and no is on here talking about how great that is. The crazy thing is unemployment went up because "more people are looking for jobs!" So if you don't try to get a job they don't count you as unemployed? That's almost as dumb as counting retired people like me among those that have "left the workforce"
Over 800,000 jobs in a month
- Thread starter 3Rfan
- Start date
I don't know maybe you analyze things a bit different than some..
The is something wrong a guy that has to post a freakin book every time he tries to answer simple question. I asked why people that are not looking for work do not appear in the numbers for unemployment and THAT is the reply you give???
I don't know maybe you analyze things a bit different than some..
Do you think it's right for RETIRED people to be counted among those that have LEFT the workforce while not counting those that are out of work but not actively looking for a job as unemployed? THAT is just plain goofy!
I didn't know a one line answer and a link was a Book???
The factors they use are part of the statistical model to balance things out....people who left the work force because of retirement are people who clearly have a long work history and will no longer be seeking employment thus will probably not be eligible to employers but they are more than likely capable of working or continuing to work, and some do at a reduced scale. Thus being capable of working means they are leaving the work force....
Those people capable or uncapable of work do to various reasons who Do not seek or want to seek work are not going to be seen as possible employee's. If you are by choice not seeking employment or have no drive to do so then you are clearly not unemployed you are a arse sitting lazy butz. Hence they should not count. If you have a legit reason for not working then also you should not count either.
Now does it make a bit more sense. I'm not saying the Model is perfect, but it is what they have used for awhile. And there is some reason behind it.
The factors they use are part of the statistical model to balance things out....people who left the work force because of retirement are people who clearly have a long work history and will no longer be seeking employment thus will probably not be eligible to employers but they are more than likely capable of working or continuing to work, and some do at a reduced scale. Thus being capable of working means they are leaving the work force....
Those people capable or uncapable of work do to various reasons who Do not seek or want to seek work are not going to be seen as possible employee's. If you are by choice not seeking employment or have no drive to do so then you are clearly not unemployed you are a arse sitting lazy butz. Hence they should not count. If you have a legit reason for not working then also you should not count either.
Now does it make a bit more sense. I'm not saying the Model is perfect, but it is what they have used for awhile. And there is some reason behind it.
It was a one liner with another million words that I'd bet NO one on here read.
Makes not one bit of sense! I retired after over 30 years on the RR. There is NO WAY I should be counted as leaving the workforce. That stat came about when people couldn't find a job and gave up looking. That does not apply to me or other retired people. I had a job most of my life and I draw a decent check every month because of that, that is very different than "leaving the workforce!!
Last edited:
Well if you are unwilling to read the report and soak in that information and do a bit of research on why you counted, then of course it won't make a bit of sense. If you want to be close minded and ignore the statistical model and why it is employed then that is clearly your right. A person can lead a horse to water but you can't make that horse drink.
I'm with You, 3R !! I bet MG likes to hear himself talk too. I NEVER read his 500 word essays.
I couldn't "soak in" that much information in about a week, but I do know that people that retire because they can and want to should only be counted as retired people NOT those who left the workforce because they couldn't find a job and gave up looking. Drink that in genius!
I have no issue with your premise, that retired people could be counted in a different subgroup as well as the left the work force subgroup.
I'm not sure why you are so upset and bent out of shape about the formula that is being used by the BLS?
I'm not sure why you are so upset and bent out of shape about the formula that is being used by the BLS?
I fully support your God given right to not read on a subject or post and then throw out a flippant remark.
And I fully support your God given right to write excessively lengthy politically biased diatribes that nobody reads.
Really based on what?? I fully have acknowledged Trump was a Crass, arrogant, womanizing dbag. I flat out stated I don’t believe he won the election.
I provide receipts to back up my positions and insight. Sourcing data and facts, with bonafide sources including many that are Leftwing outlets.
But I get it it’s natural to attack the messenger.
Similar threads
