Liberal Forum

Beekeeper » 05 Apr 2024, 9:14 am » wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2024, 9:14 am

Unemployment drops?? You mean MORE PEOPLE have dropped off the SHORT TERM roles and now into the "I GAVE UP LOOKING" roles!!

We call those LONG TERM NOT GOING TO FIND WORK folks that YOU never count because it makes you look bad!!

The ACTUAL G6 rate is nearly 8%. That's everyone and a FAR MORE ACCURATE LOOK at the reality!!

!!

That sucks, huh, ****???

 

You mean MORE PEOPLE have dropped off the SHORT TERM roles

Illiterate ****

We call those LONG TERM NOT GOING TO FIND WORK folks that YOU never count because it makes you look bad!!

 
Kill yourself, Rube..
 

Bidencrimefamily » 05 Apr 2024, 9:16 am » wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2024, 9:16 am

Red wave.

Who cares. I can tell you now, YOUR SIDE is losing their BASE VOTERS in MASSIVE NUMBERS!! And that usually spells a REAL GOOD THING down ticket from President!!

Do you honestly think folks are going to vote for MORE OF THIS....


 

Beekeeper » 05 Apr 2024, 9:15 am » wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2024, 9:15 am

You seem to think that BUILDING is feasible when the REALITY IS, sure it costs more to REBUILD or RETOOL in ILLINIOS than elsewhere!!! And THAT ALONE PROVES that BLUE STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS are destroying this nation!!

Sucks for you, ****!!

Fondler,

Like Zeet, you have no idea what you're going on about.
 

More people are working now then at any time under Trump.

R.Suave » 05 Apr 2024, 9:18 am » wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2024, 9:18 am

Illiterate ****


 
Kill yourself, Rube..

MORONIC PIECE OF ****!!!


 

Beekeeper » 05 Apr 2024, 9:25 am » wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2024, 9:25 am

MORONIC PIECE OF ****!!!

Fondler,

You don't have the onions for this job.



 

R.Suave » 05 Apr 2024, 9:30 am » wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2024, 9:30 am

Fondler,

You don't have the onions for this job.

And your little "chart" only SAYS WHAT I JUST SAID, ****!!! AND DOUBLY SO!!

A. U6 UNEMPLOYMENT IS NEARLY 8%.
B. Biden created ZERO JOBS since the U6 RATE under TRUMP was the LOWEST IN 50 years until COVID HIT!!
C. Biden only saw the REHIRING of those laid off during COVID!! AND the U6 is HIGHER UNDER BIDEN than it ever was under Trump UNTIL COVID!!

So once AGAIN, you handed yourself your OWN *** with PROVING MY ENTIRE POINT!!

So who has NO BALLS AGAIN??


 

Beekeeper » 05 Apr 2024, 9:42 am » wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2024, 9:42 am

And your little "chart" only SAYS WHAT I JUST SAID, ****!!! AND DOUBLY SO!!

A. U6 UNEMPLOYMENT IS NEARLY 8%.
B. Biden created ZERO JOBS since the U6 RATE under TRUMP was the LOWEST IN 50 years until COVID HIT!!
C. Biden only saw the REHIRING of those laid off during COVID!! AND the U6 is HIGHER UNDER BIDEN than it ever was under Trump UNTIL COVID!!

So once AGAIN, you handed yourself your OWN *** with PROVING MY ENTIRE POINT!!

So who has NO BALLS AGAIN??

As of early 2023, the prime-age LFP rate reached its highest level since the early 2000s, with the rate for men exceeding the prior peak in early 2020 and the rate for women reaching a historical high.Feb 5, 2024
[img][/img]
https://www.frbsf.org › 2024/02 Why Is Prime-Age Labor Force Participation So High?



This idiot won't even read this but here you go. 

Better than under trump.by a mile 

Beekeeper » 05 Apr 2024, 9:42 am » wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2024, 9:42 am

And your little "chart" only SAYS WHAT I JUST SAID, ****!!! AND DOUBLY SO!!

A. U6 UNEMPLOYMENT IS NEARLY 8%.
B. Biden created ZERO JOBS since the U6 RATE under TRUMP was the LOWEST IN 50 years until COVID HIT!!
C. Biden only saw the REHIRING of those laid off during COVID!! AND the U6 is HIGHER UNDER BIDEN than it ever was under Trump UNTIL COVID!!

So once AGAIN, you handed yourself your OWN *** with PROVING MY ENTIRE POINT!!

So who has NO BALLS AGAIN??

A. U-6 is at 7.3%
B. Given A. I'll need to see some math.
C. More jive.

AND the U6 is HIGHER UNDER BIDEN than it ever was under Trump UNTIL COVID!!

In Jan 2019, U-6 was 8.0...

**** idiot.

R.Suave » 05 Apr 2024, 9:55 am » wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2024, 9:55 am

A. U-6 is at 7.3%
B. Given A. I'll need to see some math.
C. More jive.

In Jan 2019, U-6 was 8.0...

**** idiot.

As of early 2023, the prime-age LFP rate reached its highest level since the early 2000s, with the rate for men exceeding the prior peak in early 2020 and the rate for women reaching a historical high.Feb 5, 2024
[img][/img]
https://www.frbsf.org › 2024/02 Why Is Prime-Age Labor Force Participation So High?

Labor participation is at the highest levels since 2000.

Lol who was president in early 2000.

Oh yeah a democrat.

R.Suave » 05 Apr 2024, 9:08 am » wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2024, 9:08 am

You're an ignoramus, Zeet..

if the cost of moving exceeded the cost of staying, they would stay.

But the cost of building a new plant on cheaper real estate is obviously lower.

Incredibly myopic, but understandable coming from a liberal with no experience in the matter.
There are MANY reasons a business would move their location that you refuse to take into account.
Such as:
The high cost of moving may be fully offset by a better availability of an experienced or better educated workforce
There are often favorable tax breaks for relocating in a different area
A business may choose to move from a city where unions are required to one where they are not
Crime, homelessness, and drug abuse in an area all contribute to the safety of the workforce
Overburden of regulations in certain cities make if virtually impossible for a business to operate profitably there
Theft and vandalism will often require far more expenditures for security 
Shifting demographics or new competition may force a business to relocate
Housing costs for employees often help determine what employee salary an area may require
Accessibility to mass transit or traffic issues can make the employees in one location more dependable than another
One location may be more conducive to future expansion than another
The ownership of a business may desire a work location nearer to his home
A closer proximity to suppliers of raw materials may be needed
Better access to importing and exporting needs may be required

And many more.  
Your lack of wisdom on such a subject would generally keep someone who was intelligent from providing input that exposes their complete ignorance on the subject.  Of course if you realized that, you'd probably reduce your posts to one or two a day rather than the 50 or more we're subjected to due to your narcissism.
 

Zeets2 » 05 Apr 2024, 10:29 am » wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2024, 10:29 am

Incredibly myopic, but understandable coming from a liberal with no experience in the matter.
There are MANY reasons a business would move their location that you refuse to take into account.
Such as:
The high cost of moving may be fully offset by a better availability of an experienced or better educated workforce
There are often favorable tax breaks for relocating in a different area
A business may choose to move from a city where unions are required to one where they are not
Crime, homelessness, and drug abuse in an area all contribute to the safety of the workforce
Overburden of regulations in certain cities make if virtually impossible for a business to operate profitably there
Theft and vandalism will often require far more expenditures for security 
Shifting demographics or new competition may force a business to relocate
Housing costs for employees often help determine what employee salary an area may require
Accessibility to mass transit or traffic issues can make the employees in one location more dependable than another
One location may be more conducive to future expansion than another
The ownership of a business may desire a work location nearer to his home
A closer proximity to suppliers of raw materials may be needed
Better access to importing and exporting needs may be required

And many more.  
Your lack of wisdom on such a subject would generally keep someone who was intelligent from providing input that exposes their complete ignorance on the subject.  Of course if you realized that, you'd probably reduce your posts to one or two a day rather than the 50 or more we're subjected to due to your narcissism.

Incredibly myopic

It has nothing to do with me.

but understandable coming from a liberal with no experience in the matter.

groooooaaan

There are MANY reasons a business would move their location that you refuse to take into account

****, **** U

R.Suave » 05 Apr 2024, 1:56 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2024, 1:56 pm

It has nothing to do with me.

groooooaaan

****, **** U

It only has something to do when you submit an idiotic opinion like that when a smarter man would know enough to keep his big mouth shut!
It sure must hurt when you get your ignorance exposed so often, doesn't it?
 

Zeets2 » 05 Apr 2024, 3:09 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2024, 3:09 pm

It only has something to do when you submit an idiotic opinion like that when a smarter man would know enough to keep his big mouth shut!
It sure must hurt when you get your ignorance exposed so often, doesn't it?

Oh my God the highest job participation since the year 2000.  

Trump can't say that 
 

Zeets2 » 05 Apr 2024, 3:09 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2024, 3:09 pm

It only has something to do when you submit an idiotic opinion like that when a smarter man would know enough to keep his big mouth shut!
It sure must hurt when you get your ignorance exposed so often, doesn't it?

Do you spend most of your waking hours heavily medicated, Zeet?

R.Suave » 05 Apr 2024, 7:53 am » wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2024, 7:53 am

Links?

More Household Survey hijinks I bet.

 

Bidencrimefamily » 05 Apr 2024, 3:11 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Apr 2024, 3:11 pm

Oh my God the highest job participation since the year 2000.  

Trump can't say that

Liar. Trump's labor participation rate was 63.3%
Today, its 62.7.
Civilian labor force participation rate (bls.gov)

 

Regular readers are aware that all the job gains since 2018 have gone to immigrants, mostly illegal immigrants, something we spent last month's jobs post discussing in detail.

So what happened in March? It will come as no surprise that there was more of the same, and after the collapse in native-born workers in the last three months when nearly 2.5 million native-born workers lost their jobs, March saw some pick up, and 929K native-born workers were added. Meanwhile, after last month's record increase in foreign-born workers, in March illegal immigrants added another 112K jobs, pushing the total number of foreign-born workers to a new record high of 31.114 million.


 

https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/17 ... 0308671524