The good news is that once the participation rate falls to 0, Unemployment will also be at 0%. 115k "new" jobs added in April 2012, yet 522k dropped out of the labor force. What, exactly, are we celebrating again? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/peopl...00-labor-force-participation-rate-lowest-1981 Labor force participation Rate:
"Clearly they are so successful, they have retired early. For those that are skeptical, the government will provide for you." \
Our Labor force is smaller now than at the height of the recession. Once ten million people quit the labor force, unemployment will be zero. What a joke.
Why would anyone work when they can get welfare, disability, workman's comp, money to look after aged relatives, and benefits for "special needs" children to keep them home? Thanks a lot, OBAMA!
In today's world, its better to fuck off, enjoy life and live off others rather than work hard. those that work hard to get ahead are the fools while those that let others take care of them are the truly "rich" with time and free money.
Let's clear up a few misconceptions: From Wikipedia Normally, the labor force of a country (or other geographic entity) consists of everyone of working age (typically above a certain age (around 14 to 16) and below retirement (around 65) who are participating workers, that is people actively employed or seeking employment. People not counted include students, retired people, stay-at-home parents, people in prisons or similar institutions, people employed in jobs or professions with unreported income, as well as discouraged workers who cannot find work. Formal and informal labor Formal labor is any sort of employment that is structured and paid in a formal way.[6] Unlike the informal sector of the economy, formal labor within a country contributes to that country’s gross national product.[7] Informal labor is labor that falls short of being a formal arrangement in law or in practice.[8] Informal labor can be paid or unpaid and it is always unstructured and unregulated.[9] Formal employment is more reliable than informal employment. Generally, the former yields higher income and greater benefits and securities for both men and women.[10] [edit] Informal labor in the world The contribution of informal laborers is immense. Informal labor is expanding globally, most significantly in developing countries.[11] According to a study done by Jacques Charmes, in the year 2000 informal labor made up 57% of non-agricultural employment, 40% of urban employment, and 83% of the new jobs in Latin America. That same year, informal labor made up 78% of non-agricultural employment, 61% of urban employment, and 93% of the new jobs in Africa.[12] Particularly after an economic crisis, laborers tend to shift from the formal sector to the informal sector. Paid and unpaid labor Paid and unpaid work are also closely related with formal and informal labor. Some informal work is unpaid, or paid under the table.[15] Unpaid work can be work that is done at home to sustain a family, like child care work, or actual habitual daily labor that is not monetarily rewarded, like working the fields.[14] Unpaid workers have zero earnings, and although their work is valuable, it is hard to estimate its true value. Feminists have worked long and hard to come up with a way of monetizing and bringing value to women’s unpaid labor.[14] The controversial debate still stands. Men and women tend to work in different areas of the economy, regardless of whether their work is paid or unpaid. Women focus on the service sector, while men focus on the industrial sector.
20 million illegal aliens working undocumented jobs, a trend that has escalated continually since 1981 makes this chart meaningless and deceiving. Reagan's union-busting and privatizing rampage accounts for reversing the trend on the documentable side. He singlehandedly destroyed America's industrial supremacy beyond repair.
Thanks for the definition of labor force. Next question. What definition did the poster in this "zerohedge" zero IQ message board use? Where are the graphs from? What is the source of the statistics graphed? Why didn't he give any sources? (Click here. No info.) Did he include retirees on Social Security, which are of course increasing. Well duh. And notice in the fine print that the first graph takes a giant swing up then down...3.5 whole percentage points. Wow. I am so stoked.
It's DOL stats. Refute them, but asking questions about them, without an answer countering them, makes you appear to be weak. -400k in the labor force last month. That's all retirees? Give me the data that shows it.
Where does the poster on the Zero message board say DOL stats? (I like to remind you that he's just a guy posting like you and me.) I clicked on this link in the upper right corner of your link, and it says that the bad April followed an excellent March. So it averaged out. http://www.zerohedge.com/contribute...d-and-it’s-also-worse-contrarian’s-chart-view
I'm guessing you mean Bureau of Labor, but I can't find those charts on their website: http://www.bls.gov/
You want a graph? The Wall Street Journal says that cutting back government has caused a lot of the unemployment. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/08/unemployment-rate-without-government-cuts-7-1/
More from the conservative Wall, trying to slant positive into negative. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/04/private-jobs-turn-positive-for-obama-presidency/ http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/04/why-did-the-unemployment-rate-drop-7/ 20 years from now, Republicans will have rewritten history like they have the 1990s, saying that their party in Congress overwhelmed the President to made it happen.
