unemployment fell we must be recovering right?
bronco2078
Posts: 10,231 ✭✭✭✭✭
0
bronco2078
Posts: 10,231 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
5 years later in March 2013 - 135,195,000 = 2.7 million fewer people working today
People in the work force (working or looking for work in January, 2013 - 155,654,000
People in the work force in March 2013 - 155,028,000 = 600k fewer people working or looking for work just 2 months later
Yeah, it's really looking rosy out there.
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
My back hurts too!!!
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
I knew it would happen.
an oldie but a goodie
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I knew it would happen.
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
<< <i>aren't more and more people on food stamps? >>
And that number WILL incease because we have an INCREASING population. But to your point, in 1980 about 10% of the population received food stamps. Today it is about 14%. But if we look a bit more closely we will see that in 1980 there were about 25 million people age 65 and older. Today there are over 40 million over the age of 65. It is not just young inner city moms with kids getting assistance, but also many older folk who are no longer in the workforce. This trend will continue until about 2025-2030 when the average boomer about 75 years old. Unless scientists find cures for our ills and push life expectancy much higher thus increasing the burden on those younger.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>But to your point, in 1980 about 10% of the population received food stamps. Today it is about 14%. >>
Barry is indeed, the food stamp president!
<< <i>
<< <i>aren't more and more people on food stamps? >>
And that number WILL incease because we have an INCREASING population. But to your point, in 1980 about 10% of the population received food stamps. Today it is about 14%. But if we look a bit more closely we will see that in 1980 there were about 25 million people age 65 and older. Today there are over 40 million over the age of 65. It is not just young inner city moms with kids getting assistance, but also many older folk who are no longer in the workforce. This trend will continue until about 2025-2030 when the average boomer about 75 years old. Unless scientists find cures for our ills and push life expectancy much higher thus increasing the burden on those younger. >>
Very few people on Social Security receive food assistance. Even near its minimum, Social Security income is too high to allow those persons to qualify.
Everyday the number of people that turn 65 is about the same as turn 18.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Nearly 10% of food stamp recipients are over age 60. This number will continue to grow for the next 15 years.
Everyday the number of people that turn 65 is about the same as turn 18. >>
Seniors really got hosed by the current and previous admins. Zero rate of returns on savings as food prices soar.
Most of those receiving food stamps have little savings I suspect, but reckless monetary policy has outpriced many at the grocery store.
They do get a half million bucks worth of end of life care though.
Yeesh we have messed things up.
Let's see.................that means...............100% minus 10% equals..................um.........................90% are under 60.
I knew it would happen.
Interests:
Pre-Jump Grade Project
Toned Commemoratives
<< <i>Nearly 10% of food stamp recipients are over age 60. This number will continue to grow for the next 15 years.
Everyday the number of people that turn 65 is about the same as turn 18. >>
That is true. And every day in the U.S. about 5,000 people over age 65 die too.
"The Baby Boomer Burden" is not responsible for the massive increase in food stamp usage that has gone from 27 million to 47 million recipients in the last 6 years.
Go volunteer at a food bank and you will witness the age demographics.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>The numbers are a blatant misrepresentation of our economic situation regarding employment. I cannot understand why our media (well, if we had a media interested in real journalistic principles) allows this charade to continue. There are Pulitzer prize potential stories out there, but the sheep in media lack the talent and drive to pursue them and expose the truth. Cheers, RickO >>
+1
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>The numbers are a blatant misrepresentation of our economic situation regarding employment. I cannot understand why our media (well, if we had a media interested in real journalistic principles) allows this charade to continue. There are Pulitzer prize potential stories out there, but the sheep in media lack the talent and drive to pursue them and expose the truth. Cheers, RickO >>
+1
Steve >>
I suspect it is news media management who refuses to rock the boat.
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
"The weather has become such a handy and versatile tool for economic apologists that we may expect that financial news stations will start featuring meteorologists more heavily than financial analysts. Move over Jim Cramer, hello Al Roker."
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
<< <i>Blame it on the weather
"The weather has become such a handy and versatile tool for economic apologists that we may expect that financial news stations will start featuring meteorologists more heavily than financial analysts. Move over Jim Cramer, hello Al Roker." >>
Fed economic figures were accepted as gospel until very recently, exception being the long juiced CPI numbers. Today all are suspect.