Where Is Obama on Chicago’s Gun Vio...
Oneal

Grand Rapids, MI

#21 Jul 20, 2014
Go Blue Forever wrote:
LATEST FED SURVEY SEE'S IMPROVING ECONOMY....Associated Press .(7-17-14)......Could'nt help the apostrophe again....sorry....
... and imagine how much quicker and stronger the economy would have improved had we not an anti-business administration focused like a "laser" on Trayvon Martin and fundraising events.

Oh, don't try to improve your grammar, Blue. Why stray too far from the reservation of lazy ignorance, where part time jobs and government handouts are something to brag about?

Substandard is as substandard does. The rest of us will do the work for you, as always.

Since: May 14

Location hidden

#22 Jul 20, 2014
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text> U.S. FIRM'S POST MOST JOBS IN 7 YEARS, IN MAY....Associated Press .(7-9-14).....Economic Recovery, helped along by President Obama.....
Too bad they were mostly part time
mike

Oxford, MI

#25 Sep 9, 2014
Nowhere to be found! Black on black does not count! What's wrong with you people?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#26 Sep 10, 2014
scirocco wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad they were mostly part time
...Another claim, without facts?

Since: May 14

Location hidden

#27 Sep 10, 2014
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>...Another claim, without facts?
Bend over clown...

75 Percent Of Jobs Created This Year Were Part-Time Due To Weak Economy, Obamacare Concerns

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/part...

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#28 Sep 10, 2014
scirocco wrote:
<quoted text>
Bend over clown...
75 Percent Of Jobs Created This Year Were Part-Time Due To Weak Economy, Obamacare Concerns
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/part...
Does an article like that....with no Labor, Commerce or Fed data, serve as some type of PROOF TO YOU??????....Article even state's that the biggest retailers start people in part-time, and most move into full-time....C'mon Man?

Since: May 14

Location hidden

#29 Sep 10, 2014
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text> Does an article like that....with no Labor, Commerce or Fed data, serve as some type of PROOF TO YOU??????....Article even state's that the biggest retailers start people in part-time, and most move into full-time....C'mon Man?
Go ahead and prove it wrong....it's a looney left site

I'll laugh my butt off

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#30 Sep 10, 2014
I'm thinking, you probably laugh your butt off, quite enough....just make sure the rest don't see...lol....

Since: May 14

Location hidden

#31 Sep 10, 2014
Go Blue Forever wrote:
I'm thinking, you probably laugh your butt off, quite enough....just make sure the rest don't see...lol....
Is that your best shot clown?
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#32 Sep 10, 2014
scirocco wrote:
<quoted text>
Go ahead and prove it wrong....it's a looney left site
I'll laugh my butt off
Bend over big guy and enjoy ... what goes around, comes around ...

If you don't like it, then as you say, PROVE THIS WRONG. Charts don't lie and FACTS are FACTS.

OBAMA OUTPERFORMS REAGAN ON JOBS, GROWTH AND INVESTING

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/...

Note the section on LABOR PARTICIPATION RATE and the chart showing the U3 and U6 unemployment rates, which is the difference between 'reported unemployment' and 'all unemployment' which includes 'part timers' and those on the fringe of employment. The chart shows that this difference has remained constant since at least 1994. U6 is not a hidden unemployment. It is a measure tracked since 1900 by the BLS.

Note that the U6 Unemployment is now at about 12%, the same as it was in 1994! Note also that both U3 and U6 began to climb again (from 4% and 8% respectively) only when GWB took office in 2001 AND REALLY TOOK OFF WHEN THE GWBs GREAT RECESSION HIT IN 2007!

The labor participation rate adds in jobless part time workers and those in marginal work situations with those seeking full time work. This is not a hidden unemployment. It is a measure tracked since 1900 and called U6. today by the BLS." As this chart also shows, the difference between 'reported unemployment' and 'all unemployment' including those on the fringe of the workforce has remained pretty constant since 1994.

Note also the chart showing long-term job participation rate dating back to 1948. It also clearly shows that as BABY BOOMERS have began retiring since roughly 2002 the percentage of those seeking employment have declined dramatically. This has nothing to do with job availability, and everything to do with a highly predictable aging demographic.

Since: May 14

Location hidden

#33 Sep 10, 2014
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
Bend over big guy and enjoy ... what goes around, comes around ...
If you don't like it, then as you say, PROVE THIS WRONG. Charts don't lie and FACTS are FACTS.
OBAMA OUTPERFORMS REAGAN ON JOBS, GROWTH AND INVESTING
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/...
Note the section on LABOR PARTICIPATION RATE and the chart showing the U3 and U6 unemployment rates, which is the difference between 'reported unemployment' and 'all unemployment' which includes 'part timers' and those on the fringe of employment. The chart shows that this difference has remained constant since at least 1994. U6 is not a hidden unemployment. It is a measure tracked since 1900 by the BLS.
Note that the U6 Unemployment is now at about 12%, the same as it was in 1994! Note also that both U3 and U6 began to climb again (from 4% and 8% respectively) only when GWB took office in 2001 AND REALLY TOOK OFF WHEN THE GWBs GREAT RECESSION HIT IN 2007!
The labor participation rate adds in jobless part time workers and those in marginal work situations with those seeking full time work. This is not a hidden unemployment. It is a measure tracked since 1900 and called U6. today by the BLS." As this chart also shows, the difference between 'reported unemployment' and 'all unemployment' including those on the fringe of the workforce has remained pretty constant since 1994.
Note also the chart showing long-term job participation rate dating back to 1948. It also clearly shows that as BABY BOOMERS have began retiring since roughly 2002 the percentage of those seeking employment have declined dramatically. This has nothing to do with job availability, and everything to do with a highly predictable aging demographic.
bwahahahahahahahaha

LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE FALLS TO LOWEST LEVEL SINCE 1978

http://www.businessinsider.com/lfpr-falls-to-...

If people are retiring then the participation rate should be HIGHER. Go back to sleep
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#34 Sep 10, 2014
scirocco wrote:
<quoted text>
bwahahahahahahahaha
LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE FALLS TO LOWEST LEVEL SINCE 1978
http://www.businessinsider.com/lfpr-falls-to-...
If people are retiring then the participation rate should be HIGHER. Go back to sleep
Hahah. First you need to learn how to read AND interpret statistical charts. If you still can't or are too stupid, then find someone who can and have them report back to me.#2 your link shows exactly the same thing mine did. LFPR have fallen due to DEMOGRAPHIC changes in the work force, NOT because a shortage of jobs. So nice try Sherlock.

The fact is DEMOGRAPHICS are determining the labor force and employments rates not a shortage of jobs.#3 and most germane to this discussion is the term "rates" as applied to statistical analysis. Look up the term "rate(s)" in the dictionary, if you know what one is, and tell me what it says, specifically as it applies to statistics.

The point is the LFPR, i.e, the RATE in terms of a percentage of the WHOLE is unchanged over decade, i.e.
"1. A quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity
2. A measure of a part with respect to a whole; a proportion" ...

Got it stupid?

Now you go back to your 60 inch LCD (that one you didn't actually pay for but the govt did) with faux news blaring 24/7 in your face and fill your head with more stupid shit.

Since: May 14

Location hidden

#35 Sep 10, 2014
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahah. First you need to learn how to read AND interpret statistical charts. If you still can't or are too stupid, then find someone who can and have them report back to me.#2 your link shows exactly the same thing mine did. LFPR have fallen due to DEMOGRAPHIC changes in the work force, NOT because a shortage of jobs. So nice try Sherlock.
The fact is DEMOGRAPHICS are determining the labor force and employments rates not a shortage of jobs.#3 and most germane to this discussion is the term "rates" as applied to statistical analysis. Look up the term "rate(s)" in the dictionary, if you know what one is, and tell me what it says, specifically as it applies to statistics.
The point is the LFPR, i.e, the RATE in terms of a percentage of the WHOLE is unchanged over decade, i.e.
"1. A quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity
2. A measure of a part with respect to a whole; a proportion" ...
Got it stupid?
Now you go back to your 60 inch LCD (that one you didn't actually pay for but the govt did) with faux news blaring 24/7 in your face and fill your head with more stupid shit.
Stop showing off how dumb you are..or don't. If there are the same number of people employed with a lower number of job seekers then the rate goes UP. The problem is, under Obama, that there are now 12 million more people in the US with a miniscule increase in the number of jobs.

Go back to sleep
Rob

United States

#36 Sep 10, 2014
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>Hahah. First you need to learn how to read AND interpret statistical charts. If you still can't or are too stupid, then find someone who can and have them report back to me.#2 your link shows exactly the same thing mine did. LFPR have fallen due to DEMOGRAPHIC changes in the work force, NOT because a shortage of jobs. So nice try Sherlock.

The fact is DEMOGRAPHICS are determining the labor force and employments rates not a shortage of jobs.#3 and most germane to this discussion is the term "rates" as applied to statistical analysis. Look up the term "rate(s)" in the dictionary, if you know what one is, and tell me what it says, specifically as it applies to statistics.

The point is the LFPR, i.e, the RATE in terms of a percentage of the WHOLE is unchanged over decade, i.e.
"1. A quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity
2. A measure of a part with respect to a whole; a proportion" ...

Got it stupid?

Now you go back to your 60 inch LCD (that one you didn't actually pay for but the govt did) with faux news blaring 24/7 in your face and fill your head with more stupid shit.
Why don't you just get back under your cowardly rock? Charts don't lie but the people making them do.
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#37 Sep 10, 2014
scirocco wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop showing off how dumb you are..or don't. If there are the same number of people employed with a lower number of job seekers then the rate goes UP. The problem is, under Obama, that there are now 12 million more people in the US with a miniscule increase in the number of jobs.
Go back to sleep
Wrong again stupid. Like I said either get a handle on how to read and understand statistical analysis or just crawl back under that little stone of yours and just STFU. The LFPR rate hasn't changed. Demographics have. BTW your business inside article is weak at best. Its based mostly on some chart put together by some other guy Mitra Toossi? LOL who the F is he? Is THAT the best you can do?
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#38 Sep 10, 2014
scirocco wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop showing off how dumb you are..or don't. If there are the same number of people employed with a lower number of job seekers then the rate goes UP. The problem is, under Obama, that there are now 12 million more people in the US with a miniscule increase in the number of jobs.
Go back to sleep
Hahaha O looky here. Stupid is going to change the subject and say 12 million more people is all Obama's fault. That must be another white trash talking point you picked up on faux blows? LOL

Why don't you take your b.s. somewhere else and manipulate it some more to fit your low life, no life agenda?

Since: May 14

Location hidden

#39 Sep 10, 2014
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahaha O looky here. Stupid is going to change the subject and say 12 million more people is all Obama's fault. That must be another white trash talking point you picked up on faux blows? LOL
Why don't you take your b.s. somewhere else and manipulate it some more to fit your low life, no life agenda?
Stupid is as stupid posts and you're it

Dance Clown
Rob

United States

#40 Sep 10, 2014
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>Hahaha O looky here. Stupid is going to change the subject and say 12 million more people is all Obama's fault. That must be another white trash talking point you picked up on faux blows? LOL

Why don't you take your b.s. somewhere else and manipulate it some more to fit your low life, no life agenda?
Part time work at a low wage with no benefits! Yippee! God are you stupid....
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#41 Sep 10, 2014
Rob wrote:
<quoted text>
Part time work at a low wage with no benefits! Yippee! God are you stupid....
That would be YOU too wouldn't it twerp? BTW, THAT is NOT Obama's fault stupid. Just like gas prices at the pump aren't under his control. How many manufacturing and other living wage jobs have been shipped overseas in the last 20 years? And who's fault is that? O that's right you're only 15 and still trying to keep that job at Burger King despite not being able to get thru a few hours without being sent home for loading your pants. Isn't that so stupid?
Phil

Oxford, MI

#42 Sep 10, 2014
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>That would be YOU too wouldn't it twerp? BTW, THAT is NOT Obama's fault stupid. Just like gas prices at the pump aren't under his control. How many manufacturing and other living wage jobs have been shipped overseas in the last 20 years? And who's fault is that? O that's right you're only 15 and still trying to keep that job at Burger King despite not being able to get thru a few hours without being sent home for loading your pants. Isn't that so stupid?
Good Qboy! You finally admit those jobs are not worth a crap and a good percentage are people are holding multiple jobs. That does make a chart look better than it really is. You're to familiar with the smoke and mirrors of the Rainbow Club.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Local News Women (Apr '09) Thu T-Man 2,992
Adult theater Cina-Mini two (Mar '13) Aug 10 Isnt That Special 15
Does anyone remember The Red Lion restaurant in... (Jun '16) Aug 3 Steveo 3
News Construction has few blacks, report says (Aug '07) Aug 3 Fun Facts 635
topless maid in gr (Jul '08) Jul 30 Billy Barry 30
News Michigan lawmaker proposes bill banning Sharia Law Jul 27 Ampman 14
News 18-year-old shot by Grand Rapids police during ... Jul 27 White Priv 9

Grand Rapids Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Grand Rapids Mortgages