19 thoughts on “If You’re Not Scared

  1. Der Schtumpy

    Thanks for posting this Rand. I’m going to send a link to every idiot Obama supporter I know, whom I’ve told about the people who have been intentionally dropped out of the numbers. I doubt this will change their minds, but I’ll have given them something to read, instead of my ‘opinion’ as several have said.

    In point of fact, I asked here just a few days ago if anyone still believed the Labor Department numbers. I’m no math genius, but this whole numbers scenario seemed to me like a case of figures not lying, but liars figuring. Evidently they figured up to about 350K people on this occasion. It’s a little akin to making people into ‘unpeople’, like in the old Soviet Union.

    The lying b@st@rds.

  2. MfK

    Every time jobs data are released, they are spun in a positive fashion — then quietly revised to their correct (and always worse) values the following week. The dishonesty of this Administration is simply breathtaking.

    1. Josh Reiter

      Q: What’s the difference between a capitalist fairy tale and a Marxist fairy tale?
      A: The capitalist fairy tale starts out; “once upon a time there was….”, The Marxist fairy tale starts out; “some day there will be….”

    2. Thomas Matula

      Titus,

      Yes, funny how it matches the demographic bubble of the Baby Boom isn’t it?

      1. ken anthony

        Funny how your comment has nothing to do with the labor force participation rate which excludes students, retired, stay-at-home parents, prisoners, people with unreported income, and those not looking for work.

        Oh, and it’s a percentage.

        So you have no point regarding baby boomers. It’s just some insinuation of yours.

  3. CptNerd

    I wonder how many of those are illegals that have gone back home? I have seen short articles mentioning that the tide had slowed coming in, and some saying that more illegals were leaving than coming in, but no numbers were mentioned. “Giving up and going home” would be a bit better than “giving up and staying here” as far as these numbers go, but not by much.

    1. Jiminator

      Interesting chart. Does the decline in the trendline double starting in Jan 2009 or are my eyes deceiving me?

      1. Thomas Matula

        Jiminator,

        You mean when the banks that got the Bush Bailout paid it back by not passing the funds on to their borrowers as President Bush promised they would?

    2. Titus

      Anti-Obama Derangement Syndrone

      Glass houses, bro.

      Job holders 55 and up have risen by 3.9 million — and fallen by 8.1 million among those under 55, Labor Department data show. It’s been 50 months and counting since payrolls peaked, a post-war record. Labor releases the April jobs report on Friday morning.

      For the 65-69 and 70-74 groups, the employed shares are up 1.1 percentage points and 1.6 percentage points, respectively, over the past four years.

      Yes, the butthurtiness for the Obamaphiles continues unabated. It’s the younger people who’ve stopped getting benefits and still don’t have work. Hell, the early retiree level (those who claim Social Security at the lowest possible age – 62) dropped to 26.9% last year, the lowest since 1976.

      1. Thomas Matula

        Yes and I am sure you will see the labor force participation rate increase even more when the Republicans end Social Security as we know it :-)

        1. Titus

          No worries — I’ll still send you a tube of Preparation H c/o the old folks home.

    3. ken anthony

      I repeat. It’s a percentage. Size is not a consideration. Baby boomers or population size makes no difference.

      It’s just about people that have jobs and those that are looking.

      1. Thomas Matula

        Ken,

        Have you ever looked at a demographic chart of the Baby Boom? On that shows percentages? I guess not based on your comment about it…

Comments are closed.