That's the claim by viperlemon and Norris. I asked them where exactly they got that information. viperlemon (or whoever used that ID) never replied, but Norris went to a lot of work making several replies. Unfortunately, none provided the requested information. One reply did show a big increase in workforce dropouts since the year 2000, but of course that is not "300,000 dropouts causing big reduction in latest unemployment numbers". If folks must continually post their political views on this Linn Energy board I wish they would at least make the posts accurate. I'm still waiting for them to reveal the source of the news on a 300,000 increase in labor force dropouts from January to February.
Genetuck you are a #$%$. I don't have patience for lazy posters. If you don't know by now that 300,000 jobs dropped off the available workforce in Feb-2013 then you are as useless as the UE number itself.
Explanations are made here (I posted the exact reason yesterday), but if NorrisFraud doesn't like the answer, he dismisses it, but then never finds any facts to dispute it.
With his lackey MIA, he is somewhat helpless as he does not have the ability to corroborate it himself.
Of course you cannot do simply math like the labor participation * the available American workforce.
That would be figuring things out for yourself rather than simply accepting what the 'elite' Progressives tell their meat puppets would to think,
Now does any rational person wish to take investment advice form a Progressive? Nope.
But I am sure due to the delusive-compulsive nature of the Progressive condition there will be denial.
Very sad limited way to spend a short life time. No Liberty by self denial.
Poor Gene running on in a delusive compulsive Progressive way again instead of trying to understand.
Now let us try a little logical and objective reasoning.
If the official employment rate went down but the labor participation rate fell as well what would cause it?
If the labor participation rate fell 0.1% and the labor pool is about 258 million Americans?
HUm something as complicated as 0.1% * 258 million = about 258,000? Round up to 300,000. But of course we could take the more extended figures but the data is not that perfect which it is used in trend rather than a point. Lowest observation is lowest observation.
Can not figure out simple math but you want to play the expert? Actually insist to play the expert like RLP'D Opinions? ;-)
YOu feel no shame for displaying such basic foolishness in public? None at all? Very Progressive.
Ahhhh, I see your problem Norris.......it's percentages, bogus labor force figures, and rounding up.
Just look at Table A-1 for the participation rate of the civilian labor force. Subtract February from January and it shows that the overall civilian labor force dropped by 67,000. Not 300,000.
Of course you might want to round that up to 300,000. Or maybe you could help your cause with
some percentages. I'll just stick to the actual numbers if that table represents what we're looking for.