Posted by Tina
“Had me a job til the market fell out. Tried hard to borrow but there was no help; now I’ve got nowhere to go. I need a job for these two hands. I’m a workin’ man with nowhere to go.” – “Workin’ Man (Nowhere To Go),” Nitty Gritty Dirt Band
The labor participation rate in America is stuck at a “38-Year Low for 3rd Straight Month.”
Not good news as we head toward Labor Day:
In August, according to BLS, the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population, consisting of all people 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, reached 251,096,000. Of those, 157,065,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.
The 157,065,000 who participated in the labor force equaled only 62.6 percent of the 251,096,000 civilian noninstitutional population — the same as it was in July and June. Not since October 1977, when the participation rate dropped to 62.4, has the percentage been this low.
You might take a minute to recall that Jimmy Carter was president and Democrat policies were in force in 1977. Democrats held the majority in Congress with 61 Senators and 292 Representatives in the House. In fact Democrats had been making policy since 1954 at that time.
Americans need a strong economy and growth to see opportunities for work to return. Policies that oppress investment, innovation, and wealth building in the private sector, as radical left policies do, will never end in increased opportunity and jobs. Conservative polices, implemented by both Republican and Democrat presidents have accomplished that happy reality several times since the era of Carter. Conservatives are the only folks calling for such policies. You can do something about this next year…vote for the most conservative guy or gal in the bunch!
The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital… the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy. – President John F. Kennedy, Democrat
Innovations in production and business practices are the very reason that half the country doesn’t *need* a job.
I always enjoy hearing from new commenters. “Innovations in production and business practices are the very reason that half the country doesn’t *need* a job. J.R. says in response to Tina’s, “Policies that oppress investment, innovation, and wealth building in the private sector, as radical left policies do, will never end in increased opportunity and jobs.”
How true, JR and Tina.
Trial and error has taught us that business works best when government gets out of the way… as much as possible.
Obama’s theory is just the opposite. He wants government involved too much. This has resulted in losing market share to the competition overseas (China). He hits us with high taxes because we waste too much money and lose too much to corruption. And worse, he need to extort more taxes to buy votes for democrats with these gimme’s. The gimmes often go to people who haven’t earned it and are perfectly capable of working for a living. If government didn’t keep them on an allowance they would find a way to go to work.
We continue to hear about the “unemployment rate” where numbers were tweaked to make Obumble look good before the last election.
Until such time as the numbers are adjusted to include the number of people on unemployment combined with the numbers of those who’ve quit looking for work – and even perhaps tbose on welfare – versus the much-ballyhooed number of jobs created, any labor dept statistics won’t be believable.
And remember – there are 3 kinds of untruth. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Especially from Obumble.
“We continue to hear about the “unemployment rate” where numbers were tweaked to make Obumble look good before the last election.”
The last election was three years ago. Unemployment has continued to fall during all three of those years. What are you talking about?
“Until such time as the numbers are adjusted to include the number of people on unemployment combined with the numbers of those who’ve quit looking for work – and even perhaps tbose on welfare – versus the much-ballyhooed number of jobs created, any labor dept statistics won’t be believable.”
How do you propose we measure such a thing? And did you ask for such statistics during the Bush administration, which saw a net decrease in the number of jobs and employment, or did you recently decide such a number was important?
Chris: ” Unemployment has continued to fall during all three of those years ”
Most people don’t watch business channels, or pay much attention to employment statistics. I can tell you that in every month since before the last election the unemployment number has been adjusted up, because I do watch a business channel.
Now it may be that this adjustment practice has always gone on due to states not getting their employment reports in on time (CA is apparently notoriously bad). But the thing that’s important is that the unemployment number has averaged around 4 -5% through our past presidents terms in office… during Obama’s term the unemployment percentage has never been lower than the current rate of 5.1% and our economy has bumped along the bottom with growth rates at 2%.
Read more here
Bush policy began after November 2001 when the new budget began. Obama’s after November 2009.
Under Bush, who inherited the Clinton recession, with 911 on it’s heels, never had an unemployment rate over 6.1%. Recall that Democrats took the House (budget policy) in 2006.
Most recessions last between 10 and 18 months, depending on who’s counting. 🙂
The recession Obama inherited lasted until June 2009 and unemployment began to dramatically increase. It remained very high through January 2013 and decreased at a very slow pace thereafter.
Policy is key.
Government spending and debt to GDP are part of the picture. In 2008 debt to GDP was 67%. It increased steadily after that hitting 102% in 2014.
Hidden taxes in Obamacare hit job producers and productive citizens hard:
Obama’s tax policy, directed by class envy (wealthy-fairness) and has been devastating for the lower and middle classes:
Watch CATO video.
Under Obama, unemployment/unemployed numbers remain high; overall production and opportunity remain low (small business – main street). His polices, indeed the Keynesian tax policy platform of the Democrat Party, just does not work for average Americans who depend on small business.
Chris the unemployment may have dropped before the last election slightly but the numbers are nothing to brag about and there is evidence that the numbers were being manipulated:
Americans of every stripe are sick and tired of political games and policies that jerk citizens around (Obamacare)…which is why Trump’s blunt talk is resonating. It could be that as American’s catch on the tide is turning.
Thanks, Tina. You said it much better than I could have and successfully took Chris to the woodshed. Well done!
Thanks J. Soden!
I was just thinking how important and valuable it is that some of us can say what’s necessary in just a just a few words. 🙂
Tina: “Under Bush, who inherited the Clinton recession, with 911 on it’s heels, never had an unemployment rate over 6.1%.”
Your own stats right before this show that unemployment went to 7.8 under Bush. His term ended in January 2009.
Your comparisons between the recession Obama inherited v. those inherited by other presidents ignores a couple of key points: first, that the recession was worldwide, and second, that it was the worst recession in our history. Of course the recovery hasn’t been as vibrant as others; the recession was much, much worse than the others. You always ignore that when you make these comparisons.
Thanks for the correction, Chris.
Still, 7.1 is not 8 or 9 which we’ve had for many quarters AFTER the recession ended.
Also it must be noted that Democrats took control of the House and senate in 2007. It was their 2008 budget that led to the tanking economy and, according to thinking expressed <a here, chronic unemployment.”
It should also be noted that Democrats had control in the Senate during Bush’s tenure:
It’s not like he had a super majority like the Obama had at the beginning of his term.
I suggest you read the article. It also has information about the revenue increases that followed to government after the Bush tax cuts.
“…the recession was worldwide, and second, that it was the worst recession in our history.”
That the recession was worldwide is irrelevant except for the fact that had we adopted better policies the world would have improved along with us. Instead they have faltered…as we have.
There are differing opinions about this recession being the worst.
Oct 2009 CATO:
What Obama can take credit for is, “The Worst Economic Recovery Since the Great Depression.”:
38 year low! Now, that’s something to be proud of. Bet the majority of Trump supports are amongst all of those out of work and those who haven’t seen a pay raise in 7 years.
People have had it with both parties and Trumps promise to make America great again and put people back to work is very attractive to them. Because of his business experience people believe him or want to.
This is more due to changing demographics than the policies of any one president. Unemployment is low and we’ve had three years of straight job creation.
Reagan raised the capital gains tax to make it equal with income tax. There is no evidence that keeping the capital gains tax at the extremely low rate we have today helps anyone but the wealthy.
Man you are stubborn, Chris! There’s a ton of evidence! We’ve posted about it many times. You just refuse to get it. Those who lived through the expansion of small businesses and a booming economy know first hand how the economy surged in the Reagan years.
But there is the matter of fully understanding what actually happened and how it is discussed. The article, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times? The real story,” by Matt K. Lewis, Senior Contributor – The Daily Caller is reproduced in full below…cause we really need to get this! Much thanks to Mr. Lewis.
Reagan worked hard for individual Americans. A sampling of Reagan quotes on taxes:
“Simple fairness dictates that government must not raise taxes on families struggling to pay their bills.”
“You can’t be for big government, big taxes, and big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy.”
“The American people are not under taxed, the government in Washington is overfed.”
“No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!”
“We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.”
“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
History going back to the 1920’s at Discover the Networks offers more evidence. It includes the following quote from Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon — who served under Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge
“The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.”
This is what the majority of big investors, businesses, and individuals have been doing through the Obama era…pulling out of the market, withdrawing capital, and seeking out safe havens. People react when they feel they are being taxed too much.
It’s not rocket science or politics. It’s just common sense!
Tina, I’ll only address one portion of the article you cited, since it’s the only one that relates to my point:
“(Reagan also deserves special criticism from free marketers on the right for raising the capital gains tax rate — as well as the corporate rate — in the Tax Reform Act of 1986.)”
Why does Reagan deserve criticism for raising the capital gains tax? The author doesn’t say. Later, he says this:
“Again, my argument is that some taxes are more important than others. Do massive cuts to income taxes — perhaps the most confiscatory and arbitrary form of taxation (which disencentivize the very act of working) — carry the same weight as a temporary consumption tax increase which raised just over 3 billion in revenue a year?”
I agree with the author that income taxes are more important than capital gains taxes, and that high income taxes could disencentivize the act of working.
So why, then, should the capital gains tax be lower than the income tax? Why should Reagan be criticized for making them equal? If we really want to incentivize work, then taxing capital gains at a lower rate than income doesn’t make any sense. It shows that we value the investor class more than the working class. Since most wealthy people make the majority of their money in capital gains rather than earned income–and the majority of everybody else barely makes anything in capital gains–this system represents a huge giveaway to the rich, the people who need it the least.
I had no intention of misrepresenting Reagan’s record, and I don’t think I did so. I was not speaking of his overall tax plan, and I agree he was a net tax cutter. I was speaking only of the capital gains tax.
I would be in favor of a compromise in which income taxes were lowered, deductions and loopholes were reduced and the capital gains tax was increased. This seems to have been a large part of Reagan’s plan; no wonder prosperity followed. Since then, loopholes have only gotten bigger, and while Republicans say they will close them, they are never specific about which ones.
Chris: “Why does Reagan deserve criticism for raising the capital gains tax? The author doesn’t say.”
Raising capital gains rates isn’t conservative.
Today criticism could be considered a retort for the exaggerated radical left narrative and accounting of the Reagan record.
Raising rates today, or not lowering them, would be a particularly bad idea since rates around the world are lower than ours.
In 1986 Reagan and the Republicans in Congress worked with Democrats, honoring the balance of power in our system. (Obama has not given an inch!) Neither side got everything they wanted. Reagan had purpose behind his signature…closing loopholes being one and simplifying the code being another:
Another reason conservatives today hold firm against raising corporate and investment rates, see here:
Today the rich pay a much larger share than in 1986:
Sounds like many of the tax “loopholes” advantage the bottom 90%.
Circumstances in our economy don’t remain static. What Reagan agreed to in 1986 is not necessarily something he’d agree to today.
I don’t think anyone looking at lowering the investment tax rate (Capital gains) is looking at in any way other than from the perspective of competition with nations around the world. Our economy is tied much more to that of other nations today, as is the need to compete.
” It shows that we value the investor class more than the working class.”
No, it shows we value investment because of the opportunities it opens up for EVERYONE!
Chris thinking steeped in class envy is useless in this argument.
I’m part of the investment class (small part in retirement investment and savings). I earned every penny of the money I placed in those accounts and I will be taxed (income) when I take the money out, as I must do at age 71 or so) at a rate dependent on other earnings. I will also pay capital gains tax on dividends and interest.
Capital gains rates must be at a level that allows America to compete and gives the wealthy incentive to invest here at home. The investment will benefit every class and every person that wants to work>
“I would be in favor of a compromise in which income taxes were lowered, deductions and loopholes were reduced and the capital gains tax was increased. This seems to have been a large part of Reagan’s plan; no wonder prosperity followed. ”
The US cap gains rate is noncompetitive today and has contributed greatly to the jobs problem and the sluggish economy. Keeping it higher than other nations or worse, raising it, would be incredibly wrongheaded. Does it occur to you that your position is about class rather than sensible policy that would benefit all?
I’ve offered evidence that the lower classes have been better off under conservative policies that create growth and prosperity and are worse off under policies that punish and stifle private sector investment.
“Since then, loopholes have only gotten bigger, and while Republicans say they will close them, they are never specific about which ones.”
Maybe that’s because they have concentrated on eliminating all of them by changing our broken tax code completely! There are several plans that could be considered if they were not immediately rejected by the opposition party. They will not engage, preferring to use it as a political tool. In my experience the radicals that have taken over the Dem Party don’t want compromise; they want absolute power and control and they want to separate all of us from as much money as they can get.
What gets me is the liberal mentality that is so against tax cuts even with clear proof of economic stimulus. They source of their opposition is not based in whether or not it is economically sound. They are against tax cuts because they want to “stick it to the rich.” They have been polarized to hate American success.
Unfortunately, tax increases hurt the middle class and poor more than the rich. Look at California. We have the highest taxes in the nation and we still can’t pave our roads. There are more poor in CA than any other state in the nation. Yet we subsidize electric cars for the rich. Everyone who pays attention knows the system is broken here.
I would ask liberals to define what is the ultimate tax rate for taxpayers? Is it 10%? 15%? What tax rate can we settle on where they won’t come back a year later and ask for more? Liberals will never settle because for them there is never enough. I believe some of them think taxes should be at 100%, because you didn’t build that. But 100% is slavery, and people everywhere just wanna be free.
I’m not against tax cuts. Obama passed many tax cuts on the middle class, and I supported them.
There is no “ideal tax rate” that works in all cases. Sometimes they need to be cut and sometimes they need to be raised. Reagan understood this, and acted accordingly. Today’s Republicans, who claim to be Reaganites, don’t understand that at all.
Chris,
I appreciate you commenting on this site, and sometimes I do feel for you as you take a lot of flak for your opinions. You’re not the only liberal out there and I can’t tell you how often if I get into a debate over taxes with liberal friends, it always comes down to them saying that the rich don’t deserve all that money and need to be taxed more. I’m not sure they even know or care where all the money goes!
Clearly, conservatives don’t always agree with each other either. I get it that Reagan made decisions that don’t always seem to jive with the mindset of today’s conservatives. I really appreciate Reagan (and Goldwater) for giving life to the conservative movement, but that doesn’t mean I would support all of his decisions today.
As a Californian, I’m paying some of the highest taxes in the nation. I, and most of my forty something middle class friends are all struggling to get by in ways I don’t remember our parents having to struggle. All I see is a government that eats up more and more of the investable money in our economy that could be used for job and wealth creation.
Thanks, Steve.
I also talk to a lot of people (of my generation) who are struggling in ways their parents didn’t have to. My parents’ and grandparents’ generations both had a lot of societal advantages that don’t exist today. The minimum wage, in real dollars, was worth more. You could start a job and have a pretty good guarantee that you’d keep it, that you’d get a good raise after a period of time, and that you could pay for college with your earnings. Not coincidentally, more people were unionized, meaning that workers had more bargaining power.
A lot of people like to imagine that the reason for today’s problems is just that people are lazy, but that just isn’t true. If you look at the stats Millenials are in many ways more responsible than our parents. We’re doing less drugs, having less sex, and going to college in greater numbers despite the obstacles in our paths to get there. Productivity levels are also higher. We’ve followed the advice that “If you want to get ahead, you just have to work harder and get more educated”–and for a lot of people, that advice just hasn’t worked.
You’re right that many liberals blame the rich without being fully informed on the exact problems in our society. By the same token, many conservatives blame the poor based on the same sense of ignorance. The difference is that one of these scapegoats is obviously a lot more powerful than the other. The other difference is that one of them actually does bear a lot of responsibility for the problem.
Chris I also appreciate your continuing to post here. As the (almost) lone liberal you are constantly in the hot seat and you stick with it like a trooper.
“…more people were unionized, meaning that workers had more bargaining power.”
The problem is the unions abused that power and pushed for raises and benefits to the point that the companies couldn’t survive. Then they automated and people lost their jobs. They moved operations to Mexico and people lost their jobs. The unions are largely motivated by the tactics of the mob and Marx…not a good idea if you want to keep your job and see your company remain competitive so you do.
“If you look at the stats Millennials are in many ways more responsible than our parents. We’re doing less drugs, having less sex, and going to college in greater numbers despite the obstacles in our paths to get there. Productivity levels are also higher. We’ve followed the advice that “If you want to get ahead, you just have to work harder and get more educated”–and for a lot of people, that advice just hasn’t worked.”
It hasn’t worked because of the lengthy sluggish economy and the size of government that eats up our personal paychecks, the companies investment reserves, and investors profits. it’s because the tangle of regulations make it very costly and difficult to do business. It’s because the fee for attending college has gotten outrageously high…I believe unnecessarily.
We on the right are fighting in your corner and you don’t see or appreciate it.
“many conservatives blame the poor”
I don’t know a single person, nor have I read a single opinion, that “blames the poor” for the conditions we are all living under.
We deplore the government for giving the poor little incentive to rise above poverty, and the Democrats for failing to acknowledge that the Great Society is an abject failure so we can look for better ways to do things.
It’s frustrating to me; I have kids and grandchildren who are struggling. All attempts to educate and inform about what would work fall on deaf ears. After the past seven years I would think millennials would judge the radicals in favor of big government expansion on the performance…for “what they do” instead of “what they say.”
“The difference is that one of these scapegoats is obviously a lot more powerful than the other.”
The “difference” is that one is really trying to help and the other is simply going for more power
“The other difference is that one of them actually does bear a lot of responsibility for the problem. ”
Yes, the one you think is so wonderful because of what they say. Open your eyes…and your mind!
Tina, you are so right on, the pearls of wisdom you give to Chris (and all of us) are much appreciated. -Jack
“All I see is a government that eats up more and more of the investable money in our economy that could be used for job and wealth creation.”
And help to secure aging seniors that will soon be on fixed income.
Remember during the Carter years when seniors were buying dog food to eat? Inflation was out of control and dog food was all they could afford. They had to choose between the quality of the food and being warm in the winter months.
This time they’ve kept inflation down by artificially stimulating the stock market. I guess they think that represents the overall economy when in fact it represents the investors and all but the wealthiest have been reluctant to get in…too risky.
Chris, The Laffer Curve gives us a place to start.
Wikipedia explaines the purpose behind the curve: “The Laffer curve claims to illustrate the concept of taxable income elasticity—i.e., taxable income will change in response to changes in the rate of taxation.” If we are smart we will start from there because understanding human responses to rate changes is vital to managing a good balance. The Laffer Center explains it more thoroughly.
“Sometimes they need to be cut and sometimes they need to be raised. Reagan understood this, and acted accordingly. Today’s Republicans, who claim to be Reaganites, don’t understand that at all.”
Chris the size of government, the incredible level of government waste and fraud, the unsustainable programs that add to the debt, revenues that are allocated for one purpose being directed to another, the excess of bureaucratic spending on conferences and other nonessential things, corporatism, and trickery engaged in by our “servants” when they add pork projects to budgets and spending bills before and after they’ve passed are all very good reasons to resist raising tax rates.
The people supposedly working on our behalf in DC are dysfunctional, opportunistic, unthinking, corrupt, and unconscious about how what they do affects the average household in America. They don’t see the whole picture; they just concentrate on what they are “doing for the people” at any given time. This has to stop.
It isn’t that Republicans don’t recognize the need for a federal government and tax rates and revenues to support it. It’s that republicans (conservatives) can see that simply demanding more from us isn’t the solution to our problems…we’ve been taxed enough…they have not managed the money it well.
You would never give a child candy and sweets every time they demanded it, it wouldn’t be healthy. The same holds for Washington where excesses grow by the hour, demand is constant, and taxation, not just of income and investment but the hidden taxes and fees in complex regulations, are hurting America.
Once again, it is simple common sense.
Democrats believe in the big bureaucracy, that’s why they always have a new tax or fee in the wings, that’s why they always have a new cause that, they say, requires federal government answers…socialism Marx would agree.
Republicans believe in the power of people to create businesses and jobs and to solve our problems more locally. Our founders agreed.
“Good constitutions are formed upon a comparison of the liberty of the individual with the strength of government: If the tone of either be too high, the other will be weakened too much. It is the happiest possible mode of conciliating these objects, to institute one branch peculiarly endowed with sensibility, another with knowledge and firmness. Through the opposition and mutual control of these bodies, the government will reach, in its regular operations, the perfect balance between liberty and power.” – Alexander Hamilton 1788 – speech to the New York Ratifying Convention
“No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” – James Madison 1788 – Federalist No. 48
Nicely said Steve! People do want to be free. And liberals are never satisfied. If they can’t find a way to raise taxes directly they find a way to raise them through hidden taxes, regulations, and fees.
Americans are getting poorer because we are taxed so much. Our income is under constant assault from one tax or another: income tax at federal and state levels, investment and savings, property, gasoline and energy, phone, registration fees, construction, hunting, sales tax…the list goes on and on.
I wish they were all visible and paid directly…the people would march on DC and Sacto with pitchforks in hand if they could experience the spending power being stolen from them by excessive taxes and the mismanagement of tax monies.
I really wish the Real U-6 figure was used instead of the U-3, which only represents those on unemployment. When people lose their unemployment insurance they don’t vaporize and disappear into thin air. They’re still out their and need to be counted.
Here are a couple of charts from the BLS that give a real picture of just how bad it still is after 7 years of a failed recovery.
Current U-6 Unemployment Rate:
“Current U-6 Unemployment Rate is 10.3% (BLS) and 14.2% (Gallup)
For August 2015 the official U-6 unemployment rate fell from 10.7% in July to 10.3% in August. The independently produced Gallup equivalent called the “Underemployment Rate” fell from 14.4% in July to 14.2% in August.
The current differential between Gallup and BLS on supposedly the same data is 3.9%!”
http://unemploymentdata.com/current-u6-unemployment-rate/
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization:
“NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.”
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Table A-12. Unemployed persons by duration of unemployment:
(Note most of the numbers have gone up including the average and mean duration in weeks.)
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm
From the desk of Sharyl Attkisson.
“Labor participation has hit 62.6% –a 38 year low.
This means more than 37% of America’s potential work force has given up or isn’t even trying to find a job. More than one in three. And that means the burden of feeding the payroll tax monster–paying taxes on wages and for social security–is falling upon a shrinking group of people who do work.
The dim statistic is at odds with others more often cited in the news media as reason for optimism. For example, there are more job openings today than at any point since the government began tracking it in 2000. In June, the unemployment rate was at a seven year low: 5.3 percent. In August it fell to 5.1 percent. So how could it also be true that so many people aren’t even trying to work?
That’s because of a statistical decision the government made in 1994. It decided that people who aren’t working and haven’t been interested in looking for a job for a long time shouldn’t be counted as unemployed. They are simply removed from the calculation, as if they don’t exist.
At the time, the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics called it “a relatively minor change.” But the result has been that, ever since 1994, the unemployment figure under both Democrat and Republican administrations looks better than it otherwise would. Sometimes, far better.
Using this statistical method, the Bureau of Labor Statistics removed 640,000 Americans from unemployment statistics in June. They joined almost 94 million others who aren’t working and aren’t looking. Critics argue the statistic is accurate but misleading because the Bureau of Labor Statistics includes many people who are too old or too young to work.”
https://sharylattkisson.com/labor-day-2015-93-7-million-american-adults-arent-working-arent-trying/
One more chart shows just how bad the employment picture is and has been since Obama took office. Even a Doubting Thomas should be able to grasp this.
Labor Force Participation Rate:
Jan. 2009 – 65.7%
Aug. 2015 – 62.6%
Graph and chart shows a steady decline since Jan. 2009.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
Peggy this needs to be highlighted:
This means more than 37% of America’s potential work force has given up or isn’t even trying to find a job. More than one in three. And that means the burden of feeding the payroll tax monster–paying taxes on wages and for social security–is falling upon a shrinking group of people who do work.”
What a terrible time to have a shrunken work force!
Some of us of retirement age are still working as a result of the poor economy, the constant threat of inflation or deflation, and younger people that need the work our businesses provide.
This is so stupid. It isn’t like we don’t know what works; it’s that our leaders refuse to admit to it. How the heck do Democrats continue to get away with this miserable record?
Thanks Tina for highlighting that. Afraid I haven’t learned how to use the HTML functions. I was also shocked when I read the 640,000 people who had dropped out of the count for June alone. Considering all of the other months the people who have give up is mind blowing. It’s no wonder there are so many homeless in Chico and everywhere.
Here is someone who does have a job and shouldn’t. But, of course he/she works for the gov’t so their name isn’t even being disclosed.
Senior Commerce official’s family watched porn on gov’t computers, watchdog finds:
“A senior official at the Department of Commerce obtained seven computers and iPads from the government, some of which were then used by family members to watch porn, according to an investigation by the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
The employee, who was unnamed but who heads administrative services for an entire division within the agency, is accused of abusing government policies, overcharging taxpayers for travel, and not cooperating with the OIG investigation.
The official had “no less than seven government-issued computer resources at her private residence, including two desktop computers, three laptop computers, and at least two iPad tablets, suggesting she was, at a minimum, indifferent to her obligation to conserve government property and resources.”
“Additionally, a forensic review of two of these computers revealed that inappropriate materials—including pornographic, sexually suggestive, and racially offensive materials—were either saved on or accessed through the government-owned equipment maintained at Senior Official’s residence,” the audit said.
A whistleblower alerted the OIG to the senior official’s actions in December 2013. During the investigation, the senior official attempted to retaliate against an employee for cooperating with the investigation by suspending him or her for three days without pay. The official also wiped data from one of her government-issued iPads, according to the OIG.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/02/senior-commerce-official-let-family-members-download-porn-on-govt-computers/
One thing that’s an encouraging sign is the whistle blowing that’s going on. WB’s have to know that they have the people at their backs. it would seem they do!