids. Japan, South Korea and China have done this. Not working so well but it is doable.

Here is our current age pyramid. - http://www.indexmundi.com/graphs/pop...ramid-2016.gif

We can argue short term flucuations but long term this is a mess.

So 2008-16 everyone retired? There must have been a lot of fucking going on after the war. While I somewhat agree with baby boomers you honestly can't say that was the cause for that decline or increase depending on how you look at it.

" In addition, students, retirees, the disabled, homemakers, and the voluntarily idle are not counted in the labor force."

http://www.econport.org/content/hand...nt/Define.html

Retirees wouldn't be counted. I would imagine the same for Social Security. Basically anyone of retirement age most likely.

slapass · 11-19-2016, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

No, no, no.

Those figures for the Labor participation rate are based on ELIGIBLE people. NOT people of retirement age.

The figure is for people 16 plus in age. No upper limit is mentioned.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

slapass · 11-19-2016, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onwebcam

So 2008-16 everyone retired? There must have been a lot of fucking going on after the war. While I somewhat agree with baby boomers you honestly can't say that was the cause for that decline or increase depending on how you look at it.

" In addition, students, retirees, the disabled, homemakers, and the voluntarily idle are not counted in the labor force."

http://www.econport.org/content/hand...nt/Define.html

Retirees wouldn't be counted. I would imagine the same for Social Security. Basically anyone of retirement age most likely.

I copied the site in my other post. They share the criteria for their stats.
16 milion soldiers from the US. Rosy the riveter ring a bell? Men of a certain age were rare. The baby boom is a real thing and yeah it was a lot of fucking.

Rochard · 11-19-2016, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

No, no, no.

Those figures for the Labor participation rate are based on ELIGIBLE people. NOT people of retirement age.

You are wrong. People of retirement age are still eligible to work.

The labor participation rate is based on the entire population. This is on a downward trend because our population is getting older. The labor participation rate will continue it's downward trend no matter who is in office or how the economy does.

What you are talking about is the prime working-age population workforce participation rate, which is reveals a different picture. This was 65% in the 1950s, rose to 84% in 2000, dropped to 80% in 2005, and has since gone up slightly to 81%.

All of this is really just common sense. The labor participation rate started to decline long before Obama took office, and long before the economy took a crap. This started in 2000.

Read up: Declining Labor Participation Rates

Rochard · 11-19-2016, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onwebcam

So 2008-16 everyone retired? There must have been a lot of fucking going on after the war. While I somewhat agree with baby boomers you honestly can't say that was the cause for that decline or increase depending on how you look at it.

" In addition, students, retirees, the disabled, homemakers, and the voluntarily idle are not counted in the labor force."

http://www.econport.org/content/hand...nt/Define.html

Retirees wouldn't be counted. I would imagine the same for Social Security. Basically anyone of retirement age most likely.

I disagree with you.

Your link says the following:

While studying employment, another important figure to determine is the labor force participation rate. Here, we compare the size of the labor force with the number of people that could potentially be a part of the labor force. It is important to note that we do not include people under the age of 16 in this figure. In addition, students, retirees, the disabled, homemakers, and the voluntarily idle are not counted in the labor force.

This means students, retirees, the disabled, homemakers, and the voluntarily idle are not counted in the labor force - but are included in the general population.

Your link then says:

The labor force as the percentage of the total population over the minimum working age is called labor force participation rate.

It does not say "total population over the age of 16 minus students, retirees, etc.

onwebcam · 11-19-2016, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

You are wrong. People of retirement age are still eligible to work.

The labor participation rate is based on the entire population. This is on a downward trend because our population is getting older. The labor participation rate will continue it's downward trend no matter who is in office or how the economy does.

What you are talking about is the prime working-age population workforce participation rate, which is reveals a different picture. This was 65% in the 1950s, rose to 84% in 2000, dropped to 80% in 2005, and has since gone up slightly to 81%.

All of this is really just common sense. The labor participation rate started to decline long before Obama took office, and long before the economy took a crap. This started in 2000.

Read up: Declining Labor Participation Rates

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

I copied the site in my other post. They share the criteria for their stats.
16 milion soldiers from the US. Rosy the riveter ring a bell? Men of a certain age were rare. The baby boom is a real thing and yeah it was a lot of fucking.

Labor Force Participation Rate

While studying employment, another important figure to determine is the labor force participation rate. Here, we compare the size of the labor force with the number of people that could potentially be a part of the labor force. It is important to note that we do not include people under the age of 16 in this figure. In addition, students, retirees, the disabled, homemakers, and the voluntarily idle are not counted in the labor force. The labor force as the percentage of the total population over the minimum working age is called labor force participation rate.

[url=http://www.econport.org/content/handbook/Unemployment/Define.html[/url]

Rochard · 11-19-2016, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

I copied the site in my other post. They share the criteria for their stats.
16 milion soldiers from the US. Rosy the riveter ring a bell? Men of a certain age were rare. The baby boom is a real thing and yeah it was a lot of fucking.

This is why it's called the baby boomer generation. They made a lot of babies. Those babies are now at retirement age.

onwebcam · 11-19-2016, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

This is why it's called the baby boomer generation. They made a lot of babies. Those babies are now at retirement age.

Who for the most part are not counted in the participation rate. Those on Social Security I'm not sure about? Retirees are not..

They did change how participation rate was figured for sure during Obama's Admin. I haven't been able to find what they changed.... One thing is for sure, they didn't add retirees. Those people already did their time. No reason to include...

onwebcam · 11-19-2016, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I disagree with you.

Your link says the following:

While studying employment, another important figure to determine is the labor force participation rate. Here, we compare the size of the labor force with the number of people that could potentially be a part of the labor force. It is important to note that we do not include people under the age of 16 in this figure. In addition, students, retirees, the disabled, homemakers, and the voluntarily idle are not counted in the labor force.

This means students, retirees, the disabled, homemakers, and the voluntarily idle are not counted in the labor force - but are included in the general population.

Your link then says:

The labor force as the percentage of the total population over the minimum working age is called labor force participation rate.

It does not say "total population over the age of 16 minus students, retirees, etc.

You're grasping at straws. We are talking labor force of which they aren't included. Obviously everybody is included in total population.

Rochard · 11-19-2016, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Labor Force Participation Rate

While studying employment, another important figure to determine is the labor force participation rate. Here, we compare the size of the labor force with the number of people that could potentially be a part of the labor force. It is important to note that we do not include people under the age of 16 in this figure. In addition, students, retirees, the disabled, homemakers, and the voluntarily idle are not counted in the labor force. The labor force as the percentage of the total population over the minimum working age is called labor force participation rate.

Participation Rate Definition | Investopedia

Exactly. People who are not working are not counted as part of the labor force. But they are counted as part of the labor participation rate. The labor participation rate includes everyone over the age of sixteen.

AGAIN.... The labor force participation rate started to decline in 2000 when the economy was good, not when the economy went to shit or when Obama took office after the economy went to shit. You can try to blame the decline in the labor force participation rate on the economy or Obama, but this is just not correct.

onwebcam · 11-19-2016, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Exactly. People who are not working are not counted as part of the labor force. But they are counted as part of the labor participation rate. The labor participation rate includes everyone over the age of sixteen.

AGAIN.... The labor force participation rate started to decline in 2000 when the economy was good, not when the economy went to shit or when Obama took office after the economy went to shit. You can try to blame the decline in the labor force participation rate on the economy or Obama, but this is just not correct.

You don't know how to read do you? Honestly?. THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE LABOR FORCE. Does that help?. Re-read it if you have to. " It is important to note that we do not include people under the age of 16 in this figure. In addition, students, retirees, the disabled, homemakers, and the voluntarily idle are not counted in the labor force." Now drill that into your head.

Rochard · 11-19-2016, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onwebcam

You're grabbing at strings. We are talking labor force of which they aren't included. Obviously everybody is included in total population.

Exactly. Obviously everyone is included in the total population. (Really everyone over the age of sixteen.)

Retired persons are not included in the labor force because they are not working. But they are included in the total population.

From the link you gave us earlier: http://www.econport.org/content/hand...nt/Define.html

Labor Force Participation Rate = (Labor Force / Total Population over Age 16) * 100

Retired, students, and disabled (etc) are included in the total population. They are not included in the labor force because they are not working.

onwebcam · 11-19-2016, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Exactly. Obviously everyone is included in the total population. (Really everyone over the age of sixteen.)

Retired persons are not included in the labor force because they are not working. But they are included in the total population.

From the link you gave us earlier: http://www.econport.org/content/hand...nt/Define.html

Labor Force Participation Rate = (Labor Force / Total Population over Age 16) * 100

Retired, students, and disabled (etc) are included in the total population. They are not included in the labor force because they are not working.

HOLY SHIT ROCHARD.. Of course everybody is included in total population. That's what makes it the total population. They aren't included in the LABOR FORCE which is what they divide the total population by... Damn do I really have to teach you something so elementary? Or are you just playing dumb to try and make yourself look smart? Seriously. It's over, they aren't included. You were wrong. As usual. Oh and what else do we find? A fact checking site not telling the whole truth as usual as well.

If you want to talk common sense.. Common sense would tell you those that have already participated or can't participate shouldn't be included in participation rate.

Rochard · 11-19-2016, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onwebcam

You don't know how to read do you? Honestly?. THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE LABOR FORCE. Does that help?. Re-read it if you have to. " It is important to note that we do not include people under the age of 16 in this figure. In addition, students, retirees, the disabled, homemakers, and the voluntarily idle are not counted in the labor force." Now drill that into your head.

Correct. They are not included in the labor force because they are they are not working. But they are included in the total population.

Here is the equation:

Labor Force Participation Rate = (Labor Force / Total Population over Age 16) * 100

When they say "total population over age 16" they mean EVERYONE over the age of sixteen. It does not mean "everyone over the age of sixteen minus retired people, disabled, students, people who pick their nose, etc.

Again.... This decline took place long before Obama took office which makes your entire point invalid.

onwebcam · 11-19-2016, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Again.... This decline took place long before Obama took office which makes your entire point invalid.

Obviously you're not looking at the graph. There was an obvious gradual decline/increase as predicted. But a dramatic decline/increase during Obama's admin.

BTW it appears GFY is having some DB issues tonight so posts are getting screwed.

klinton · 11-20-2016, 12:04 AM

https://www.rt.com/news/367416-bolto...e-change-iran/

Quote:

Originally Posted by nico-t

otherwise we would be in the middle of WW3 in a few years.

Some people really don't see how lucky we are war mongering hag Clinton isn't at the wheel

onwebcam · 11-20-2016, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Correct. They are not included in the labor force because they are they are not working. But they are included in the total population.

Here is the equation:

Labor Force Participation Rate = (Labor Force / Total Population over Age 16) * 100

When they say "total population over age 16" they mean EVERYONE over the age of sixteen. It does not mean "everyone over the age of sixteen minus retired people, disabled, students, people who pick their nose, etc.

Again.... This decline took place long before Obama took office which makes your entire point invalid.

Let me explain it to you a little bit easier to understand I guess. The reason it says "over 16" is because under 16 can't legally work. They can't participate.. Everyone else can legally. That's why they are backed out in this total population equation. It still doesn't help your argument one bit because those other people are not included in what's being discussed. The labor force. Retirees can work. Housewives can work, students can work. And a lot of them do. But they aren't counted in the labor force participation rate.

Joshua G · 11-20-2016, 01:00 AM

LOL at diversity advocate bladewire, attacking others because they live in europe. How dumb is that?

Then theres rochard, going for the GFY dumbass award.

My this thread shows how public education has turned into a liberal shit show.

Coup · 11-20-2016, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladewire

See! You avoid answers so you keep hiding the truth about who you are. Coward. So focused on hating America and attacking its people, and so ashamed to show who you are. Coward

He hates us for our freedoms.

Nice meltdown BTW

Paul Markham · 11-20-2016, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

You understand that Trump is a businessman, and buys ALL of his products from China, RIGHT?

As a businessman he knows damn well Apple cannot make it's iPhones in the US. If they did the prices would double. If Trump slaps a tariff on the same iPhones, the only change is the products become more expensive for the general population, resulting in less sales.

So from this, I take it that you are ready to see Americans unemployed to keep down the price of your consumer goods. Where is the upside for the millions on a low wage, unemployed, having to live in poverty or just have a worse standard of living than their parents enjoyed?

A tariff is a tax, it goes into the coffers of the USA. Where's the downside again, please?

itx · 11-20-2016, 03:47 AM

If trump builds the wall a lot of officers are with the mexican cartels, they receive a lots of money nothings change, the people wants build that wall....

itx · 11-20-2016, 03:48 AM

The reality is not so much changes with the wall...

beerptrol · 11-20-2016, 03:53 AM

Trump supporters don't get it! Trickle down economics doesn't work. The rich will get richer while middle class is taken off life support to die. Everything he does will be to help big business line their pockets. You can't expect him to reform something that will also hurt his bottom line!

His cabinet picks shows that he is pro establishment(old school republicans, former bankers), and you are no different than the libs when it comes to being sheep.

11-20-2016, 03:53 AM	#100
beerptrol Confirmed Asshole Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Half way between sobriety and fubar. Posts: 12,722	Trump supporters don't get it! Trickle down economics doesn't work. The rich will get richer while middle class is taken off life support to die. Everything he does will be to help big business line their pockets. You can't expect him to reform something that will also hurt his bottom line! His cabinet picks shows that he is pro establishment(old school republicans, former bankers), and you are no different than the libs when it comes to being sheep. __________________ “If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.” -- Ulysses S. Grant

11-19-2016, 08:15 PM	#70
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	Why is it right for Trump, (all businesses actually,) to discharge his debts from his businesses and rip off lenders, creditors and shareholders but government debt obligations are forever? Why is it right for an individual to discharge his private debts only? Why is it right to rip off the public but not the government? There should be something like a Chapter 16 bankruptcy for a citizen to have the courts reorganize his debt to the government. Not totally discharge his debt to the government but that his debt be made payable to some set percentage of his spendable income. Say this is reviewed annually ... If equity in debt is negotiable-- then it is negotiable for all debts -- public and private -- debt equality. Silly idea ... Of course, the taxpayer could fund higher education, his children (or the children of the society,) to benefit and not start out a career in debt. But no! I want my leased Cadillac and complain while I make the payments ... the end

11-19-2016, 08:30 PM	#72
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	Yep ... "...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious." Joseph Goebbels

11-19-2016, 08:53 PM	#74
Relic So Fucking Banned Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 10,300	Nobody gets it but me

11-20-2016, 01:00 AM	#95
Joshua G dumb libs love censorship Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,198	LOL at diversity advocate bladewire, attacking others because they live in europe. How dumb is that? Then theres rochard, going for the GFY dumbass award. My this thread shows how public education has turned into a liberal shit show.

11-20-2016, 03:47 AM	#98
itx Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 969	If trump builds the wall a lot of officers are with the mexican cartels, they receive a lots of money nothings change, the people wants build that wall....

11-20-2016, 03:48 AM	#99
itx Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 969	The reality is not so much changes with the wall...