The 1% Gap Continues To Narrow

[WeeblesWobbles]

A more accurate representation

View attachment 3589345

A drop from ~83.2% to ~81.0% in labor force participation among the working demographic.

The labor force participation rate represented in as a whole, includes ALL census accrued individuals, represented by the far lower statistical charting as show in the comment above. eg. The truthiness of the aforementioned chart is skewed.

For someone who makes judgements about another's reading comprehension you sure have a hard time stringing together a cogent sentence. ^^^ makes no sense.

I attempted to puzzle out what you were trying to say by referring to some annotation on the original FRED chart you cite, but no dice. Please try again. Hint: if "ALL census accrued" individuals were in your chart's denominator it would look vastly different. It definitely excludes 18-24 year olds, 55-70 year olds, and almost certainly the "economically inactive" (the definition of which is fluid, btw; mine excludes those as well).

Lol, we all don't live in our parents' basements until age 25 or comfortably retire at age 54. The "truthiness" (lord, how I hate doublespeak, say fucking "neener, neener", it's what you really meant anyway) of both charts is in the eye of the beholder and yours is the one excluding the two tranches with the highest unemployment and lowest participation rates. Even so, the chart you cite documents the lowest labor force participation in 35 years. Yippee. And a bonus! You demonstrated how to massage the unemployment rate!

Take the number employed with cumulative hours >=40 (I'll spot you two part-time jobs of 20 hours each--to avoid ACA thresholds--as one full-time job) and divide it by the number of adults > 18. It's the only intellectually honest figure. Don't strip out the legitimate or scamming disabled as if they don't exist, or some inconvenient cohort or two that skews the data in an inconvenient direction, and don't count as "employed" some poor slob pulling 11 hours a week and trying to support a family of 4.

This isn't a sporting event where you root for the Cubbies even when they suck. It's deadly serious stuff, and you have to look at things objectively. Recognize that the government lies to you, regardless of whether your team is in office or not. Hold their feet to the fire and don't give up.

 

[see4]

For someone who makes judgements about another's reading comprehension you sure have a hard time stringing together a cogent sentence. ^^^ makes no sense.

I attempted to puzzle out what you were trying to say by referring to some annotation on the original FRED chart you cite, but no dice. Please try again. Hint: if "ALL census accrued" individuals were in your chart's denominator it would look vastly different. It definitely excludes 18-24 year olds, 55-70 year olds, and almost certainly the "economically inactive" (the definition of which is fluid, btw; mine excludes those as well).

Lol, we all don't live in our parents' basements until age 25 or comfortably retire at age 54. The "truthiness" (lord, how I hate doublespeak, say fucking "neener, neener", it's what you really meant anyway) of both charts is in the eye of the beholder and yours is the one excluding the two tranches with the highest unemployment and lowest participation rates. Even so, the chart you cite documents the lowest labor force participation in 35 years. Yippee. And a bonus! You demonstrated how to massage the unemployment rate!

Take the number employed with cumulative hours >=40 (I'll spot you two part-time jobs of 20 hours each--to avoid ACA thresholds--as one full-time job) and divide it by the number of adults > 18. It's the only intellectually honest figure. Don't strip out the legitimate or scamming disabled as if they don't exist, or some inconvenient cohort or two that skews the data in an inconvenient direction, and don't count as "employed" some poor slob pulling 11 hours a week and trying to support a family of 4.

This isn't a sporting event where you root for the Cubbies even when they suck. It's deadly serious stuff, and you have to look at things objectively. Recognize that the government lies to you, regardless of whether your team is in office or not. Hold their feet to the fire and don't give up.

lol. You are a funny puppet.

"..have a hard time stringing together a COGENT sentence. ^^^ makes no sense." - Projecting is a common practice among the intellectually inferior. You should try a new tactic, especially when you are incapable of spelling the simplest of words.

I merely used the EXACT same set of data you used, except I did not skew it. You are upset because I managed to illustrate "your" data better than you could. Sorry that upsets you.

Go to bed kid, let the adults talk now.

 

[WeeblesWobbles]

As I said, this isn't some sporting event to me. I don't have a "team". I'm an American. I get that Obama is your guy. I was pulling for him, too. It's a shame he's been so ineffectual. But so have the other Democrats and Republicans. And now look at our choices: it's down to a buffoon, a lying megalomaniac, and a complete nut job. Try to link the names to the descriptions.

I don't think you get what housing inventory means. It's the number of homes for sale, not the number owned. It's down because new homes are not being built, folks who have refi'd at ridiculously low rates have a disincentive to sell, and a huge number of folks have little or no equity so they can't sell. Plus homes are evaporating from the market. Have you seen what Detroit and other Midwest cities are doing with abandoned homes? So...home ownership down, rentals up.

Lol we've gone from "things are rosy under Obama" to "it's all Bush's fault." While predictble, at least you're moving in the right direction. Bush did engineer the biggest foreign policy debacle in the last 100 years (Obama has given it the old college try himself with Iran and Syria...he may pull out a title win yet, but the jury is still out) but I think it's incorrect to lay the financial collapse at his feet. (See the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999...Clinton's regime, for those keeping score at home.) Just like I won't blame Obama for the collapse that's coming again. And it is coming. Soon.

So, peace out. You win. The game's gone stale.

 

[since1991]

One "dude" owns everybody....his name is Government.

Isn't Bernie from government?

There is a higher authority than government. Its why you feel this way. And that authority is the one percent that put the politicians in said government.

 

[since1991]

Replacing the present system which relies on the systemic use of force with ANOTHER system which relies on the systemic use of force will create a circular path.



The answer = D. None of the above

Ive been where your at now. A card holding member of the Libertarian Party for years. Free market capitalism proponent for years. Its a flawed ideaology. And it doesnt work. What you fail to understand is the people at the top dont share. And they use their money (power) to consolidate and in a roundabout way take more of it from you and i. That is forceful in its own way. In a back handed cheating sort of way. This is the guiding philosophy behind the mega rich like the Koch Brothers. No one should have that kind of power. Lassiez Faire capitalism is flawed. Believe that.

 

[Rob Roy]

There is a higher authority than government. Its why you feel this way. And that authority id the one percent that put the politicians in said government.

I do not voluntarily give anyone authority over me as a default position, nor assume any authority over others.

The highest authority in my life is me, and you in yours. I believe that 100%.

 

[since1991]

So the bottom half is really sucking it up at earning money these days. That would burn me too, should do something about it. However, stealing from successful people wont solve this problem. We could split it up equally today across the boards and within the first hours people will be broke and looking for their next meal.

Again this ideology is flawed. When your mega rich and successful you monopolize to create more power. And you can mistake this for success. Its not success. You just took your money (power) and with its huge influence created more of it by taking more from what little is left. Dont confuse the two. There is such thing as corporate dictatorship.

 

[see4]

As I said, this isn't some sporting event to me. I don't have a "team". I'm an American. I get that Obama is your guy. I was pulling for him, too. It's a shame he's been so ineffectual. But so have the other Democrats and Republicans. And now look at our choices: it's down to a buffoon, a lying megalomaniac, and a complete nut job. Try to link the names to the descriptions.

I don't think you get what housing inventory means. It's the number of homes for sale, not the number owned. It's down because new homes are not being built, folks who have refi'd at ridiculously low rates have a disincentive to sell, and a huge number of folks have little or no equity so they can't sell. Plus homes are evaporating from the market. Have you seen what Detroit and other Midwest cities are doing with abandoned homes? So...home ownership down, rentals up.

Lol we've gone from "things are rosy under Obama" to "it's all Bush's fault." While predictble, at least you're moving in the right direction. Bush did engineer the biggest foreign policy debacle in the last 100 years (Obama has given it the old college try himself with Iran and Syria...he may pull out a title win yet, but the jury is still out) but I think it's incorrect to lay the financial collapse at his feet. (See the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999...Clinton's regime, for those keeping score at home.) Just like I won't blame Obama for the collapse that's coming again. And it is coming. Soon.

So, peace out. You win. The game's gone stale.

Obama is no more my president as he is yours. He's not "my" guy. I just like to present information that is not skewed. You, for some reason, took offense to my presentation of the information, and the obvious conclusions I could draw from them. You then went on to berate me over something was only in your head, my lack of formulating sentences to your liking. Fortunately for the other readers, that assertion was merely a figment of your imagination.

I've never stated that things are rosy under Obama, again, that's a figment of your imagination, as you try to place me in some sort of bucket. Nice try though.

I'm sorry but you saying, "Have you seen what Detroit ..... with abandoned homes? So...home ownership down, rentals up", is not substantiated with anything you've presented so far, it's simply a speculation of yours. I used your data to counter your claim.

I do not place ALL the blame on the Bush administration, however they did have nearly 8 years to reverse any poor decisions made during the Republican Congress run, Clinton administration. And I'm in agreement with you, the Clinton administration with much support of the Republican run Congress deregulated in order to bolster a strong economy, which we now know was a poor fiscal decision, which has YET to be reversed. I blame ALL politicians for that, and Bernie seems to be the only candidate who wants to make moves to correct those problems.

 

[since1991]

I do not voluntarily give anyone authority over me as a default position, nor assume any authority over others.

The highest authority in my life is me, and you in yours. I believe that 100%.

Tell that to the Rothchilds and Rockefellers.

 

[Rob Roy]

Ive been where your at now. A card holding member of the Libertarian Party for years. Free market capitalism proponent for years. Its a flawed ideaology. And it doesnt work. What you fail to understand is the people at the top dont share. And they use their money (power) to consolidate and in a roundabout way take more of it from you and i. That is forceful in its own way. In a back handed cheating sort of way. This is the guiding philosophy behind the mega rich like the Koch Brothers. No one should have that kind of power. Lassiez Faire capitalism is flawed. Believe that.

Well, if you've been where I'm at, can you tell me where I put my damned lighter?


I am not a card carrying Libertarian. I am sometimes considered a libertarian, (small ell , not big L) but self describe as a Voluntaryist, Voluntarist or Panarchist.


Fuck the Koch brothers.

If a market isn't free, it's unfree. Can you describe why a truly free market is flawed?

Everyone should have the power to run their own life.

 

[Rob Roy]

Tell that to the Rothchilds and Rockefellers.

They're coming over Friday night, we're gonna get high as fuck and bang hookers, I'll quiz them on this.

 

[since1991]

Tell that to the Rothchilds and Rockefellers.

Of course you dont . Who would? You have to draw the line somewhere. With your ideaology there would be a Haliburton sign hanging from the Capitol Building. Think about it. In a good timey " everyman is a rugged individual" society and country this idea and philosophy would be the norm.

 

[WeeblesWobbles]

lol. You are a funny puppet.

"..have a hard time stringing together a COGENT sentence. ^^^ makes no sense." - Projecting is a common practice among the intellectually inferior. You should try a new tactic, especially when you are incapable of spelling the simplest of words.

I merely used the EXACT same set of data you used, except I did not skew it. You are upset because I managed to illustrate "your" data better than you could. Sorry that upsets you.

Go to bed kid, let the adults talk now.

Dude, it's the Federal Reserve's data. All you did was strip out the 18-25 and 55-70 year olds.

Lol, projecting:


But really, I get it. I looked up some of your other posts. Someone has to be the site buffoon. No hard feelings. You're doing a great job and I value your efforts. Here, I'll even teach you a new word to show my gratitude.

cogent

1. 1: having power to compel or constrain<cogent forces>
   
   
2. 2a : appealing forcibly to the mind or reason : convincing <cogent evidence>b : pertinent, relevant <a cogent analysis>

 

[Rob Roy]

Of course you dont . Who would? You have to draw the line somewhere. With your ideaology there would be a Haliburton sign hanging from the Capitol Building. Think about it. In a good timey " everyman is a rugged individual" society and country this idea and philosophy would be the norm.

No, with my ideology there wouldn't be a Capitol building, there'd be 320 million capital buildings...individual persons homes.

I have done a lot of thinking about human relations, and have concluded the only legitimate ones are those that arise from peaceful and mutual interactions and consent of the individuals involved.

 

[since1991]

What it boils down to is this.....limit the power and influence of big corporations and a few rich controlling our lives through the legislative process of government. Or limit the power and influence of government in our lives so that maybe one day, by my own choosing......finish the sentence.

 

[Fogdog]

It's actually quite easy to figure out what percentage of people are lazy.

Find the total number of Democrats as a % of the total population and divide it by whatever Bernie Sanders is polling at.

Science and math, bitches.

Hmm, something is wrong here.
%democrats in US population = 42%
% democrats supporting Sanders = 36%

0.42 / 0.36 = 1.16 or 116% By your formula, 116% of the population is lazy.

Math, or more technically arithmetic is not a strong suit of yours. You are a Beeeatch and a puny one at that.

What exactly do they teach in your Irish Catholic schools. Bondage and discipline?

 

[OddBall1st]

Again this ideology is flawed. When your mega rich and successful you monopolize to create more power. And you can mistake this for success. Its not success. You just took your money (power) and with its huge influence created more of it by taking more from what little is left. Dont confuse the two. There is such thing as corporate dictatorship.

The Howitzer has always solved this problem in the past and will always solve it in the future. It`s advantage is it`s range and you never know when it`s gonna happen. The rich can run, but they can`t hide.

 

[Fogdog]

As I said, this isn't some sporting event to me. I don't have a "team". I'm an American. I get that Obama is your guy. I was pulling for him, too. It's a shame he's been so ineffectual. But so have the other Democrats and Republicans. And now look at our choices: it's down to a buffoon, a lying megalomaniac, and a complete nut job. Try to link the names to the descriptions.

I don't think you get what housing inventory means. It's the number of homes for sale, not the number owned. It's down because new homes are not being built, folks who have refi'd at ridiculously low rates have a disincentive to sell, and a huge number of folks have little or no equity so they can't sell. Plus homes are evaporating from the market. Have you seen what Detroit and other Midwest cities are doing with abandoned homes? So...home ownership down, rentals up.

Lol we've gone from "things are rosy under Obama" to "it's all Bush's fault." While predictble, at least you're moving in the right direction. Bush did engineer the biggest foreign policy debacle in the last 100 years (Obama has given it the old college try himself with Iran and Syria...he may pull out a title win yet, but the jury is still out) but I think it's incorrect to lay the financial collapse at his feet. (See the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999...Clinton's regime, for those keeping score at home.) Just like I won't blame Obama for the collapse that's coming again. And it is coming. Soon.

So, peace out. You win. The game's gone stale.

Ok, so, I won't argue charts with you, mostly because @see4 cleaned your clock.

I just want to point out to you that by 2006, the Bush administration had completely stopped federal regulation of the sketchy securities market that was burgeoning. Greenspan admitted later that it was a monstrous mistake. Basically, Bush went way beyond deregulation and stopped regulating the market altogether. While I wouldn't describe it as engineering, its safe to say that the majority of the blame for the credit default swap debacle that led to the financial melt down in 2008 was entirely due to Bush's ham handed policies.

 

[see4]

Hmm, something is wrong here.
%democrats in US population = 42%
% democrats supporting Sanders = 36%

0.42 / 0.36 = 1.16 or 116% By your formula, 116% of the population is lazy.

Math, or more technically arithmetic is not a strong suit of yours. You are a Beeeatch and a puny one at that.

What exactly do they teach in your Irish Catholic schools. Bondage and discipline?

lol. I think Harrekin was being sarcastic. At least that's what I took from it.

 

[see4]

Dude, it's the Federal Reserve's data. All you did was strip out the 18-25 and 55-70 year olds.

Lol, projecting:
View attachment 3589449

But really, I get it. I looked up some of your other posts. Someone has to be the site buffoon. No hard feelings. You're doing a great job and I value your efforts. Here, I'll even teach you a new word to show my gratitude.

cogent

1. 1: having power to compel or constrain<cogent forces>
   
   
2. 2a : appealing forcibly to the mind or reason : convincing <cogent evidence>b : pertinent, relevant <a cogent analysis>

Yawn.. "cogent sentence" does not make sense. You either misused the word or you misspelled the word you wanted to use. Nice try moving the goal posts.

Yes, you are absolutely right, I used the "Federal Reserve's" data, more precisely the Census Bureau's data. And thank you for conceding that you purposely omitted data points valuable to properly illustration what is actually happening. And I managed to use the data you were trying to skew and slapped your ignorant backside with it, and you rightfully got upset.

My advice next time, is to show data that is not skewed or baseless or not factual. Then we won't run into these little jams.

I find it cute you resort to name calling rather than addressing the topic at hand. I accept your defeat. Now run along and play with the other children like a good little boy.