It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

94,609,000 Not in Labor Force

page: 5
27
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Edumakated
Like not importing unskilled illegal immigrants...


The only jobs that unskilled illegals devalue are unskilled positions. If that's all you can aspire to, you might have other issues.

That said, prison labor has a bigger impact than illegals do. Prison labor is usually offered for free or low cost as a service to the community, and it results in prisoners working for pennies doing jobs that honest citizens actually have to charge for.

Even illegals have a floor as to how low they'll go because they need a roof and shelter. Not so with convict labor. We have A LOT of convict labor in the US


Not everyone is going to get a high paying, high skills job. The fact of the matter is that we have enough workers here and importing lower cost workers depresses wages whether it is some illegal immigrant from Honduras or an H1-B with a college degree from India.




posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

I suppose, but we're also a nation built on competition. If we protect workers jobs from those who are willing to out compete them, are we really going to have the best and brightest doing our tasks?



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

This number of Americans not in the labor force also includes kids, retirees, and stay-at-home parents. And in some states, that number can even include unsuccessful entrepreneurs. For example, my state says that if your sole proprietorship doesn't turn a profit in 2 of its first 3 years (or 3 of its first 5 years, I forget), then you're legally treated as a hobbyist instead of an entrepreneur. There are other groups like college students and orphans/"wards of the State" who can also disproportionately be out of the labor force. That's why no one uses the raw numbers like you did.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl
About 51,000,000 of those people are over 65. Another 2.3 million are incarcerated. And 24.1 million people over 18 are severely disabled.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Hey , How about that Latest Jobs Report ! Things are Looking Up Folks !



At Least that's what I have Been Hearing , but my Hearing hasen't been so Good these Last 8 Years.......



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I suppose, but we're also a nation built on competition. If we protect workers jobs from those who are willing to out compete them, are we really going to have the best and brightest doing our tasks?


Good Question , now go Ask Any Union Member in this Country the Answer to that ...



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?


Beat me to it.

When I read the OP, those were my questions. Out of those unemployed and not looking for work, how many are in that category because they are retired, disabled, or full-time college students focused on their studies? Also, how many are stay at home moms/dads whose spouse makes enough that one doesn't have to work?

Unless you know what actually constitutes these numbers, they are meaningless.

If that was the actual number of working age, employable adults, there is no way in hell it would go unnoticed in daily life. With those numbers, you are talking about an unemployment rate of over a 1/3, which would be higher than it ever was during the Great Depression.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
Good Question , now go Ask Any Union Member in this Country the Answer to that ...


Collective Bargaining is just another form of competition.

Anyways, it's just a question I posed. I find it funny that the same people who preach market solutions get defensive when the market goes to someone cheaper than them for their job.

Unions are a tricky one, and sadly not one I have a very balanced view of looking at due to my family history with them. I know some unions have really screwed things up (UAW for one), but others like SAG seem to be good for the industry. I know in my field there's constant attempts to unionize, and I think it will one day happen.

But, I think that at the end of the day unions exist solely because the law failed to protect the worker. Stronger laws (the right laws), means we don't need unions.

When it comes to employer vs employee you have three ways to bargain:
1. Individually, you will get screwed here because you have no negotiating power.
2. Collectively, you won't get screwed as much here, but concessions are made.
3. Mercenary. The best leverage you have in a negotiation with someone who wants to hire you is a job offer from a competitor. Get a good offer from one, leverage it with another company for something better.

#3 is the best way to grow your salary, position, and working terms but it's not easy to pull off. #2 is a compromise that seems to always fail long term. #1 is always doomed to failure.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Unless you know what actually constitutes these numbers, they are meaningless.


It wasn't exactly the numbers that were the point ... unless you want to consider that there are tens upon tens upon tens of millions of people who are either unemployed, underemployed, or permanently attached to the government's tit. You do know the DoD's service members are never counted in those numbers, right? (I always wondered why that was)

The point was: There's no truth in the government's reporting of the USA's employment statistics. The results are obvious in the way the unemployment numbers are skewed. Why is the media assisting in telling the government's lie?


edit on 5112016 by Snarl because: Formatting



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Snarl

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

And are legal working-age high schoolers. And are voluntary stay-at-home-parents like myself. And are full-time college students. Is there a breakdown for this? Nobody counts the voluntary retirees, fellow stay-at-homes, and students when factoring this crap. Looking around where I live, which has a very low UR around 3%, I don't see 1/3 of the 16 year olds & up not working around here. There's so many people employed around here that it's overflowing with open FT positions across multiple sectors. I know other parts of the country suck donkey balls (that's why we moved out of Florida, it SUCKS for work) but there are regions where it's hopping just fine.

Love how the word "unemployed" gets throw around without breakdowns. It irks me and is disingenuous. We're conditioned to treat the word's definition solely as "unemployed but desperate for a job". Nobody ever considers those who can't squeeze it in or don't need to work who are shoehorned into that statistic. I very highly DOUBT the actual number of people desperate for work and borderline willing to pimp themselves for income is 1/3 of the working age people in the country. Not buying it.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl


It wasn't exactly the numbers that were the point ... unless you want to consider that there are tens upon tens upon tens of millions of people who are either unemployed, underemployed, or permanently attached to the government's tit. You do know the DoD's service members are never counted in those numbers, right? (I always wondered why that was)

The point was: There's no truth in the government's reporting of the USA's employment statistics. The results are obvious in the way the unemployment numbers are skewed. Why is the media assisting in telling the government's lie?



No, the numbers are NOT being "skewed" by the media. When people look for, or ask for unemployment statistics, they are referring to employable, working age adults who are looking for work. I do not care about the numbers of people unemployed and not seeking work, because they are either unemployable, or have other sources of income to sustain them. They never figure into labor statistics because there would be no point. Unemployment number are tracked because people who are unemployed, but employable and need work, is directly related to overall economic and social health. People who don't work because they can't (too old, sick, or feeble) or because they don't need to (retired, or made enough money from an old job or business that they can chill and not worry) are also in those numbers. So are house spouses.

What the hell does the DoD have to do with this? If you are working for the DoD, you are working, and thus, employed.

The only thing misleading about the unemployment numbers is that it does not show part-time and underemployment, this is true. It's something the Labor Department does not track, but they really should.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Snarl

A third of our country isn't working.

A third is just getting by.

The final third is paying taxes to support those not in the labor force.



Yep and you can blame the 1% that own all the wealth and don't pay taxes. This is what happen when there are no entry level jobs that promote from within. You end up with a bunch of people that would rather not work then work for nothing.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

There are actually breakdowns and this is usually why the media reports U3, but at some point a paranoid during the dark days of the recession someone found the various unemployment metrics and decided that the government was lying to us because they only report U3, but U6 was so much worse. Granted it is a given that the six unemployment statistics don't tell the whole picture, and the media DOES do a disservice by only reporting U3 (it would be more beneficial to report all of them together).

All six unemployment categories



posted on Nov, 9 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: cyberjedi
Yes

By the way, i think soon we will come to a conclusion that we no longer have enough full-time jobs. More and more technology is able to replace human labor. It should be evident that some people, simply by doing the math, are unable to secure full time positions and thus cannot support themselves. i think we will see our social-economical structure transition to a structure that supports working less, and doing more of what you really like to do in life.


Impossible. That would involve giving everyone free money. Money has value because it's given in exchange for products and services. If it's something that can be handed out for free, it loses it's value. It devalues.

If everyone got $500 a week for doing nothing, no one would be able to live on $500 a week. It would devalue the currency and the cost of all products and services would skyrocket.

The dollar is already a fiat currency and suffers from inflation every year. Which is making life hard enough for those of us who do have a job.

What we need to do is acknowledge that working a job is a human right. Everyone should have the opportunity to work. Our leaders need to figure out how to provide that right to everyone.
edit on 11/9/16 by peskyhumans because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join