[onlooker]

7 signs of US economic collapse.
http://www.profitconfidential.com/econo ... e-in-2016/
Sign #1: Government Statistics Hiding U.S. Economic Collapse
Sign #2: Real Wages Falling for Average Americans
Sign #3: Millions of Americans Have Little to No Money
Sign #4 U.S. Interest Rate Hike Could Cripple America
Sign #5: Global Economy Anemic
Sign #6: U.S Companies Increasingly Relying on Foreign Sales
Sign #7: Nosebleed Valuations Could Lead to Stock Market Crash in 2016

[ennui2]

This is a thread to post actual data, not fear-mongering blog articles.

[Plantagenet]

1 in 6 men in their prime working years is out of work in the USA---a percentage worse then in the great depression

its-worse-great-depression-one-six-prime-aged-men-has-no-job

In the great depression men without jobs stood in long lines for food. We are much more civilized these days---today we've got food stamps and disability payments and we call unemployed men "discouraged workers" and disappear them from the work rolls entirely.

Cheers!

[copious.abundance]

As soon as I saw that title I knew it was going to be a Zerobrains article.

If there's anybody out of work, it's not because of a lack of jobs.

Job openings soar to all-time high of 5.9 million in July

Job openings jumped and more people were hired in July, the Labor Department said Wednesday.

The Labor Department’s job openings and labor turnover survey showed 5.87 million openings, an all-time high, while hires increased to 5.23 million from 5.17 million in June.

The number of people quitting jobs voluntarily was flat at 2.98 million, but that’s still up substantially from the depths of the recession, signalling more worker confidence in the ability to find another job.

[Plantagenet]

If there's anybody out of work, it's not because of a lack of jobs.

Well then, what do you suppose the reason is?

Unwillingness to work for minimum wage at McDonalds? Fear of losing government disability benefits if they get a job?

Please explain---why are so many men in their prime working years not working?

[ennui2]

Hmm.... What a mystery.


"I'm in the prime of life! Damn you Obummer!"

[copious.abundance]

If there's anybody out of work, it's not because of a lack of jobs.

Well then, what do you suppose the reason is?

Unwillingness to work for minimum wage at McDonalds? Fear of losing government disability benefits if they get a job?

Please explain---why are so many men in their prime working years not working?

- Many have gone back to school. I did that myself in my 30's.
- There is also an increasing number of stay-at-home dads.
- Undoubtedly some of it is also due to wanting (or needing) to receive disability benefits that you mentioned, not to mention meth and other drug addicts who've become unemployable, and other socially unfortunate circumstances.

[copious.abundance]

Incidentally, the work force participation rate for males has been going down steadily since the end of WWII, so you can't blame Obama or any other politician for that matter. Nor can you blame any current social trend, recent economic condition, aliens, the Jews or whatever other boogieman you prefer, because a trend going on that long is going to be caused by some big, mega-long-term phenomenon that is pretty much beyond anyone's control. More specifically, the NPR article linked in the Zerohedge article also has a chart going back to 1990 that shows a similar trend for 25-54 year old men. The NPR article also contains a link to the original BLS series which lets you make a graph going back even farther:

Labor Force Participation Rate - 25-54 yrs., Men


So now that I've given an intelligent, detailed answer, complete with links to sources and graphs, I wonder if I'm going to get an intelligent reply.

[Plantagenet]

Incidentally, the work force participation rate for males has been going down steadily since the end of WWII, so you can't blame Obama or any other politician for that matter.

You don't know how to read a graph, do you? Lets examine your claim that Obama bears no blame for the collapse in the work force during his presidency. First of all, find the year 2009 on the graph---this is the year Obama took office. Now examine the graph for a few years before 2009. See how the graph is almost flat? That means the work force participation rate was about steady. Now see what happens after 2009? The line turns steeply downward. The means the work force numbers suddenly dropped dramatically during the Obama administration, i.e. the work force participation rate plunged on Obama's watch.

now that I've given an intelligent, detailed answer, complete with links to sources and graphs, I wonder if I'm going to get an intelligent reply.

Considering that you can't read a graph, I hope you'll be appreciative of the help I've given you in understanding the collapse in labor force participation during the Obama administration. You went wrong when you said the work force participation rate has been "steadily" decreasing. Actually, there have been periods of stability, and periods when it declined. Far from there being no link between Obama and the decline, the Obama years correspond to the most precipitous decline in Labour Force participation in the last 65 years.

CHEERS!

[ennui2]

I wonder if I'm going to get an intelligent reply.

Nope, you got the usual equivalent of "Damn you Obummer!" from Planty.

This is, of course, OT.

It's about "Reports of US Economic Demise Are Greatly Exaggerated"

And guess who gets the credit for keeping the US economy from meeting its demise?

Our two-term Nobel-winning president!

OBUMMER!!!!!!

[Plantagenet]

"Damn you Obummer!"

Why do you put quotation marks around things that you yourself say?

Cheers!

[ennui2]

Apparently Planty knows it's a glut but can't understand sarcasm.

[Plantagenet]

Apparently Planty knows it's a glut

Of course I know its a glut, eenie. I was the first person at this site to argue we were in oil glut way back in late 2014, when I observed the huge number of oil tankers parked and storing oil in the harbor at Gibraltar just as oil prices started to plunge.

By the way, I appreciate the fact that you've belatedly come to recognize the world is in an oil glut. There are still some unreconstructed folks at this site who can't accept that fact but I'm happy to see you are not among them.

Cheers!

sarcasm...

Quoting yourself isn't sarcasm. Its just dumb. You don't have to quote yourself whenever you post---just say whatever it is you want to say.

Cheers!

[ennui2]

"I was the first person at this site to argue we were in oil glut way back in late 2014"

Good for you. I won't deny you your due when warranted. I'm not that petty.

[copious.abundance]

So now that I've given an intelligent, detailed answer, complete with links to sources and graphs, I wonder if I'm going to get an intelligent reply.

As I expected, only Planty could look at a trend that began more than 60 years ago, and somehow place the blame on the whole thing to someone who's been president for less than 8 years.

[copious.abundance]

Furthermore, notice he even had to change the topic of his question. This was the original request:

Please explain---why are so many men in their prime working years not working?

Notice there is no mention of Obama. Even the NPR article discussed on Zerobrains went back to 1990. Next, notice the new qualification in his supposed reiteration of his original question:

Lets examine your claim that Obama bears no blame for the collapse in the work force during his presidency.

This is the hallmark of a patently dishonest debater. When one answers his question, and he has no real rebuttal, he pretends he originally asked something else.

Finally, it's real funny he accused me of not being able to read a chart, because ...

Actually, there have been periods of stability, and periods when it declined.

... if he actually had looked at the chart, he would have noticed yet another one of those periods of stability in the last year or so.


^
And if that weren't enough, notice there is another steep decline in the LFPR for males from about 1967-1976. Funny he's not accusing LBJ and Richard Nixon of anything. Then there's yet another steep decline from about 1992-96. Is he going to blame both George Bush and Bill Clinton for that?

[ennui2]

Of course not, because...Reverend Wright.

He'll never cop to it, but it just so happened that immediately after the Reverend Wright scandal Planty went from an admirer of Obama during the primaries to his #1 online hater after which he marched off to support McCain/Palin (with an emphasis on Palin, because common geography trumps brains). Obama basically hit Planty's white-pride third-rail and he was therefore marked for life to receive a daily dose of public derision in order to try to tarnish his approval ratings. Didn't accomplish much, though.

[copious.abundance]

GE to build $100 mln jet engine plant in Indiana
BMW plans $1 billion expansion in South Carolina
GM to add 1,400 Michigan jobs with new Chevrolet Volt on the way
Boeing plans fast start to 777X buildings in Everett
New carpet plant in Carbondale, Ga., could be world's biggest
Giti, a Singapore tire company, to bring 1,700 jobs to Chester County, S.C., invest $560 million
SolarCity plans world's largest solar panel plant in upstate N.Y.
Chinese company to invest $2 billion, create 2,000 jobs in Chesterfield, VA
Volkswagen to spend $900 million at Tennessee plant to build new SUV, add 2,000 jobs
3,850 jobs may eventually come to South Jersey waterfront
East Tennessee auto supplier creates 1,000 jobs
Tesla's Reno 'Gigafactory' would create jobs bonanza
Wentzville GM plant adding third shift, 750 jobs
Ford to add 850 jobs at Dearborn factories for new F-150 truck
Ford will add 1,200 jobs at Claycomo plant for its new Transit van
Vertex Rail to bring 1,300 jobs to Wilmington, invest $50 million in production facility
21st Century Economy: Google could hire 30,000 in Bay Area based on tech titan's development spree
Fuyao set to double hiring at Moraine plant to 1,500 jobs
21st Century Economy: Cerner Corp Breaks Ground on $4.45B Campus With 16,000 Jobs in Kansas City, Missouri
Ford will add 900 workers at Claycomo plant to build the F-150 truck
Daimler to build South Carolina plant, creating 1,300 jobs
Nissan to add 1,000 jobs in Smyrna
GM mulls expansion of SUV plant in Texas
GM to add 2,500 jobs, invest $1B at Warren Tech Center
Volvo factory to bring 4,000 jobs to South Carolina
Continental Tire confirms it will create 2,500 jobs in Hinds County, Mississippi
FCA investing $1B, adding 1,000 jobs at Jeep plants

And yet another one of these. Even the Chinese are starting to build plants in the US.

Sentury Tire confirms plans for $530 million, 1,000-job plant in Georgia

Georgia has landed Sentury Tire’s first U.S. manufacturing plant — a $530 million project that will create more than 1,000 jobs, Gov. Nathan Deal confirmed Thursday. It would be first major Chinese investment in Georgia.

The facility in LaGrange will support Quingdao, China-based Sentury Tire’s existing customer base in North America. Atlanta Business Chronicle first reported the deal in July.

Sentury had also considered a 4,000-acre industrial site about 25 miles east of Memphis, Tenn. Late last week, officials in West Tennessee were told Georgia would be the bid winner.

The first phase of the Sentury Tire expansion would involve a more than $500 million investment and the creation of more than 600 jobs, sources told the Chronicle in July. When fully built-out, the investment could rise to $1 billion and the workforce would swell to “several thousand.”

[...]

[ennui2]

Hot of the presses!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... recession/

Whither ETP Doom????????????????????????????????????????????

[Plantagenet]

he accused me of not being able to read a chart, because ...

Actually, there have been periods of stability, and periods when it declined.

... if he actually had looked at the chart, he would have noticed yet another one of those periods of stability in the last year or so.

Again you are showing you don't how to read a graph. You can't read too much into a single data point, i.e. a single year does not constitute a "period of stability." The graph shows several obvious plateaus---you can tell how long they last by referring to the timeline shown along the abscissa of the graph. Got it? Now measure the duration of the obvious periods of stability----note that they all last at least 5 years---some of them more. Yes we may be in a new period stability now, following the very rapid decline at the start of Obama's watch, but its also possible that this is just a brief pause in a prolonged period of decline.

The main take-away here is that your claim that worker participation has been continuously declining is clearly wrong. The graph shows there have been periods of stability separated by periods of decline in worker participation. Do you understand that now?
^

he's not accusing LBJ ... Richard Nixon ... George Bush ... Bill Clinton

I'm not making any accusations about anyone---I'm simply discussing the facts. A fact is not an accusation---a fact is just a fact.

It is obvious that periods of decline in worker participation rates have occurred when some previous presidents were in office, just as a steep decline in worker participation has just occurred under Obama. Thats what the graph shows, dude. Its a fact.

Do I have to explain every single thing about your own graph to you. Sheesh.

Cheers!


No need to get all upset and huffy. Just ask nicely and I'll explain your graph to you.