On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:42:16 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
...
...The labor force participation rate hasn't
exceeded 67 percent in the past decade, so we would be looking at a
true
"unemployment" number that bounces between roughly thirty and forty
percent....

Perhaps the ratio of employment divided by total non-prison population
is valid for men, but I don't see how it can be determined for women
who could be single yet contentedly living off their boyfriend.

The percentages are fairly easy to figure. What Gunner doesn't say,
and probably doesn't know, is that the "participation rate" today is
exactly what it was in 1985. The employment rate, which is slightly
different, is what it was in 1984.

It was social changes as much as the economy that drove the rate up.
We're still near historic highs.

If you want any of the data, I keep the Bureau of Labor Statistics
URLs in my research database and I'll pull them up. I can lead you
directly to the graphs and tables.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:42:16 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
...
...The labor force participation rate hasn't
exceeded 67 percent in the past decade, so we would be looking at a
true
"unemployment" number that bounces between roughly thirty and forty
percent....

Perhaps the ratio of employment divided by total non-prison population
is valid for men, but I don't see how it can be determined for women
who could be single yet contentedly living off their boyfriend.

The percentages are fairly easy to figure. What Gunner doesn't say,
and probably doesn't know, is that the "participation rate" today is
exactly what it was in 1985. The employment rate, which is slightly
different, is what it was in 1984.

It was social changes as much as the economy that drove the rate up.
We're still near historic highs.

If you want any of the data, I keep the Bureau of Labor Statistics
URLs in my research database and I'll pull them up. I can lead you
directly to the graphs and tables.



For Gunner and those like him, the unemployment number is probably more closer to 95%

So far as I can discern, he has no marketable job skills and to make matters worse, he has spent the better part of the past two decades relentlessly exposing himself as a fruitcake to and/or insulting the overwhelming majority of those who perhaps might otherwise have offered him a meaningful job....

Now, throw in a few veiled death threats here and there and take into consideration his stated desire of wanting to be able to masturbate while in the vicinity of a corpse that he has just murdered with a barb wire garrote and then keep in mind that even most minimum wage jobs require urine testing and a routine background check and you've just taken a glimpse through the doorway that's led to Gunner's sad existence....

On 2/21/2012 10:23 AM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

"Ed wrote in message ...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:42:16 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Gunner wrote in message
...
...
...The labor force participation rate hasn't
exceeded 67 percent in the past decade, so we would be looking at a
true
"unemployment" number that bounces between roughly thirty and forty
percent....

Perhaps the ratio of employment divided by total non-prison population
is valid for men, but I don't see how it can be determined for women
who could be single yet contentedly living off their boyfriend.

The percentages are fairly easy to figure. What Gunner doesn't say,
and probably doesn't know, is that the "participation rate" today is
exactly what it was in 1985. The employment rate, which is slightly
different, is what it was in 1984.

It was social changes as much as the economy that drove the rate up.
We're still near historic highs.

If you want any of the data, I keep the Bureau of Labor Statistics
URLs in my research database and I'll pull them up. I can lead you
directly to the graphs and tables.



For Gunner and those like him, the unemployment number is probably more closer to 95%

guffaw


So far as I can discern, he has no marketable job skills and to make matters worse, he has spent the better part of the past two decades relentlessly exposing himself as a fruitcake to and/or insulting the overwhelming majority of those who perhaps might otherwise have offered him a meaningful job....

gummer is a low-level sociopath. Sociopaths are usually considered
unemployable if their status is known.


Now, throw in a few veiled death threats here and there and take into consideration his stated desire of wanting to be able to masturbate while in the vicinity of a corpse that he has just murdered with a barb wire garrote and then keep in mind that even most minimum wage jobs require urine testing and a routine background check and you've just taken a glimpse through the doorway that's led to Gunner's sad existence....

gummer's response to all that: "Cites?"

Ha ha ha ha ha!

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:23:17 -0800, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:42:16 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
...
...The labor force participation rate hasn't
exceeded 67 percent in the past decade, so we would be looking at a
true
"unemployment" number that bounces between roughly thirty and forty
percent....

Perhaps the ratio of employment divided by total non-prison population
is valid for men, but I don't see how it can be determined for women
who could be single yet contentedly living off their boyfriend.

The percentages are fairly easy to figure. What Gunner doesn't say,
and probably doesn't know, is that the "participation rate" today is
exactly what it was in 1985. The employment rate, which is slightly
different, is what it was in 1984.

It was social changes as much as the economy that drove the rate up.
We're still near historic highs.

If you want any of the data, I keep the Bureau of Labor Statistics
URLs in my research database and I'll pull them up. I can lead you
directly to the graphs and tables.



For Gunner and those like him, the unemployment number is probably more closer to 95%

So far as I can discern, he has no marketable job skills and to make matters worse, he has spent the better part of the past two decades relentlessly exposing himself as a fruitcake to and/or insulting the overwhelming majority of those who perhaps might otherwise have offered him a meaningful job....

Now, throw in a few veiled death threats here and there and take into consideration his stated desire of wanting to be able to masturbate while in the vicinity of a corpse that he has just murdered with a barb wire garrote and then keep in mind that even most minimum wage jobs require urine testing and a routine background check and you've just taken a glimpse through the doorway that's led to Gunner's sad existence....

g If Gunner kept his name out of it, he *was* a factory machine tool
tech, and the way machine tools are selling now, there just might be a
job for him out there. Maybe not in California. The state is just too
screwed up.

However, the sales bubble may flatten out; it doesn't look like it
will burst, but it could slow down. A lot of the year-over-year
increase appears to be the result of some special tax breaks that ran
through last December, for capital investments.

--
Ed Huntress