So the population didn't grow under Obama?

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #416,515 by Another Scott 1/6/17 11:25:49 AM 1/6/17 11:25:49 AM Reply	So the population didn't grow under Obama? The issue is the definition of "not in the labor force", not whether the number increased. "Not in the labor force" includes children according to the definition at the BLS. Or am I wrong about that? Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #416,519 by boxley 1/6/17 11:42:01 AM 1/6/17 11:42:01 AM Reply	if it grew 18% it was over the southern border from the article People over age 16 who are no longer working or even looking for work, for whatever reason (retirement, school, personal preference, or gave up), are counted as not participating in the labor force. I guess it depends on what the definition of children is. "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #416,522 by Another Scott 1/6/17 12:10:06 PM 1/6/17 12:10:06 PM Reply	Ok, I'm being thick today. No time to figure out where I messed up at the moment... Still, the numbers have to be put in context. Unemployment was heading to 10% when Obama took office. It's heading to 4.5% as he's leaving. Cherry picking numbers isn't enlightening, and CNS isn't a good news site - they're a propaganda outfit. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #416,524 by boxley 1/6/17 12:22:52 PM 1/6/17 12:22:52 PM Reply	no worries cherry picking data is what the government is very good at :-) "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

Record 95,102,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Number Grew 18% Since Obama Took Office in 2009 - (boxley) - (24) - Jan. 6, 2017, 10:27:09 AM EST

Counting children doesn't make much sense, does it? (Haven't clicked the CNS link). - (Another Scott) - (8) - Jan. 6, 2017, 10:41:25 AM EST

the count only included those over 16, -NT - (boxley) - (6) - Jan. 6, 2017, 10:44:51 AM EST

Eh? - (Another Scott) - (5) - Jan. 6, 2017, 11:02:56 AM EST

Re: Eh? - (boxley) - (4) - Jan. 6, 2017, 11:07:35 AM EST

So the population didn't grow under Obama? - (Another Scott) - (3) - Jan. 6, 2017, 11:25:49 AM EST

if it grew 18% it was over the southern border - (boxley) - (2) - Jan. 6, 2017, 11:42:01 AM EST

Ok, I'm being thick today. - (Another Scott) - (1) - Jan. 6, 2017, 12:10:06 PM EST

no worries - (boxley) - Jan. 6, 2017, 12:22:52 PM EST

It's not about counting children. - (malraux) - Jan. 6, 2017, 03:02:18 PM EST

Point? - (drook) - (6) - Jan. 6, 2017, 11:39:16 AM EST

Re: Point? unemployment is higher than 4.7% but government goes, fap fap fap better -NT - (boxley) - (5) - Jan. 6, 2017, 11:43:45 AM EST

Numbers needed - (drook) - Jan. 6, 2017, 01:23:11 PM EST

Unemployment != everyone who can't find a job. - (malraux) - (3) - Jan. 6, 2017, 03:04:09 PM EST

damn old farts - (boxley) - (2) - Jan. 6, 2017, 04:15:27 PM EST

Still playing numbers games - (drook) - (1) - Jan. 6, 2017, 05:04:43 PM EST

anecdotal is not data - (boxley) - Jan. 6, 2017, 05:28:17 PM EST

Calculated Risk straightens us out. - (Another Scott) - (7) - Jan. 11, 2017, 11:31:39 PM EST

that is an assumption not a fact - (boxley) - (6) - Jan. 12, 2017, 09:53:47 AM EST

Evidence, please? -NT - (Another Scott) - (5) - Jan. 12, 2017, 10:33:53 AM EST

its your claim to prove, not mine - (boxley) - (4) - Jan. 12, 2017, 11:18:46 AM EST

If they're looking for work, they're part of the "labor force". HTH. - (Another Scott) - (3) - Jan. 12, 2017, 11:20:43 AM EST

nope, a definition of what the government calls unemployed is - (boxley) - (2) - Jan. 12, 2017, 11:29:47 AM EST

We're going around in circles... - (Another Scott) - (1) - Jan. 12, 2017, 03:48:40 PM EST

"Out of drought" - (drook) - Jan. 12, 2017, 04:02:26 PM EST

Helmet of the meat!
48 ms