1 in 3 jobs are temps?

sarktastic

... or part time? And this is with 92 million not in the work force?

Welcome to Obama's Imerica

RaceBannon

Thanks Obamacare!

CuntWaffle

Yea, but still.

MikeDamone

Link?

The temp jobs are a tiny part of it. About 2% of the workforce.

Part time workers who want full time work is about 12%.

Certainly this is not 33% of the workforce.

But still. Thanks Obamacare.

sarktastic

WSJ.

they call 'em 'freelancers' now.

BennyBeaver

Timely comments about employment statistics that have been trending in the postiive direction for quite a while now. Way to latch onto the negatives.

Here's some links since you didn't provide any:

http://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2014/09/05/august-jobs-report-the-numbers/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-05/payrolls-in-u-s-rose-142-000-in-august-smallest-gain-this-year.html

RaceBannon

PALTRY PARTICIPATION
62.8%
The labor-force participation rate fell in August to 62.8% from 62.9% the prior month. The August rate matches the lowest level since the late 1970s. The smaller share of Americans participating in the workforce suggests the economy’s potential to grow is more limited today compared to previous decades. Fed economists, in a recent report, say that the decline in the share of Americans holding or seeking jobs is largely the product of longer-term factors such as a rising number of retirees rather than the aftermath of a particularly awful recession.


Well that's positive

MikeDamone

sarktastic said:

WSJ.

they call 'em 'freelancers' now.

Not seeing the 1 in 3 stat.

But Bush!

BennyBeaver

RaceBannon said:

PALTRY PARTICIPATION
62.8%
The labor-force participation rate fell in August to 62.8% from 62.9% the prior month. The August rate matches the lowest level since the late 1970s. The smaller share of Americans participating in the workforce suggests the economy’s potential to grow is more limited today compared to previous decades. Fed economists, in a recent report, say that the decline in the share of Americans holding or seeking jobs is largely the product of longer-term factors such as a rising number of retirees rather than the aftermath of a particularly awful recession.


Well that's positive

Fed economists, in a recent report, say that the decline in the share of Americans holding or seeking jobs is largely the product of longer-term factors such as a rising number of retirees rather than the aftermath of a particularly awful recession.

That's the take away.

From the Bloomberg article:

“I’m skeptical that we’re going to see much of a bounce-back in labor force participation,” said Krueger. “A large share of the decline is a result of retirement.”

There were patches of improvement in today’s report. The number of Americans employed part-time because they couldn’t find full-time work dropped by 234,000 in August.

The underemployment rate -- which includes part-time workers who’d prefer a full-time position and people who want to work but have given up looking -- dropped to 12 percent, the lowest since October 2008, from 12.2 percent.

The number of long-term unemployed, those out of work for 27 weeks or more, totaled 2.96 million, the fewest since 2.7 million in January 2009.

RaceBannon

Comparing numbers to 2009 is like comparing Sark to Ty.

60% of the people working is not good news. The Obama administration wouldn't have changed the way unemployment is counted if the numbers didn't suck so bad.

We're in recovery summer 5 now and the recovery is almost a phantom of the imagination of the 30% that still think Obama has a clue.

Matching the lowest rate since the 70's is horrible news no matter how you spin it. Now we need a Reagan to come along and clean things up.

ApostleofGrief

more than 50% of Microsoft is not microsoft employees.

Obama doesn't have much to do with it. It is driven by predatory staffing agencies, which are nothing more than techno-pimps, looking for easy money. And it is easy to send somebody off to work and collect his earnings. Employers don't really want real employees. This has been going on for years, long before Obama.

BennyBeaver

RaceBannon said:

Comparing numbers to 2009 is like comparing Sark to Ty.

60% of the people working is not good news. The Obama administration wouldn't have changed the way unemployment is counted if the numbers didn't suck so bad.

We're in recovery summer 5 now and the recovery is almost a phantom of the imagination of the 30% that still think Obama has a clue.

Matching the lowest rate since the 70's is horrible news no matter how you spin it. Now we need a Reagan to come along and clean things up.

2009 comparisons are valid because that was the end of the recession, no?

And what 60% are you talking about? The 62.8% participation rate? The participation rate has been in the 60s forever even during King Ronald the Great's reign.

Swaye

Woodchips could fix all of this you know.

sarktastic

recovery:

RaceBannon

TheGlove said:

RaceBannon said:

Comparing numbers to 2009 is like comparing Sark to Ty.

60% of the people working is not good news. The Obama administration wouldn't have changed the way unemployment is counted if the numbers didn't suck so bad.

We're in recovery summer 5 now and the recovery is almost a phantom of the imagination of the 30% that still think Obama has a clue.

Matching the lowest rate since the 70's is horrible news no matter how you spin it. Now we need a Reagan to come along and clean things up.

2009 comparisons are valid because that was the end of the recession, no?

And what 60% are you talking about? The 62.8% participation rate? The participation rate has been in the 60s forever even during King Ronald the Great's reign.

What part of lowest since the 70's did you miss?

What end of the recession?

BennyBeaver

RaceBannon said:

TheGlove said:

RaceBannon said:

Comparing numbers to 2009 is like comparing Sark to Ty.

60% of the people working is not good news. The Obama administration wouldn't have changed the way unemployment is counted if the numbers didn't suck so bad.

We're in recovery summer 5 now and the recovery is almost a phantom of the imagination of the 30% that still think Obama has a clue.

Matching the lowest rate since the 70's is horrible news no matter how you spin it. Now we need a Reagan to come along and clean things up.

2009 comparisons are valid because that was the end of the recession, no?

And what 60% are you talking about? The 62.8% participation rate? The participation rate has been in the 60s forever even during King Ronald the Great's reign.

What part of lowest since the 70's did you miss?

What end of the recession?

http://bit.ly/1pUCS5e

CuntWaffle

RaceBannon said:

TheGlove said:

RaceBannon said:

Comparing numbers to 2009 is like comparing Sark to Ty.

60% of the people working is not good news. The Obama administration wouldn't have changed the way unemployment is counted if the numbers didn't suck so bad.

We're in recovery summer 5 now and the recovery is almost a phantom of the imagination of the 30% that still think Obama has a clue.

Matching the lowest rate since the 70's is horrible news no matter how you spin it. Now we need a Reagan to come along and clean things up.

2009 comparisons are valid because that was the end of the recession, no?

And what 60% are you talking about? The 62.8% participation rate? The participation rate has been in the 60s forever even during King Ronald the Great's reign.

What part of lowest since the 70's did you miss?

What end of the recession?

The news said it so it must be true.

DerekJohnson

TheGlove said:

RaceBannon said:

TheGlove said:

RaceBannon said:

Comparing numbers to 2009 is like comparing Sark to Ty.

60% of the people working is not good news. The Obama administration wouldn't have changed the way unemployment is counted if the numbers didn't suck so bad.

We're in recovery summer 5 now and the recovery is almost a phantom of the imagination of the 30% that still think Obama has a clue.

Matching the lowest rate since the 70's is horrible news no matter how you spin it. Now we need a Reagan to come along and clean things up.

2009 comparisons are valid because that was the end of the recession, no?

And what 60% are you talking about? The 62.8% participation rate? The participation rate has been in the 60s forever even during King Ronald the Great's reign.

What part of lowest since the 70's did you miss?

What end of the recession?

http://bit.ly/1pUCS5e

This is the most fired up I've seen you in awhile.

PurpleJ

Welcome to Obama's Europe.

RaceBannon

Figures lie and liars figure and no administration since Nixon has lied as much as Obama

BennyBeaver

DerekJohnson said:

TheGlove said:

RaceBannon said:

TheGlove said:

RaceBannon said:

Comparing numbers to 2009 is like comparing Sark to Ty.

60% of the people working is not good news. The Obama administration wouldn't have changed the way unemployment is counted if the numbers didn't suck so bad.

We're in recovery summer 5 now and the recovery is almost a phantom of the imagination of the 30% that still think Obama has a clue.

Matching the lowest rate since the 70's is horrible news no matter how you spin it. Now we need a Reagan to come along and clean things up.

2009 comparisons are valid because that was the end of the recession, no?

And what 60% are you talking about? The 62.8% participation rate? The participation rate has been in the 60s forever even during King Ronald the Great's reign.

What part of lowest since the 70's did you miss?

What end of the recession?

http://bit.ly/1pUCS5e

This is the most fired up I've seen you in awhile.

off my meds.