The labor market just did something that hadn't happened since the 1970s: http://www.businessinsider.com/fewest-jobless-since-november-1973-2016-3...

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

http://www.businessinsider.com/fewest-jobless-since-november-1973-2016-3

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

dirtpusher wrote:

http://www.businessinsider.com/fewest-jobless-since-november-1973-2016-3

These numbers are totally bogus. It doesn't account for all those who have given up and gone on permanent welfare through bogus medical claims. Also it does not account for those who settled for part time Jobs or under utilized jobs with substantial cuts in income. The participation pool is the smallest since this period also. Give the whole story not the MSN version that is fed to us by a failed president ignoring all the American deaths in Brussels while cavorting with an oppressive dictator.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

Architect1776 wrote:

These numbers are totally bogus. It doesn't account for all those who have given up and gone on permanent welfare through bogus medical claims. Also it does not account for those who settled for part time Jobs or under utilized jobs with substantial cuts in income. The participation pool is the smallest since this period also. Give the whole story not the MSN version that is fed to us by a failed president ignoring all the American deaths in Brussels while cavorting with an oppressive dictator.

an you can thank the republican't subsidized companies for for lowered wages an making many jobs part time. think your participation pool theory is the one that is off. it also doesn't take in all the i******s that corporation are wanting to flood the labor force with. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Regardless of who it does or does not include, the methodology hasn't changed so the comparison is still legitimate.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

dirtpusher wrote:

an you can thank the republican't subsidized companies for for lowered wages an making many jobs part time. think your participation pool theory is the one that is off. it also doesn't take in all the i******s that corporation are wanting to flood the labor force with. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It is excessive and oppressive government regulations and intrusion. Obamacare has done more to oppress hours and wages than any firm has ever dreamed of. Government makes the rules and firms follow those rules and do what they can to make a profit. Ps without a profit motive there is no firm just c*******m.

idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

dirtpusher wrote:

http://www.businessinsider.com/fewest-jobless-since-november-1973-2016-3

People quit looking years ago!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-are-people-leaving-the-workforce/

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

Architect1776 wrote:

It is excessive and oppressive government regulations and intrusion. Obamacare has done more to oppress hours and wages than any firm has ever dreamed of. Government makes the rules and firms follow those rules and do what they can to make a profit. Ps without a profit motive there is no firm just c*******m.

lol no it the ones that don't want it to work an happen that has done it not aca. what is funny it their plan to begin with. lol

does government tell them to hand out those golden parachutes. nah it just corporate greed. do you remember the days business had packages they offered to get people to come to work for them. no it not aca at fault. just corporate greed :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

idaholover wrote:

People quit looking years ago!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-are-people-leaving-the-workforce/

they are not including people that quit going through employment agencies. i never went through an agency. i went personally to places i was interested in working at. as people still with me. i have never had a person come from an agency looking for a job. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

dirtpusher wrote:

lol no it the ones that don't want it to work an happen that has done it not aca. what is funny it their plan to begin with. lol

does government tell them to hand out those golden parachutes. nah it just corporate greed. do you remember the days business had packages they offered to get people to come to work for them. no it not aca at fault. just corporate greed :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

These are private corporations and it is none of the government's business how they pay staff. Or perks. If you want to do this then tax the hell out of Googles perks for employees as it is unfair we all don't get the same ones.
The government rewards corruption and failure far more than private industry. just look at the IRS.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

Architect1776 wrote:

These are private corporations and it is none of the government's business how they pay staff. Or perks. If you want to do this then tax the hell out of Googles perks for employees as it is unfair we all don't get the same ones.
The government rewards corruption and failure far more than private industry. just look at the IRS.

an not aca fault. corporations have no desire to benefit their employs. hence part time work. no benefits required. wake up. put the shoe on the foot it belongs. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

dirtpusher wrote:

an not aca fault. corporations have no desire to benefit their employs. hence part time work. no benefits required. wake up. put the shoe on the foot it belongs. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Then do not work for that corporation. You always have a choice in a free society. Not qualified for what you want to do? Then get qualified. I got qualified as an Architect at 47. Was disabled and didn't want welfare so I studied 12 years, got a Masters Degree, interned for 3 years then took 9 tests and got licensed at 47. Tough but worth it. had a family to support and wife did not work at an outside job but took care of the kids.
It can be done.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

Architect1776 wrote:

Then do not work for that corporation. You always have a choice in a free society. Not qualified for what you want to do? Then get qualified. I got qualified as an Architect at 47. Was disabled and didn't want welfare so I studied 12 years, got a Masters Degree, interned for 3 years then took 9 tests and got licensed at 47. Tough but worth it. had a family to support and wife did not work at an outside job but took care of the kids.
It can be done.

lol you trying go around your original post now. what about the ones working for them. what do you propose for them to correct their situation. :roll: :roll: :roll:

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Frank T wrote:

Regardless of who it does or does not include, the methodology hasn't changed so the comparison is still legitimate.

Because the figure or specter of disenfranchised , disillusioned workers who have given up all hope of securing employment and have stopped applying for unemployment and those who have accepted jobs that pay half of what they were making are ( under-employed) were not an issue back- so it is absolutely a factor... you are stupid...

Note that if people were prevented from applying for unemployment your figure would be zero..... would it mean nobody was unemployed? or would there be more to the story??

Keep sipping the coolaid - its taking.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

RichieC wrote:

Because the figure or specter of disenfranchised ,... (show quote)

just quit going to unemployment office. then they found a job. lol :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

dirtpusher wrote:

lol you trying go around your original post now. what about the ones working for them. what do you propose for them to correct their situation. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Actually you are confused. If they feel oppressed in their job, then quit and get a different one. The corporation has no responsibility beyond being profitable. All else is either forced upon them by the government to reduce profits or because they wish to retain staff. Bottom line is if you don't like the job then shove it and go elsewhere.