Unemployment numbers- The ugly truth

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Clubber Lang, Mar 8, 2013.

  1. Max E.

    Max E.

    Nice try, i think alex jones is insane, and have never listened to his show.
     
    #11     Mar 8, 2013
  2. Ricter

    Ricter

    Why did those adults choose not to look for work?
     
    #12     Mar 8, 2013
  3. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Affirmative action ≠ "real world", bitch.
     
    #13     Mar 8, 2013
  4. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,842009,00.html

    Unemployment has not existed in the Soviet Union since 1930—officially. The Russians are nonetheless finding it harder to ignore the growing number of people who are out of work. The rate is still officially only about1½% of the work force—largely because of close state control of jobs and much make-work—but that means that more than 1,000,000 workers are out of jobs in a society that claims to take care of all the workers' needs. The figure is much higher if short-term unemployment is included: an estimated 11 million Soviet workers switch jobs each year, each averaging an unpaid layoff...


    Look familiar? What could possibly go wrong with a government that completely ignores the facts?
     
    #14     Mar 8, 2013
  5. Well then, get away from Matt Drudge.
     
    #15     Mar 8, 2013
  6. the old red scare? Update the playbook, Cap'n
     
    #16     Mar 8, 2013
  7. Strom Thurmond is dead, Jeeves. Get over it.:D
     
    #17     Mar 8, 2013
  8. pspr

    pspr

    Nobody cares about your constant attacks. You just show up and start calling people names and trying to piss them off. You should just stay away if you have nothing resonable to contribute. What's wrong with you?
     
    #18     Mar 8, 2013
  9. Ricter

    Ricter

    At any rate, all this "sekret" data which proves we're all much worse off than we know, it's a wash. If today's employment numbers were down, we'd be worse off instead of better off.
     
    #19     Mar 8, 2013
  10. While that's true ricter, clubber lang is right. The participation rate continues to drop. And before you say it's because of the boomers retiring, I think denner was correct and you were not (last time we had this argument). A little stat straight from the BLS, is that the participation rate of people aged 65 and older has increased since 2008, and the participation rate of everyone else 16-64 continues to decline. Looks like the old folks are not in such good shape to be retiring, never mind early.
     
    #20     Mar 8, 2013