>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:45:40 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:

>>> On 10/11/2012 3:15 AM, Hank wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 6:50:43 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

>>>>>> Yes - a lot more.

>>>>>> Here are some official numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

>>>>>> Total employment Sept. 2012 - 133,500,000

>>>>>> Total employment Jan. 2009  - 133,561,000

>>>>>> Total working age population growth during those years - 7,865,000

>>>>>> So, the population has gone up by almost 8 million people, but the

>>>>>> number of people holding jobs has gone up by 61 thousand.  The only way

>>>>>> to claim that unemployment is less now than then is to believe that NONE

>>>>>> of those 8 Million people want jobs.

>>>>>> Do you really believe that?

>>>>>> Traditionally about two thirds of the working age people want jobs, so

>>>>>> if we make the assumption that about 2/3rds of that 8 million people

>>>>>> want jobs, that would mean that almost 6 million people are not being

>>>>>> counted as unemployed but should be.  Doing the math in my head, that

>>>>>> comes to about 3% more unemployment - or a total of about 11% instead of

>>>>>> the 7.8% they are claiming.

>>>>>> Of course the percentage unemployed goes down if you quit counting

>>>>>> people, but a person would have to be an idiot to believe that none of

>>>>>> those people want jobs.

>>>>> I just noticed a typo in what I wrote - I said employment went up by 61

>>>>> thousand, I meant it went down by 61 thousand.  The actual employment

>>>>> numbers just above that line are correct, I just typed the math backwards.

>>>>> --

>>>>> Bruce

>>>> You can't just use the working age stats and employment stats for figuring unemployment. There are other factors that have to be taken into consideration. It's not as simple as you think.

>>>> If you wasn't so lazy, you'd figure out how to delete a post after you send it. Sound familiar? :-)

>>>> Hank

>>> You still haven't answered my question (and I DID answer yours):  Do you
>>> really believe that NONE of those 8 million people who came into the
>>> workforce age group wanted jobs?

>>> It's a simple yes or no question.

>>> Fewer people have jobs today than had jobs 4 years ago.
>>> 8 million people entered the employment age group.

>>> How is that possible?
>> -------------------------------

>> Something tells me that Hank is going to pull a nothermark and not
>> provide that answer.

>> If it was nothermark he would reply with a canard........ if you do
>> get a reply expect just that...... a canard.

>> mike

> I'd go here and look for a cross correlation to folks on early
> retirement.  That is probably the answer.  The more one is past 55 the
> harder it becomes to get a decent job if one is laid off.  If one has
> the resources then why push to take a low paying job?

>> On 10/11/2012 12:37 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:50:45 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:

>>>> On 10/10/2012 3:27 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>>>>> On 10/10/2012 2:32 PM, Hank wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 3:25:34 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

>>>>>>> You still can't read for comprehension, can you?

>>>>>>> You didn't amuse me, I amused myself providing information that I knew

>>>>>>> you would ignore.

>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>> Bruce

>>>>>> Seriously, do you really believe there are more people out of work now
>>>>>> than When O took office?

>>>>>> Hank

>>>>> Yes - a lot more.

>>>>> Here are some official numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

>>>>> Total employment Sept. 2012 - 133,500,000
>>>>> Total employment Jan. 2009  - 133,561,000

>>>>> Total working age population growth during those years - 7,865,000

>>>>> So, the population has gone up by almost 8 million people, but the
>>>>> number of people holding jobs has gone up by 61 thousand.  The only way
>>>>> to claim that unemployment is less now than then is to believe that NONE
>>>>> of those 8 Million people want jobs.

>>>>> Do you really believe that?

>>>>> Traditionally about two thirds of the working age people want jobs, so
>>>>> if we make the assumption that about 2/3rds of that 8 million people
>>>>> want jobs, that would mean that almost 6 million people are not being
>>>>> counted as unemployed but should be.  Doing the math in my head, that
>>>>> comes to about 3% more unemployment - or a total of about 11% instead of
>>>>> the 7.8% they are claiming.

>>>>> Of course the percentage unemployed goes down if you quit counting
>>>>> people, but a person would have to be an idiot to believe that none of
>>>>> those people want jobs.

>>>> I just noticed a typo in what I wrote - I said employment went up by 61
>>>> thousand, I meant it went down by 61 thousand.  The actual employment
>>>> numbers just above that line are correct, I just typed the math backwards.

>>> You made another mistake on the "Traditionally about two thirds of the
>>> working age people want jobs,".  That is a fairly recent development.
>>> Prior to the boomers growing up the number was lower than that.

>> Is it your position that none of that 8 million wanted jobs?

>> Any percentage you pick raises the true unemployment rate.  So - you can
>> claim that only half, instead of two thirds want jobs, and that means
>> that we have another (uncounted) 4 million unemployed (rather than the 6
>> million I estimated).  Do you think that changes the reality that the
>> unemployed are under counted, and that in truth the  unemployment is
>> much higher than 7.8%?

> I think you are confusing folks who want a job with folks who do not
> need or want one.  Not the welfare recipients Mike is whining about.
> Folks who were well paid when they worked and now are under 65, not
> working for various reasons, and not looking to go back to work.

> All the numbers can give you is how many folks there are and how many
> say they want a job.  The numbers do not tell why the folks are not
> working or looking.   It is as easy and as relative to say that they
> number has dropped to reflect the number of under 65 folks who do not
> need to work now.  That is good news to a lot of us.  ;-)

>>> On 10/11/2012 12:37 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:50:45 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> On 10/10/2012 3:27 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/10/2012 2:32 PM, Hank wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 3:25:34 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

>>>>>>>> You still can't read for comprehension, can you?

>>>>>>>> You didn't amuse me, I amused myself providing information that I knew

>>>>>>>> you would ignore.

>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>> Bruce

>>>>>>> Seriously, do you really believe there are more people out of work now
>>>>>>> than When O took office?

>>>>>>> Hank

>>>>>> Yes - a lot more.

>>>>>> Here are some official numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

>>>>>> Total employment Sept. 2012 - 133,500,000
>>>>>> Total employment Jan. 2009  - 133,561,000

>>>>>> Total working age population growth during those years - 7,865,000

>>>>>> So, the population has gone up by almost 8 million people, but the
>>>>>> number of people holding jobs has gone up by 61 thousand.  The only way
>>>>>> to claim that unemployment is less now than then is to believe that NONE
>>>>>> of those 8 Million people want jobs.

>>>>>> Do you really believe that?

>>>>>> Traditionally about two thirds of the working age people want jobs, so
>>>>>> if we make the assumption that about 2/3rds of that 8 million people
>>>>>> want jobs, that would mean that almost 6 million people are not being
>>>>>> counted as unemployed but should be.  Doing the math in my head, that
>>>>>> comes to about 3% more unemployment - or a total of about 11% instead of
>>>>>> the 7.8% they are claiming.

>>>>>> Of course the percentage unemployed goes down if you quit counting
>>>>>> people, but a person would have to be an idiot to believe that none of
>>>>>> those people want jobs.

>>>>> I just noticed a typo in what I wrote - I said employment went up by 61
>>>>> thousand, I meant it went down by 61 thousand.  The actual employment
>>>>> numbers just above that line are correct, I just typed the math backwards.

>>>> You made another mistake on the "Traditionally about two thirds of the
>>>> working age people want jobs,".  That is a fairly recent development.
>>>> Prior to the boomers growing up the number was lower than that.

>>> Is it your position that none of that 8 million wanted jobs?

>>> Any percentage you pick raises the true unemployment rate.  So - you can
>>> claim that only half, instead of two thirds want jobs, and that means
>>> that we have another (uncounted) 4 million unemployed (rather than the 6
>>> million I estimated).  Do you think that changes the reality that the
>>> unemployed are under counted, and that in truth the  unemployment is
>>> much higher than 7.8%?

>> I think you are confusing folks who want a job with folks who do not
>> need or want one.  Not the welfare recipients Mike is whining about.
>> Folks who were well paid when they worked and now are under 65, not
>> working for various reasons, and not looking to go back to work.

>> All the numbers can give you is how many folks there are and how many
>> say they want a job.  The numbers do not tell why the folks are not
>> working or looking.   It is as easy and as relative to say that they
>> number has dropped to reflect the number of under 65 folks who do not
>> need to work now.  That is good news to a lot of us.  ;-)

>That is a completely asinine assertion.  We have an economy that is so
>stagnant that many experts have already declared that we are in a
>recession.  We are creating so few jobs that we cannot even keep up with
>population growth.  How stupid do you have to be to believe that the
>entire 8 million under-counted unemployed are old folks taking early
>retirement.  Look at the U6 number - it has remained at over 14% since
>the recession.  People are not retiring, they are giving up.

>> On 10/12/2012 1:55 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:38:25 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:

>>>> On 10/11/2012 12:37 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:50:45 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>> On 10/10/2012 3:27 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/10/2012 2:32 PM, Hank wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 3:25:34 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

>>>>>>>>> You still can't read for comprehension, can you?

>>>>>>>>> You didn't amuse me, I amused myself providing information that I knew

>>>>>>>>> you would ignore.

>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>> Bruce

>>>>>>>> Seriously, do you really believe there are more people out of work now
>>>>>>>> than When O took office?

>>>>>>>> Hank

>>>>>>> Yes - a lot more.

>>>>>>> Here are some official numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

>>>>>>> Total employment Sept. 2012 - 133,500,000
>>>>>>> Total employment Jan. 2009  - 133,561,000

>>>>>>> Total working age population growth during those years - 7,865,000

>>>>>>> So, the population has gone up by almost 8 million people, but the
>>>>>>> number of people holding jobs has gone up by 61 thousand.  The only way
>>>>>>> to claim that unemployment is less now than then is to believe that NONE
>>>>>>> of those 8 Million people want jobs.

>>>>>>> Do you really believe that?

>>>>>>> Traditionally about two thirds of the working age people want jobs, so
>>>>>>> if we make the assumption that about 2/3rds of that 8 million people
>>>>>>> want jobs, that would mean that almost 6 million people are not being
>>>>>>> counted as unemployed but should be.  Doing the math in my head, that
>>>>>>> comes to about 3% more unemployment - or a total of about 11% instead of
>>>>>>> the 7.8% they are claiming.

>>>>>>> Of course the percentage unemployed goes down if you quit counting
>>>>>>> people, but a person would have to be an idiot to believe that none of
>>>>>>> those people want jobs.

>>>>>> I just noticed a typo in what I wrote - I said employment went up by 61
>>>>>> thousand, I meant it went down by 61 thousand.  The actual employment
>>>>>> numbers just above that line are correct, I just typed the math backwards.

>>>>> You made another mistake on the "Traditionally about two thirds of the
>>>>> working age people want jobs,".  That is a fairly recent development.
>>>>> Prior to the boomers growing up the number was lower than that.

>>>> Is it your position that none of that 8 million wanted jobs?

>>>> Any percentage you pick raises the true unemployment rate.  So - you can
>>>> claim that only half, instead of two thirds want jobs, and that means
>>>> that we have another (uncounted) 4 million unemployed (rather than the 6
>>>> million I estimated).  Do you think that changes the reality that the
>>>> unemployed are under counted, and that in truth the  unemployment is
>>>> much higher than 7.8%?

>>> I think you are confusing folks who want a job with folks who do not
>>> need or want one.  Not the welfare recipients Mike is whining about.
>>> Folks who were well paid when they worked and now are under 65, not
>>> working for various reasons, and not looking to go back to work.

>>> All the numbers can give you is how many folks there are and how many
>>> say they want a job.  The numbers do not tell why the folks are not
>>> working or looking.   It is as easy and as relative to say that they
>>> number has dropped to reflect the number of under 65 folks who do not
>>> need to work now.  That is good news to a lot of us.  ;-)

>> That is a completely asinine assertion.  We have an economy that is so
>> stagnant that many experts have already declared that we are in a
>> recession.  We are creating so few jobs that we cannot even keep up with
>> population growth.  How stupid do you have to be to believe that the
>> entire 8 million under-counted unemployed are old folks taking early
>> retirement.  Look at the U6 number - it has remained at over 14% since
>> the recession.  People are not retiring, they are giving up.

> Did you retire early or give up?

>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:45:40 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:

>>>> On 10/11/2012 3:15 AM, Hank wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 6:50:43 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

>>>>>>> Yes - a lot more.

>>>>>>> Here are some official numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

>>>>>>> Total employment Sept. 2012 - 133,500,000

>>>>>>> Total employment Jan. 2009  - 133,561,000

>>>>>>> Total working age population growth during those years - 7,865,000

>>>>>>> So, the population has gone up by almost 8 million people, but the

>>>>>>> number of people holding jobs has gone up by 61 thousand.  The only way

>>>>>>> to claim that unemployment is less now than then is to believe that NONE

>>>>>>> of those 8 Million people want jobs.

>>>>>>> Do you really believe that?

>>>>>>> Traditionally about two thirds of the working age people want jobs, so

>>>>>>> if we make the assumption that about 2/3rds of that 8 million people

>>>>>>> want jobs, that would mean that almost 6 million people are not being

>>>>>>> counted as unemployed but should be.  Doing the math in my head, that

>>>>>>> comes to about 3% more unemployment - or a total of about 11% instead of

>>>>>>> the 7.8% they are claiming.

>>>>>>> Of course the percentage unemployed goes down if you quit counting

>>>>>>> people, but a person would have to be an idiot to believe that none of

>>>>>>> those people want jobs.

>>>>>> I just noticed a typo in what I wrote - I said employment went up by 61

>>>>>> thousand, I meant it went down by 61 thousand.  The actual employment

>>>>>> numbers just above that line are correct, I just typed the math backwards.

>>>>>> --

>>>>>> Bruce

>>>>> You can't just use the working age stats and employment stats for figuring unemployment. There are other factors that have to be taken into consideration. It's not as simple as you think.

>>>>> If you wasn't so lazy, you'd figure out how to delete a post after you send it. Sound familiar? :-)

>>>>> Hank

>>>> You still haven't answered my question (and I DID answer yours):  Do you
>>>> really believe that NONE of those 8 million people who came into the
>>>> workforce age group wanted jobs?

>>>> It's a simple yes or no question.

>>>> Fewer people have jobs today than had jobs 4 years ago.
>>>> 8 million people entered the employment age group.

>>>> How is that possible?
>>> -------------------------------

>>> Something tells me that Hank is going to pull a nothermark and not
>>> provide that answer.

>>> If it was nothermark he would reply with a canard........ if you do
>>> get a reply expect just that...... a canard.

>>> mike

>> I'd go here and look for a cross correlation to folks on early
>> retirement.  That is probably the answer.  The more one is past 55 the
>> harder it becomes to get a decent job if one is laid off.  If one has
>> the resources then why push to take a low paying job?

>In my opinion, being forced to retire is the same as being unemployed.
>I retired at age 57 because I wanted to retire - I would have retired at
>23, but couldn't afford it.  I had planned on retiring at age 55 but
>because of my father's health, I continued to work till after he died
>and my mother moved back to AZ and stabilized.

>So I was done working at age 57 - but that had NOTHING to do with the
>economy, or availability of work - I just wanted out.  On the other
>hand, if I had been laid off and ended up spending my retirement money
>to survive because I couldn't find a job, I would have considered myself
>unemployed, not retired.

>Forget that.  That could only be done if US labor was willing to work for
>overseas $$$ and/or Americans were willing to pay much more for products.

>> On 10/12/2012 1:55 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:00:02 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
>>> (dot) us> wrote:

>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:45:40 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> On 10/11/2012 3:15 AM, Hank wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 6:50:43 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

>>>>>>>> Yes - a lot more.

>>>>>>>> Here are some official numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

>>>>>>>> Total employment Sept. 2012 - 133,500,000

>>>>>>>> Total employment Jan. 2009  - 133,561,000

>>>>>>>> Total working age population growth during those years - 7,865,000

>>>>>>>> So, the population has gone up by almost 8 million people, but the

>>>>>>>> number of people holding jobs has gone up by 61 thousand.  The only way

>>>>>>>> to claim that unemployment is less now than then is to believe that NONE

>>>>>>>> of those 8 Million people want jobs.

>>>>>>>> Do you really believe that?

>>>>>>>> Traditionally about two thirds of the working age people want jobs, so

>>>>>>>> if we make the assumption that about 2/3rds of that 8 million people

>>>>>>>> want jobs, that would mean that almost 6 million people are not being

>>>>>>>> counted as unemployed but should be.  Doing the math in my head, that

>>>>>>>> comes to about 3% more unemployment - or a total of about 11% instead of

>>>>>>>> the 7.8% they are claiming.

>>>>>>>> Of course the percentage unemployed goes down if you quit counting

>>>>>>>> people, but a person would have to be an idiot to believe that none of

>>>>>>>> those people want jobs.

>>>>>>> I just noticed a typo in what I wrote - I said employment went up by 61

>>>>>>> thousand, I meant it went down by 61 thousand.  The actual employment

>>>>>>> numbers just above that line are correct, I just typed the math backwards.

>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>> Bruce

>>>>>> You can't just use the working age stats and employment stats for figuring unemployment. There are other factors that have to be taken into consideration. It's not as simple as you think.

>>>>>> If you wasn't so lazy, you'd figure out how to delete a post after you send it. Sound familiar? :-)

>>>>>> Hank

>>>>> You still haven't answered my question (and I DID answer yours):  Do you
>>>>> really believe that NONE of those 8 million people who came into the
>>>>> workforce age group wanted jobs?

>>>>> It's a simple yes or no question.

>>>>> Fewer people have jobs today than had jobs 4 years ago.
>>>>> 8 million people entered the employment age group.

>>>>> How is that possible?
>>>> -------------------------------

>>>> Something tells me that Hank is going to pull a nothermark and not
>>>> provide that answer.

>>>> If it was nothermark he would reply with a canard........ if you do
>>>> get a reply expect just that...... a canard.

>>>> mike

>>> I'd go here and look for a cross correlation to folks on early
>>> retirement.  That is probably the answer.  The more one is past 55 the
>>> harder it becomes to get a decent job if one is laid off.  If one has
>>> the resources then why push to take a low paying job?

>> In my opinion, being forced to retire is the same as being unemployed.
>> I retired at age 57 because I wanted to retire - I would have retired at
>> 23, but couldn't afford it.  I had planned on retiring at age 55 but
>> because of my father's health, I continued to work till after he died
>> and my mother moved back to AZ and stabilized.

>> So I was done working at age 57 - but that had NOTHING to do with the
>> economy, or availability of work - I just wanted out.  On the other
>> hand, if I had been laid off and ended up spending my retirement money
>> to survive because I couldn't find a job, I would have considered myself
>> unemployed, not retired.

> OMFG You did not work until you  were 65????   How could you look
> yourself in the face in a mirror?

> ;-)

> My point is that the aberration is trying to put everybody between 18
> and 65 or whatever into the work force.  We never achieved that
> number.  We did get a  peak with the boomers because a lot more women
> chose to work instead of stay home and live off of some man.   For a
> variety of reasons that number is probably dipping back down as folks
> decide that somebody home with the kids is important, or a host of
> other reasons already mentioned.

> I was looking for a historical trend in workforce size and found this:

> http://www.prb.org/pdf08/63.2uslabor.pdf

> If you look at the numbers the historical workforce is closer to 50%
> than the 2/3 you tossed out.  If you have better numbers it would be
> interesting.  If not the 2/3 is your first problem as it is too high.

>>> On 10/12/2012 1:55 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:00:02 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
>>>> (dot) us> wrote:

>>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:45:40 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>> On 10/11/2012 3:15 AM, Hank wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 6:50:43 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Yes - a lot more.

>>>>>>>>> Here are some official numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

>>>>>>>>> Total employment Sept. 2012 - 133,500,000

>>>>>>>>> Total employment Jan. 2009  - 133,561,000

>>>>>>>>> Total working age population growth during those years - 7,865,000

>>>>>>>>> So, the population has gone up by almost 8 million people, but the

>>>>>>>>> number of people holding jobs has gone up by 61 thousand.  The only way

>>>>>>>>> to claim that unemployment is less now than then is to believe that NONE

>>>>>>>>> of those 8 Million people want jobs.

>>>>>>>>> Do you really believe that?

>>>>>>>>> Traditionally about two thirds of the working age people want jobs, so

>>>>>>>>> if we make the assumption that about 2/3rds of that 8 million people

>>>>>>>>> want jobs, that would mean that almost 6 million people are not being

>>>>>>>>> counted as unemployed but should be.  Doing the math in my head, that

>>>>>>>>> comes to about 3% more unemployment - or a total of about 11% instead of

>>>>>>>>> the 7.8% they are claiming.

>>>>>>>>> Of course the percentage unemployed goes down if you quit counting

>>>>>>>>> people, but a person would have to be an idiot to believe that none of

>>>>>>>>> those people want jobs.

>>>>>>>> I just noticed a typo in what I wrote - I said employment went up by 61

>>>>>>>> thousand, I meant it went down by 61 thousand.  The actual employment

>>>>>>>> numbers just above that line are correct, I just typed the math backwards.

>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>> Bruce

>>>>>>> You can't just use the working age stats and employment stats for figuring unemployment. There are other factors that have to be taken into consideration. It's not as simple as you think.

>>>>>>> If you wasn't so lazy, you'd figure out how to delete a post after you send it. Sound familiar? :-)

>>>>>>> Hank

>>>>>> You still haven't answered my question (and I DID answer yours):  Do you
>>>>>> really believe that NONE of those 8 million people who came into the
>>>>>> workforce age group wanted jobs?

>>>>>> It's a simple yes or no question.

>>>>>> Fewer people have jobs today than had jobs 4 years ago.
>>>>>> 8 million people entered the employment age group.

>>>>>> How is that possible?
>>>>> -------------------------------

>>>>> Something tells me that Hank is going to pull a nothermark and not
>>>>> provide that answer.

>>>>> If it was nothermark he would reply with a canard........ if you do
>>>>> get a reply expect just that...... a canard.

>>>>> mike

>>>> I'd go here and look for a cross correlation to folks on early
>>>> retirement.  That is probably the answer.  The more one is past 55 the
>>>> harder it becomes to get a decent job if one is laid off.  If one has
>>>> the resources then why push to take a low paying job?

>>> In my opinion, being forced to retire is the same as being unemployed.
>>> I retired at age 57 because I wanted to retire - I would have retired at
>>> 23, but couldn't afford it.  I had planned on retiring at age 55 but
>>> because of my father's health, I continued to work till after he died
>>> and my mother moved back to AZ and stabilized.

>>> So I was done working at age 57 - but that had NOTHING to do with the
>>> economy, or availability of work - I just wanted out.  On the other
>>> hand, if I had been laid off and ended up spending my retirement money
>>> to survive because I couldn't find a job, I would have considered myself
>>> unemployed, not retired.

>> OMFG You did not work until you  were 65????   How could you look
>> yourself in the face in a mirror?

>> ;-)

>> My point is that the aberration is trying to put everybody between 18
>> and 65 or whatever into the work force.  We never achieved that
>> number.  We did get a  peak with the boomers because a lot more women
>> chose to work instead of stay home and live off of some man.   For a
>> variety of reasons that number is probably dipping back down as folks
>> decide that somebody home with the kids is important, or a host of
>> other reasons already mentioned.

>> I was looking for a historical trend in workforce size and found this:

>> http://www.prb.org/pdf08/63.2uslabor.pdf

>> If you look at the numbers the historical workforce is closer to 50%
>> than the 2/3 you tossed out.  If you have better numbers it would be
>> interesting.  If not the 2/3 is your first problem as it is too high.

>Even if you are correct that it is 50% rather than 66%, that still means
>4 million people are not being counted as unemployed, even though they
>want to work.

>Today there are fewer people holding jobs than there were when 0bama
>took office.

>Your claim is that NONE of the 8 million people who entered the
>workforce in the last 4 years want jobs.  That is an asinine assertion.

>>> If you look at the numbers the historical workforce is closer to 50%
>>> than the 2/3 you tossed out.  If you have better numbers it would be
>>> interesting.  If not the 2/3 is your first problem as it is too high.

>> Even if you are correct that it is 50% rather than 66%, that still means
>> 4 million people are not being counted as unemployed, even though they
>> want to work.

>> Today there are fewer people holding jobs than there were when 0bama
>> took office.

>> Your claim is that NONE of the 8 million people who entered the
>> workforce in the last 4 years want jobs.  That is an asinine assertion.

> You still have not shown who those people are or even proof they
> exist.  All you have is a raw number and an assumption it means
> something.  I gave you a host of reasons why it may not and why the
> governmnet numbers are probably correct.  Can't you come up with
> anything factual that does better than that?

>>>> If you look at the numbers the historical workforce is closer to 50%
>>>> than the 2/3 you tossed out.  If you have better numbers it would be
>>>> interesting.  If not the 2/3 is your first problem as it is too high.

>>> Even if you are correct that it is 50% rather than 66%, that still means
>>> 4 million people are not being counted as unemployed, even though they
>>> want to work.

>>> Today there are fewer people holding jobs than there were when 0bama
>>> took office.

>>> Your claim is that NONE of the 8 million people who entered the
>>> workforce in the last 4 years want jobs.  That is an asinine assertion.

>> You still have not shown who those people are or even proof they
>> exist.  All you have is a raw number and an assumption it means
>> something.  I gave you a host of reasons why it may not and why the
>> governmnet numbers are probably correct.  Can't you come up with
>> anything factual that does better than that?

>OK, lets try this question from another direction.  We KNOW FOR A FACT
>that there are fewer people working today than there were when 0bama
>took office.  We also KNOW FOR A FACT that the working age population in
>this country has gone up by almost 8 million people in that same time frame.

>So, you explain it.  Why, at this point in history, are 8 million
>people, many of whom would have been seeking jobs in times past, not
>seeking jobs today?

>And bear in mind that anyone FORCED out of the job market is unemployed
>and should be counted as such.
>People who simply gave up because no jobs were available are unemployed.
>People who stopped looking because they can't live on minimum wage are
>unemployed.

>So, why do none of those 8 million people want jobs?

>> On 10/13/2012 9:46 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 15:43:04 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:

>>>>> If you look at the numbers the historical workforce is closer to 50%
>>>>> than the 2/3 you tossed out.  If you have better numbers it would be
>>>>> interesting.  If not the 2/3 is your first problem as it is too high.

>>>> Even if you are correct that it is 50% rather than 66%, that still means
>>>> 4 million people are not being counted as unemployed, even though they
>>>> want to work.

>>>> Today there are fewer people holding jobs than there were when 0bama
>>>> took office.

>>>> Your claim is that NONE of the 8 million people who entered the
>>>> workforce in the last 4 years want jobs.  That is an asinine assertion.

>>> You still have not shown who those people are or even proof they
>>> exist.  All you have is a raw number and an assumption it means
>>> something.  I gave you a host of reasons why it may not and why the
>>> governmnet numbers are probably correct.  Can't you come up with
>>> anything factual that does better than that?

>> OK, lets try this question from another direction.  We KNOW FOR A FACT
>> that there are fewer people working today than there were when 0bama
>> took office.  We also KNOW FOR A FACT that the working age population in
>> this country has gone up by almost 8 million people in that same time frame.

>> So, you explain it.  Why, at this point in history, are 8 million
>> people, many of whom would have been seeking jobs in times past, not
>> seeking jobs today?

>> And bear in mind that anyone FORCED out of the job market is unemployed
>> and should be counted as such.
>> People who simply gave up because no jobs were available are unemployed.
>> People who stopped looking because they can't live on minimum wage are
>> unemployed.

>> So, why do none of those 8 million people want jobs?

> I gave you a long list of why people choose not to work.  You are
> trying to force an issue that is not there.  If someone decides that
> going back to work does not make economic sense that does not make
> them "unemployed".  It means they have taken advantage of
> circumstances that do not require them to work or make it undesirable
> to work.

> In my relatively small world I know more folks who retired early and
> are not looking than I do who worked all the way to 65/66 like I did.
> That is a direct result of the 401K, one does not have to work until
> 65 to get a pension.  A lot more  folks are covered by 20 good years
> to get retiement for a lot of governmnet and some private sector jobs.
> I agree that some did have the decision made for them but then decided
> they had better things to do than to go back to work.  Some had
> planned and executed the plan to be free earlier than 65 and some saw
> a chance and grabbed it.  A few of us wanted to keep working and did.
> I may look at the job market next year and I may not.  I would like
> some short run contract work just to keep playing with the goodies.

> Some of them fall into the third issue.  With folks living longer I
> have several friends and am in a situation where we are care givers to
> parents. With more folks living into their 80's and 90's more folks in
> their late 50's and 60's are finding themselves in a position where it
> makes more economic sense to care for mom than it does to go back to
> work and pay somebody else to do it.  It sounds like that was a factor
> for you.

> Another significant group were dual income professionals.  Their
> spouse is still working and making more than enough to get by on.
> Think Vito type stories.

> The more I think about it the more convinced I am that the driver is
> the shift to the 401K.  Folks who depend on a company pension usually
> had to work to 65 to get it.  I can remember some pretty beat up folks
> hobbling in to work to get their pension.  I did something like that
> to max my Social Security.  OTOH I know a lot of folks who did not
> need to worry about that.  When they got laid off before 65 they just
> looked at their package and decided they could start drawing off their
> interest from their 401K and live well enough to stop working.  If you
> have over a million stashed it is still quite possible.  ;-)

> Just sayin' :-)

> Hank

>>> On 10/13/2012 9:46 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 15:43:04 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:

>>>>>> If you look at the numbers the historical workforce is closer to 50%
>>>>>> than the 2/3 you tossed out.  If you have better numbers it would be
>>>>>> interesting.  If not the 2/3 is your first problem as it is too high.

>>>>> Even if you are correct that it is 50% rather than 66%, that still means
>>>>> 4 million people are not being counted as unemployed, even though they
>>>>> want to work.

>>>>> Today there are fewer people holding jobs than there were when 0bama
>>>>> took office.

>>>>> Your claim is that NONE of the 8 million people who entered the
>>>>> workforce in the last 4 years want jobs.  That is an asinine assertion.

>>>> You still have not shown who those people are or even proof they
>>>> exist.  All you have is a raw number and an assumption it means
>>>> something.  I gave you a host of reasons why it may not and why the
>>>> governmnet numbers are probably correct.  Can't you come up with
>>>> anything factual that does better than that?

>>> OK, lets try this question from another direction.  We KNOW FOR A FACT
>>> that there are fewer people working today than there were when 0bama
>>> took office.  We also KNOW FOR A FACT that the working age population in
>>> this country has gone up by almost 8 million people in that same time frame.

>>> So, you explain it.  Why, at this point in history, are 8 million
>>> people, many of whom would have been seeking jobs in times past, not
>>> seeking jobs today?

>>> And bear in mind that anyone FORCED out of the job market is unemployed
>>> and should be counted as such.
>>> People who simply gave up because no jobs were available are unemployed.
>>> People who stopped looking because they can't live on minimum wage are
>>> unemployed.

>>> So, why do none of those 8 million people want jobs?

>> I gave you a long list of why people choose not to work.  You are
>> trying to force an issue that is not there.  If someone decides that
>> going back to work does not make economic sense that does not make
>> them "unemployed".  It means they have taken advantage of
>> circumstances that do not require them to work or make it undesirable
>> to work.

>> In my relatively small world I know more folks who retired early and
>> are not looking than I do who worked all the way to 65/66 like I did.
>> That is a direct result of the 401K, one does not have to work until
>> 65 to get a pension.  A lot more  folks are covered by 20 good years
>> to get retiement for a lot of governmnet and some private sector jobs.
>> I agree that some did have the decision made for them but then decided
>> they had better things to do than to go back to work.  Some had
>> planned and executed the plan to be free earlier than 65 and some saw
>> a chance and grabbed it.  A few of us wanted to keep working and did.
>> I may look at the job market next year and I may not.  I would like
>> some short run contract work just to keep playing with the goodies.

>> Some of them fall into the third issue.  With folks living longer I
>> have several friends and am in a situation where we are care givers to
>> parents. With more folks living into their 80's and 90's more folks in
>> their late 50's and 60's are finding themselves in a position where it
>> makes more economic sense to care for mom than it does to go back to
>> work and pay somebody else to do it.  It sounds like that was a factor
>> for you.

>> Another significant group were dual income professionals.  Their
>> spouse is still working and making more than enough to get by on.
>> Think Vito type stories.

>> The more I think about it the more convinced I am that the driver is
>> the shift to the 401K.  Folks who depend on a company pension usually
>> had to work to 65 to get it.  I can remember some pretty beat up folks
>> hobbling in to work to get their pension.  I did something like that
>> to max my Social Security.  OTOH I know a lot of folks who did not
>> need to worry about that.  When they got laid off before 65 they just
>> looked at their package and decided they could start drawing off their
>> interest from their 401K and live well enough to stop working.  If you
>> have over a million stashed it is still quite possible.  ;-)

>Your reasons are completely irrational.  For anyone to believe that at
>every other time in human history people chose to work, but that in the
>0bama administration they voluntarily decided to take some time off is
>insane.

>So, after Romney is elected, and he signs a couple executive orders
>which permit employers to hire a million people between January and
>March, when 6 million of those uncounted people decide to apply for
>those million jobs, will you have a whole new set of excuses for the
>sudden increase in unemployment to 11%?

>>> On 10/13/2012 9:46 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 15:43:04 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:

>>>>>> If you look at the numbers the historical workforce is closer to 50%
>>>>>> than the 2/3 you tossed out.  If you have better numbers it would be
>>>>>> interesting.  If not the 2/3 is your first problem as it is too high.

>>>>> Even if you are correct that it is 50% rather than 66%, that still means
>>>>> 4 million people are not being counted as unemployed, even though they
>>>>> want to work.

>>>>> Today there are fewer people holding jobs than there were when 0bama
>>>>> took office.

>>>>> Your claim is that NONE of the 8 million people who entered the
>>>>> workforce in the last 4 years want jobs.  That is an asinine assertion.

>>>> You still have not shown who those people are or even proof they
>>>> exist.  All you have is a raw number and an assumption it means
>>>> something.  I gave you a host of reasons why it may not and why the
>>>> governmnet numbers are probably correct.  Can't you come up with
>>>> anything factual that does better than that?

>>> OK, lets try this question from another direction.  We KNOW FOR A FACT
>>> that there are fewer people working today than there were when 0bama
>>> took office.  We also KNOW FOR A FACT that the working age population in
>>> this country has gone up by almost 8 million people in that same time frame.

>>> So, you explain it.  Why, at this point in history, are 8 million
>>> people, many of whom would have been seeking jobs in times past, not
>>> seeking jobs today?

>>> And bear in mind that anyone FORCED out of the job market is unemployed
>>> and should be counted as such.
>>> People who simply gave up because no jobs were available are unemployed.
>>> People who stopped looking because they can't live on minimum wage are
>>> unemployed.

>>> So, why do none of those 8 million people want jobs?

>> I gave you a long list of why people choose not to work.  You are
>> trying to force an issue that is not there.  If someone decides that
>> going back to work does not make economic sense that does not make
>> them "unemployed".  It means they have taken advantage of
>> circumstances that do not require them to work or make it undesirable
>> to work.

>> In my relatively small world I know more folks who retired early and
>> are not looking than I do who worked all the way to 65/66 like I did.
>> That is a direct result of the 401K, one does not have to work until
>> 65 to get a pension.  A lot more  folks are covered by 20 good years
>> to get retiement for a lot of governmnet and some private sector jobs.
>> I agree that some did have the decision made for them but then decided
>> they had better things to do than to go back to work.  Some had
>> planned and executed the plan to be free earlier than 65 and some saw
>> a chance and grabbed it.  A few of us wanted to keep working and did.
>> I may look at the job market next year and I may not.  I would like
>> some short run contract work just to keep playing with the goodies.

>> Some of them fall into the third issue.  With folks living longer I
>> have several friends and am in a situation where we are care givers to
>> parents. With more folks living into their 80's and 90's more folks in
>> their late 50's and 60's are finding themselves in a position where it
>> makes more economic sense to care for mom than it does to go back to
>> work and pay somebody else to do it.  It sounds like that was a factor
>> for you.

>> Another significant group were dual income professionals.  Their
>> spouse is still working and making more than enough to get by on.
>> Think Vito type stories.

>> The more I think about it the more convinced I am that the driver is
>> the shift to the 401K.  Folks who depend on a company pension usually
>> had to work to 65 to get it.  I can remember some pretty beat up folks
>> hobbling in to work to get their pension.  I did something like that
>> to max my Social Security.  OTOH I know a lot of folks who did not
>> need to worry about that.  When they got laid off before 65 they just
>> looked at their package and decided they could start drawing off their
>> interest from their 401K and live well enough to stop working.  If you
>> have over a million stashed it is still quite possible.  ;-)

>Your reasons are completely irrational.  For anyone to believe that at
>every other time in human history people chose to work, but that in the
>0bama administration they voluntarily decided to take some time off is
>insane.

>So, after Romney is elected, and he signs a couple executive orders
>which permit employers to hire a million people between January and
>March, when 6 million of those uncounted people decide to apply for
>those million jobs, will you have a whole new set of excuses for the
>sudden increase in unemployment to 11%?

> > On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:41:23 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>

> > wrote:

> >> On 10/13/2012 9:46 AM, nothermark wrote:

> >>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 15:43:04 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>

> >>> wrote:

> >>>>> If you look at the numbers the historical workforce is closer to 50%

> >>>>> than the 2/3 you tossed out.  If you have better numbers it would be

> >>>>> interesting.  If not the 2/3 is your first problem as it is too high.

> >>>> Even if you are correct that it is 50% rather than 66%, that still means

> >>>> 4 million people are not being counted as unemployed, even though they

> >>>> want to work.

> >>>> Today there are fewer people holding jobs than there were when 0bama

> >>>> took office.

> >>>> Your claim is that NONE of the 8 million people who entered the

> >>>> workforce in the last 4 years want jobs.  That is an asinine assertion.

> >>> You still have not shown who those people are or even proof they

> >>> exist.  All you have is a raw number and an assumption it means

> >>> something.  I gave you a host of reasons why it may not and why the

> >>> governmnet numbers are probably correct.  Can't you come up with

> >>> anything factual that does better than that?

> >> OK, lets try this question from another direction.  We KNOW FOR A FACT

> >> that there are fewer people working today than there were when 0bama

> >> took office.  We also KNOW FOR A FACT that the working age population in

> >> this country has gone up by almost 8 million people in that same time frame.

> >> So, you explain it.  Why, at this point in history, are 8 million

> >> people, many of whom would have been seeking jobs in times past, not

> >> seeking jobs today?

> >> And bear in mind that anyone FORCED out of the job market is unemployed

> >> and should be counted as such.

> >> People who simply gave up because no jobs were available are unemployed.

> >> People who stopped looking because they can't live on minimum wage are

> >> unemployed.

> >> So, why do none of those 8 million people want jobs?

> > I gave you a long list of why people choose not to work.  You are

> > trying to force an issue that is not there.  If someone decides that

> > going back to work does not make economic sense that does not make

> > them "unemployed".  It means they have taken advantage of

> > circumstances that do not require them to work or make it undesirable

> > to work.

> > In my relatively small world I know more folks who retired early and

> > are not looking than I do who worked all the way to 65/66 like I did.

> > That is a direct result of the 401K, one does not have to work until

> > 65 to get a pension.  A lot more  folks are covered by 20 good years

> > to get retiement for a lot of governmnet and some private sector jobs.

> > I agree that some did have the decision made for them but then decided

> > they had better things to do than to go back to work.  Some had

> > planned and executed the plan to be free earlier than 65 and some saw

> > a chance and grabbed it.  A few of us wanted to keep working and did.

> > I may look at the job market next year and I may not.  I would like

> > some short run contract work just to keep playing with the goodies.

> > Some of them fall into the third issue.  With folks living longer I

> > have several friends and am in a situation where we are care givers to

> > parents. With more folks living into their 80's and 90's more folks in

> > their late 50's and 60's are finding themselves in a position where it

> > makes more economic sense to care for mom than it does to go back to

> > work and pay somebody else to do it.  It sounds like that was a factor

> > for you.

> > Another significant group were dual income professionals.  Their

> > spouse is still working and making more than enough to get by on.

> > Think Vito type stories.

> > The more I think about it the more convinced I am that the driver is

> > the shift to the 401K.  Folks who depend on a company pension usually

> > had to work to 65 to get it.  I can remember some pretty beat up folks

> > hobbling in to work to get their pension.  I did something like that

> > to max my Social Security.  OTOH I know a lot of folks who did not

> > need to worry about that.  When they got laid off before 65 they just

> > looked at their package and decided they could start drawing off their

> > interest from their 401K and live well enough to stop working.  If you

> > have over a million stashed it is still quite possible.  ;-)

> Your reasons are completely irrational.  For anyone to believe that at

> every other time in human history people chose to work, but that in the

> 0bama administration they voluntarily decided to take some time off is

> insane.

> So, after Romney is elected, and he signs a couple executive orders

> which permit employers to hire a million people between January and

> March, when 6 million of those uncounted people decide to apply for

> those million jobs, will you have a whole new set of excuses for the

> sudden increase in unemployment to 11%?

> --

> Bruce

> That is also making a lot of assumptions I would not make.  Even if
> Romney is elected I do not think he can create and additional million
> jobs that easily or that fast.

> A friend got laid off a couple years ago, ran out of unemployment. He is 57. He has no plans to go back to work because his house is paid for, his wife works, they have no bills. According to your figures, he is still counted as unemployed.

> I probably PERSONALLY know hundreds like me and my friend.

> Hank <~~~~ still part of the unemployed and lovin it!:-)

> > When I retired in 1996 at the age of 48, O wasn't in office, so don't blame him. I am only 64, so according to you, I am considered one of the unemployed because I don't have a job? I know MANY police and FF's who retired at 48. I believe your FACTS are skewed to the limit and doesn't show the TRUE figures.

> > A friend got laid off a couple years ago, ran out of unemployment. He is 57. He has no plans to go back to work because his house is paid for, his wife works, they have no bills. According to your figures, he is still counted as unemployed.

> > I probably PERSONALLY know hundreds like me and my friend.

> > Hank <~~~~ still part of the unemployed and lovin it!:-)

> So, here is the same question I asked mark - see if you can provide a

> believable answer.

> Since 0bama took office almost 8 million people have entered the

> workforce age group.  Historically 2/3rds of those people would have

> been seeking jobs (about 5 million people).  However, today there are 61

> thousand FEWER people employed than there were 4 years ago.

> We can assume that some people have always retired early, that some

> people have always chosen to be housewives and househusbands, and that

> some people have always chosen to be vagrants.  We can assume those

> things because historically only 2/3rds of the working age group is

> actually working or seeking work.

> So, what has changed that has caused a number of people equal to 100% of

> new workforce people to drop out of the work force?  (Rather than the

> half from our parents generation, or the 1/3rd from our generation.)

> Why, suddenly, in the last four years, and never before in history, are

> all those people making the choice to leave the work force.

> --

> Bruce

>> Your idea that the reasons are irrational is irrational.  They are the
>> reasons folks I know used as they quit working before 65.  The only
>> tie in to Obama is that they hit their late 50's or early 60' after he
>> was elected.  Most, if not all, of these folks intended to retire
>> before 65 20 years ago.

>Those people have been part of oursociety for at least 50 years.  There
>is absolutely no reason to believe that there are more of them today
>than there were in the past.  That means that AT LEAST 50% of the 8
>million people who entered the job market would have stayed there - and
>that means that an additional 4 million people are unemployed.

>>> >So, after Romney is elected, and he signs a couple executive orders
>>> >which permit employers to hire a million people between January and
>>> >March, when 6 million of those uncounted people decide to apply for
>>> >those million jobs, will you have a whole new set of excuses for the
>>> >sudden increase in unemployment to 11%?

>> Hardly anybody I know has any intention of looking.  I know a couple
>> in their early 50's that are looking now or expect to be looking if
>> Kodak goes belly up.  All of them could stop now and live comfortably
>> if they had too.  Two income engineers with the kids gone, the house
>> paid for, and a couple million in the 401K because they were socking
>> it away in the good years before things fell apart.

>> That is also making a lot of assumptions I would not make.  Even if
>> Romney is elected I do not think he can create and additional million
>> jobs that easily or that fast.

>Whether he can or not was not the issue - the sudden increase in people
>seeking jobs was.  Your belief is that EVERY person who is currently
>uncounted because they are not actively looking for jobs does not want a
>job.  My contention is that at least half would be seeking jobs if there
>were any jobs available.  If they would be looking for work, they are
>unemployed and should not be ignored.

>If, for any reason, an additional million people suddenly decide that
>the economy has improved enough to provide jobs, so they start seeking
>jobs again, they will be counted again - and that will raise the
>unemployment rate by a million people.  If we see the traditional norm
>of at least half, and more recently 2/3rds of the general working age
>people seeking jobs, we will see unemployment go up by 4 to 6 million
>people.  Every one of those people who would be seeking employment if
>jobs were available, should be counted right not as unemployed.

>But, if you want to pretend that you understand the unemployment
>problem, provide a realistic explanation of why 8 million people entered
>the "workforce" but 61 thousand fewer people are working today than were
>working 4 years ago.  Again bear in mind that any believable explanation
>MUST take into consideration that between 1990 and 2008 2/3rds of those
>people would have been seeking jobs.  Early retirement, house husbands
>and the like might bring that down to 1/2, but that means you need to
>explain the missing 4 million potential workers.  

>>> On 10/12/2012 1:55 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:38:25 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> On 10/11/2012 12:37 PM, nothermark wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:50:45 -0700, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>> On 10/10/2012 3:27 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/10/2012 2:32 PM, Hank wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 3:25:34 PM UTC-4, bruce wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> You still can't read for comprehension, can you?

>>>>>>>>>> You didn't amuse me, I amused myself providing information that I knew

>>>>>>>>>> you would ignore.

>>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>>> Bruce

>>>>>>>>> Seriously, do you really believe there are more people out of work now
>>>>>>>>> than When O took office?

>>>>>>>>> Hank

>>>>>>>> Yes - a lot more.

>>>>>>>> Here are some official numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

>>>>>>>> Total employment Sept. 2012 - 133,500,000
>>>>>>>> Total employment Jan. 2009  - 133,561,000

>>>>>>>> Total working age population growth during those years - 7,865,000

>>>>>>>> So, the population has gone up by almost 8 million people, but the
>>>>>>>> number of people holding jobs has gone up by 61 thousand.  The only way
>>>>>>>> to claim that unemployment is less now than then is to believe that NONE
>>>>>>>> of those 8 Million people want jobs.

>>>>>>>> Do you really believe that?

>>>>>>>> Traditionally about two thirds of the working age people want jobs, so
>>>>>>>> if we make the assumption that about 2/3rds of that 8 million people
>>>>>>>> want jobs, that would mean that almost 6 million people are not being
>>>>>>>> counted as unemployed but should be.  Doing the math in my head, that
>>>>>>>> comes to about 3% more unemployment - or a total of about 11% instead of
>>>>>>>> the 7.8% they are claiming.

>>>>>>>> Of course the percentage unemployed goes down if you quit counting
>>>>>>>> people, but a person would have to be an idiot to believe that none of
>>>>>>>> those people want jobs.

>>>>>>> I just noticed a typo in what I wrote - I said employment went up by 61
>>>>>>> thousand, I meant it went down by 61 thousand.  The actual employment
>>>>>>> numbers just above that line are correct, I just typed the math backwards.

>>>>>> You made another mistake on the "Traditionally about two thirds of the
>>>>>> working age people want jobs,".  That is a fairly recent development.
>>>>>> Prior to the boomers growing up the number was lower than that.

>>>>> Is it your position that none of that 8 million wanted jobs?

>>>>> Any percentage you pick raises the true unemployment rate.  So - you can
>>>>> claim that only half, instead of two thirds want jobs, and that means
>>>>> that we have another (uncounted) 4 million unemployed (rather than the 6
>>>>> million I estimated).  Do you think that changes the reality that the
>>>>> unemployed are under counted, and that in truth the  unemployment is
>>>>> much higher than 7.8%?

>>>> I think you are confusing folks who want a job with folks who do not
>>>> need or want one.  Not the welfare recipients Mike is whining about.
>>>> Folks who were well paid when they worked and now are under 65, not
>>>> working for various reasons, and not looking to go back to work.

>>>> All the numbers can give you is how many folks there are and how many
>>>> say they want a job.  The numbers do not tell why the folks are not
>>>> working or looking.   It is as easy and as relative to say that they
>>>> number has dropped to reflect the number of under 65 folks who do not
>>>> need to work now.  That is good news to a lot of us.  ;-)

>>> That is a completely asinine assertion.  We have an economy that is so
>>> stagnant that many experts have already declared that we are in a
>>> recession.  We are creating so few jobs that we cannot even keep up with
>>> population growth.  How stupid do you have to be to believe that the
>>> entire 8 million under-counted unemployed are old folks taking early
>>> retirement.  Look at the U6 number - it has remained at over 14% since
>>> the recession.  People are not retiring, they are giving up.

>> Did you retire early or give up?

>The difference is that I retired because I wanted out of the work force
>- and even then 2 years later than I wanted to - and the economy was
>going strong at the time.  I could have continued to work for as long as
>I wanted to - I could still be working as a probation officer if I
>wanted to.

>The people we are talking about are people who still wanted to work, but
>were forced out due to the bad economy.  That is a major difference,
>even if you can't figure it out.

> doing the 20 and out in public safety jobs but that number was

> increased very significantly in the late 70's/early 80's.  The 401K

> plan was changed then to make it into a retirement plane.  Companies

> forced their workers into the plans to get out from under pension

> obligations.  That was when a lot more folks started doing the "if I

> defer 20% of my income tax free" calculations.  If one was 30 then the

> numbers looked good for retirement before 65 in 2015.  Those folks had

> a good run with their money.  That is who we are talking about now as

> they are in the right age group.  They also could usually look forward

> to around 20-30 good years before they were caught in the outsourcing.

>>>>>>>>> Yes - a lot more.

>>>>>>>>> Here are some official numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

>>>>>>>>> Total employment Sept. 2012 - 133,500,000
>>>>>>>>> Total employment Jan. 2009  - 133,561,000

>>>>>>>>> Total working age population growth during those years - 7,865,000
> If you want a bottom line I suspect it is that the folks you are
> talking about do not exist in great numbers.  If one really wants to
> work there are high turnover jobs always looking for help.