Romney promised to bring unemployment down to 6% after four years with his economic plan...

nontheist

nontheist

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
at the rate of 10000 people a day?
Click to expand...
For fuck sake cheesus can you not read a chart? Sitting around drooling on yourself is not an argument.

A - All growth rate is for employees 55 and over PERIOD. This is the trend for the foreseeable future as the chart describes! The market is shrinking for the younger generation and will continue to do so for a decade+

Your also excluding that 11million baby boomers are already dead and most can't afford to retire as the chart clearly states.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
4million + people born in the USA each year, 3.5 million people retire each year. In order to just stay at the same level of employment, the US needs to create at least 500,000 jobs per year just to stay in the same spot. If you take someone from full employment to 1/3rd employment yet still count it as a job, well you can make your shitty stats look rosy.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
And yet the labour force participation rate for that group is growing, year on year.
Click to expand...
i'm not sure if you're too retarded to understand this, but the number of people in that group who are retiring is far outweighing any growth of workers in that group by a long shot.

but maybe you do understand that and are just playing dumb instead.

it's hard to tell if you're being stupid or deceitful.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
So that why the labour force participation rate for over 60's is GROWING year on year instead of declining.

You really are dumb as fuck.
Click to expand...
i may be dumb as fuck, but it takes someone who is dumber than all holy fuck not to understand how simple numbers like this work.

suppose there's 1 million people who eat apples until they are 65. traditionally, about 800,000 people stop eating apples when they turn 65.

suppose that instead, only 798,000 people stop eating apples when they turn 65 now. you've just increased your apple eating participation rate for those over 65, yet still 798,000 people just stopped eating apples.

now imagine next year, 2 million people face the same fortune.

you getting it yet, shorty spice?
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i may be dumb as fuck, but it takes someone who is dumber than all holy fuck not to understand how simple numbers like this work.

suppose there's 1 million people who eat apples until they are 65. traditionally, about 800,000 people stop eating apples when they turn 65.

suppose that instead, only 798,000 people stop eating apples when they turn 65 now. you've just increased your apple eating participation rate for those over 65, yet still 798,000 people just stopped eating apples.

now imagine next year, 2 million people face the same fortune.

you getting it yet, shorty spice?
Click to expand...
So you're saying the participation rate is going up year on year, yet it's declining faster than ever?

And you honestly claim you studied math in University?
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
So you're saying the participation rate is going up year on year, yet it's declining faster than ever?

And you honestly claim you studied math in University?
Click to expand...
The weird thing is, thinking people retire and take the job with them. People are typically replaced if they leave a job that's valued and productive.

If grandpa Joe retires, his job is filled by someone a rung down, then someone fills that job, then that job and so on. Leaving the workforce is supposed to open doors for another.

There seems to be people arguing that someone retiring creates a vacuum in the job market instead of a new opening that needs to be replaced. I'm sure there are cases where there was downsizing after someone retires, but only if the company was allowing someone to work who wasn't really needed out of loyalty to their employees. It seems though, that the people who are arguing the retirees are taking their jobs with them are also the same people who talk about how evil corporations are. Logic is not strong with the left here.
 
H.M. Murdoch

H.M. Murdoch

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
..Obama just achieved this feat in half the time.

"http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/23/romney-promises-to-bring-unemployment-down-to-6/

^^^ is the link to Mitt Romney's promise.

Now, before people go apeshit, I realize that the President's policies are not the only or even main factor affecting unemployment and that most economic forecasters were predicting that unemployment would fall to this level on its due to the policies Obama had already enacted. I realize that there are problems with flat wage growth and labor force participation, but conservatives would be telling us how awesome Romney was for achieving the exact same statistics.

My point is that even if Romney were president, all the conservatives would be celebrating a "miraculous Romney recovery" even if he had done nothing at all."

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/2iatqg/just_a_reminder_romney_promised_to_bring/


Aaaaaan, owned.
Click to expand...
Oh PadaWaWa, are you already done nursing from you mom tonight? Kinda early for you to be posting bullshit, isn't it?

Have you been practicing talking trash? Did you see that link I posted to help you?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
So you're saying the participation rate is going up year on year, yet it's declining faster than ever?

And you honestly claim you studied math in University?
Click to expand...
clearly you're too retarded to understand simple math.

go invest in some silver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top