Just the normal twisting done by your boy.

 

Trump’s absurd claim about the US labor force - Yahoo Finance

.....you just can't help yourself can you ?

 

By the way, the fact that you are referencing a Yahoo Finance article speaks volumes to your ability to glean information from more reputable sources.

 

If you must continue down your uni-visioned path, at least use some credible references and do a little homework to support your position.

 

You have an uncanny ability to tire even the most tireless among us....but it make sense why you have roughly 37,000 posts....I encourage you to expand your thought provoking posts to something a little more...well, credible.

Doesn't look like a lie to me. Accurate statement, article even says so.

And yet another useless Trump bashing thread from NCF. :ohbrother:

Not bashing just posting an article in which some things were brought up, that wasn't a shock to many, but sure enough to be disputed by his supporters.

Yet another thread with a misleading headline, which is ironic since the misleading headlines are an attempt to prove Trump is a liar. The fact is that the labor participation rate reached its lowest level under Obama that it has been since 1977.

 

In other words, a lower percentage of working age Americans are working today than were working when Obama took office. That is a cold, hard fact that is hard to explain away.

Simple question ... was Trump's number of 94 million accurate?

I have heard it many times before last night. I cannot say for sure though. It all goes back to not counting people who give up trying to find work. We no longer count them as unemployed. So we can claim to have a 4.9% unemployment rate when 90 million plus are not working. Total joke...

Is he including those that don't want to work in his figure?

Simple question ... was Trump's number of 94 million accurate?

According to BLS, Trump's number is 1.4 million low. But the labor participation rate under Obama is a more useful statistic. I am sure that Trump used the 94 million stat because it is a really large number, but the extremely low labor participation rate takes population growth into account. It is what exposes the low unemployment rate as a sham.

Is he including those that don't want to work in his figure?

 

The number of people not wanting to work is growing by leaps an bounds. I'm not certain how many of these people seem to be living as well or better than the average worker, but they sure seem to be.:banghead:

The number of people not wanting to work is growing by leaps an bounds. I'm not certain how many of these people seem to be living as well or better than the average worker, but they sure seem to be.:banghead:

 

I get that. But I'm wondering if he's including retirees, stay at home parents and such.

How does Trump get to his 94 million? Are the numbers in the link way off? In the link it says there are 206 million people between 16 and 65 and 152 million have jobs. What are the real numbers?

I don't get these numbers.

 

Who counts in them? I can retire in 12 years at 50. I would be way below the 65 working age. Will I be a drag on Michelle Obama's jobs numbers?

 

:lol2:

I don't get these numbers.

 

Who counts in them? I can retire in 12 years at 50. I would be way below the 65 working age. Will I be a drag on Michelle Obama's jobs numbers?

 

:lol2:

 

That is because you a government worker and that is a small sample of the entire workforce. Also state employees being able to retire this early except for police and fire fighters will be a thing of the past in the near future. It is just unsustainable, the private sector figured it out before the government.

 

Also while pensions can be taken this early many states have or started to eliminate health care coverage making full retirement prior to Medicare almost impossible unless you have also been saving heavy in your state 457b .