94,609,000 Not in Labor Force

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: MillerTribe
But with the fact that a person becomes less likely to vote democrat for every additional dollar they earn, wouldn't it be the democrats playing the role of the poor in paragraph one and republcians that of the middle class?

First off. If you are going to say things are "facts" you should post some supporting documentation. Second off, there are TONS of middle class Democrats in the country. Your entire worldview that Republicans are rich and Democrats are poor is ridiculously simplistic.

I apologize for the lack of 350 million personal financial histories in my post. And yes their are many middle class dems too. But the fact remains that for each additional dollar a person earns they are less likely to vote democrat. There are many more middle class republcians and many more poor democrats than any other affiliation wealth combo.

www.debt.org...

So, why should we listen to the poor democrats over the self supporting middle class? if they were so smart they wouldn't be poor?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Snarl

Quick question. How many of these people are over age 65?

There are 46 million Americans over the age of 65.

www.prb.org...

Ok. So that's around half of the number in the OP. Now how many people in America are on some sort of disability? In this case 100% disability? Also, kids are staying full time students later and later into their 20's, how many kids over age 16 are full time students living with their parents?

Approx 10 million on disability.
So let's say 60 million retired and disabled not working.
That leaves 30 plus million people not working.

Sounds like one in three people of working age are not in the tax base for one reason or another.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: MillerTribe
Trying be sincere as this is one of my biggest issues with politics. I believe that we can all agree on this OP, that there's a lot of people not working. As another poster pointed out there is a different minority' supporting these poor people, the middle class. The above we can all agree on.

Now when it comes to doing something about it that's when this whole exercise goes downhilll.

But with the fact that a person becomes less likely to vote democrat for every additional dollar they earn, wouldn't it be the democrats playing the role of the poor in paragraph one and republcians that of the middle class?

So essentially democrats are the poor of our society, they consist of those who can't find gainful employment. Figure that, in an open society race to the top democrats fall short.

Yet democrats want us to follow their lead politically. They want us to believe that it is the poor people that have failed society's test who have the answers.

That is crazy. I will never follow the democrats unless my goal is to be more poor.

It's like listening to the real estate advice of the guy living on the street. It makes zero sense.

Slight Correction.

Democrats / Progressives really consist of two groups. The poor / victim class and the ultra wealthy.

Basically, Democrats appeal to the poor / victim class with promises of free stuff. Look at any Democrat party platform, it is basically about how much they are going to give away. The ultra wealthy support liberal policies as they like to virtue signal. This is why all the rich on the left are typically Hollywood types. Nothing like a brainless actor making $50 million a year telling poor people they feel their pain OR chiding the middle class because they think taxes are too high. The other thing you have to know is that rich liberals support all these policies because they won't actually apply to them.

For example, Democrats will fight school choice and charter schools. Rich Democrats don't care because they don't send their kids to public schools. So they prevent YOU from having a say in where your kid goes to school, but they can afford to opt out by sending their kid to elite private schools.

This is why they also don't care about illegal immigration. It isn't their jobs being lost. Illegal Immigrants aren't moving to their rich enclaves. Going to their schools.

Indeed. Im glad that's settled. Vote Trump.

originally posted by: angeldoll
The current unemployment rate is 4.9 percent.

US unemployment rate fell to 4.9 percent in October 2016 from 5 percent in the previous month and in line with market expectations. The number of unemployed persons was almost unchanged at 7.9 million while the labor force participation rate decreased by 0.1 percentage point to 62.8 percent. Unemployment Rate in the United States averaged 5.81 percent from 1948 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 10.80 percent in November of 1982 and a record low of 2.50 percent in May of 1953. Unemployment Rate in the United States is reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

www.tradingeconomics.com...

Please explain to me how 94.6 million people out of ~320 million = 4.9%

Perhaps I'm just bad at math?

originally posted by: MillerTribe

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: MillerTribe
But with the fact that a person becomes less likely to vote democrat for every additional dollar they earn, wouldn't it be the democrats playing the role of the poor in paragraph one and republcians that of the middle class?

First off. If you are going to say things are "facts" you should post some supporting documentation. Second off, there are TONS of middle class Democrats in the country. Your entire worldview that Republicans are rich and Democrats are poor is ridiculously simplistic.

I apologize for the lack of 350 million personal financial histories in my post. And yes their are many middle class dems too. But the fact remains that for each additional dollar a person earns they are less likely to vote democrat. There are many more middle class republcians and many more poor democrats than any other afficialtion wealth combo.

www.debt.org...

So, why should we listen to the poor democrats over the self supporting middle class? if they were so smart they wouldn't be poor?

Funny... your source supported exactly what I said in my post too. I didn't even need to research it, but anyone with eyes wide open can see it.

From Debt.org

An individual’s likelihood of being a Democrat decreases with every additional dollar he or she earns. Democrats have a huge advantage (63 percent) with voters earning less than $15,000 per year. This advantage carries forward for individuals earning up to $50,000 per year, and then turns in the Republicans’ favor — with just 36 percent of individuals earning more than $200,000 per year supporting Democrats. Interestingly, the median household income in the United States is $49,777 — right near the point where the Democratic advantage disappears and the Republicans take over....

Ultra-Wealthy While Democrats lose support as income increases, there seems to be a tipping point where the ultra-wealthy begin leaning Democratic. The most famous example would be the entertainment industry, where star-studded events have become a significant part of Democratic culture.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Snarl

Quick question. How many of these people are over age 65?

There are 46 million Americans over the age of 65.

www.prb.org...

Ok. So that's around half of the number in the OP. Now how many people in America are on some sort of disability? In this case 100% disability? Also, kids are staying full time students later and later into their 20's, how many kids over age 16 are full time students living with their parents?

Approx 10 million on disability.
So let's say 60 million retired and disabled not working.
That leaves 30 plus million people not working.

Sounds like one in three people of working age are not in the tax base for one reason or another.

Maybe I missed something. Why would be counting retired folk? It's talking about people over 16 that are able to participate in the labor force.

a reply to: Bluntone22

You forgot about my full time student statistic.

originally posted by: eXia7

originally posted by: angeldoll
The current unemployment rate is 4.9 percent.

US unemployment rate fell to 4.9 percent in October 2016 from 5 percent in the previous month and in line with market expectations. The number of unemployed persons was almost unchanged at 7.9 million while the labor force participation rate decreased by 0.1 percentage point to 62.8 percent. Unemployment Rate in the United States averaged 5.81 percent from 1948 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 10.80 percent in November of 1982 and a record low of 2.50 percent in May of 1953. Unemployment Rate in the United States is reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

www.tradingeconomics.com...

Please explain to me how 94.6 million people out of ~320 million = 4.9%

Perhaps I'm just bad at math?

That number is probably people collecting unemployment benefits.
Retired folks don't count, nor students or people not elegable for benefits.

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Snarl

Quick question. How many of these people are over age 65?

There are 46 million Americans over the age of 65.

www.prb.org...

Ok. So that's around half of the number in the OP. Now how many people in America are on some sort of disability? In this case 100% disability? Also, kids are staying full time students later and later into their 20's, how many kids over age 16 are full time students living with their parents?

Approx 10 million on disability.
So let's say 60 million retired and disabled not working.
That leaves 30 plus million people not working.

Sounds like one in three people of working age are not in the tax base for one reason or another.

Maybe I missed something. Why would be counting retired folk? It's talking about people over 16 that are able to participate in the labor force.

This thread is talking about U6 which pretty much counts everyone over 16. So retired people, disabled people, full time students, and any other people not in the work force for reasons other than they can't find work.

Hmm quite a large standing army of pissed off folks regardless of the precise numbers..

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bluntone22

You forgot about my full time student statistic.

No I added 4 million.

46 + 10 + 4 = 60 million

My numbers didn't factor in people over 65 still working either.
That's 9 million ish..

www.pewresearch.org...

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: eXia7

originally posted by: angeldoll
The current unemployment rate is 4.9 percent.

US unemployment rate fell to 4.9 percent in October 2016 from 5 percent in the previous month and in line with market expectations. The number of unemployed persons was almost unchanged at 7.9 million while the labor force participation rate decreased by 0.1 percentage point to 62.8 percent. Unemployment Rate in the United States averaged 5.81 percent from 1948 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 10.80 percent in November of 1982 and a record low of 2.50 percent in May of 1953. Unemployment Rate in the United States is reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

www.tradingeconomics.com...

Please explain to me how 94.6 million people out of ~320 million = 4.9%

Perhaps I'm just bad at math?

That number is probably people collecting unemployment benefits.
Retired folks don't count, nor students or people not elegable for benefits.

Like mentioned earlier by a previous poster. It states that these numbers are derived from people of WORKING age. The 4.9% does not include people that have stopped actively looking for work, or have been unemployed for more than a few years.

originally posted by: MillerTribe
So, why should we listen to the poor democrats over the self supporting middle class? if they were so smart they wouldn't be poor?

If you believe that intelligence holds someone back from being wealthy then I have a bridge to sell you.

"The number of people employeed dropped 43,000, declining from 151,968,000 in September to 151,925,000 in October; and the number of unemployed people dropped by an even greater amount, 152,000 --falling from 7,939,000 in September to 7,787,000 in October."


So half the population is working but only 8 million are unemployed.

Makes sense to me

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bluntone22

You forgot about my full time student statistic.

No I added 4 million.

46 + 10 + 4 = 60 million

Now I'm not saying that we should have so many people out of work, but there is a reason I've stopped looking at U6 as much as I used to on ATS. It's really just the goto statistic for paranoid people to quote to try to find something wrong with Obama's economy. Yet many don't understand that there are many people who aren't looking for work included in that statistic because they truly don't want to work not because they are fed up.

I'm sure there are people fed up included in that statistic still, but with the U3 so low, if you don't have a job right now its your own fault. You may not be at full employment and working part time, but there are jobs to be had now.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bluntone22

You forgot about my full time student statistic.

No I added 4 million.

46 + 10 + 4 = 60 million

but there are jobs to be had now.

Such as? They are either low wage jobs, or seasonal jobs.

Where is a poor person with no education going to find a job that will pay their bills, pay for school, and try and survive? So they go to college, there is no guarantee they will have a career waiting for them.

I guess they could just work 3 Sh# jobs and scrape the bottom of the barrel to maybe move up to management for mcdonalds, but that's not the type of future anybody deserves.

originally posted by: In4ormant
There is obviously going to be some one offs and obstacles for people such as yourself but 94Million means a huge number making a choice to check out.

Not really.

factfinder.census.gov...

Using 2015's population there are 40,267,984 in the US above retirement age. Throw in 2016's population increase and you're probably looking at about 41 million. Subtract that from the 94 million and you have about 53 million who are out of work in working age.

In addition to that you have these numbers
nces.ed.gov...

Which show about 21 million students, of that only 20% work, so you have 17 million students you can take out of the remaining 53 million. That brings you to 36 million out of work.

www.bls.gov...
There are 82 million families in the US out of those, about 1/3 are single family incomes by choice, that leaves you with 27 million more you can take out of those numbers, bringing you to 9 million that are actually unemployed.

Dropping out of the work force isn't really an issue, the work force not paying what it should is an issue. To put it another way, underemployment is a problem but actual unemployment isn't.

Edit:
Ironically, it's not welfare sponges who are draining the government coffers. Statistically... it's you, the average working person. If you do road work, you work for the city. If you teach, you work for the state. If you deliver mail you work for the feds. If you're a government contractor you work for the government. That's where the money goes. Welfare dollars are very little of our expenditures, the much bigger expense is government contracts. When you vote for smaller school class sizes, you're voting for more government dependents as more teachers have to be hired. When you want research done on an anti cancer drug, you're voting for a government subsidy of a research company, and so on. That is where the money goes.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Bluntone22

You forgot about my full time student statistic.

No I added 4 million.

46 + 10 + 4 = 60 million

Now I'm not saying that we should have so many people out of work, but there is a reason I've stopped looking at U6 as much as I used to on ATS. It's really just the goto statistic for paranoid people to quote to try to find something wrong with Obama's economy. Yet many don't understand that there are many people who aren't looking for work included in that statistic because they truly don't want to work not because they are fed up.

I'm sure there are people fed up included in that statistic still, but with the U3 so low, if you don't have a job right now its your own fault. You may not be at full employment and working part time, but there are jobs to be had now.

Whatever the reason. Only having half the population working isn't sustainable.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: MillerTribe
So, why should we listen to the poor democrats over the self supporting middle class? if they were so smart they wouldn't be poor?

If you believe that intelligence holds someone back from being wealthy then I have a bridge to sell you.

How much? And this isn't like that Obamacare scam you sold me last time is it?? Are bridge premiums going to inflate 150% too?

a reply to: In4ormant

Says who? It looks like we are sustaining it just fine right now.