Ron Paul ‏@RonPaul The real story on employment or the lack thereof. R E P

[sailingaway]

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS12300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio
Labor force status: Employment-population ratio
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/297366676222128129

 

[sailingaway]

I don't know what to think about the REP, here and on facebook this week, is it really him or is this just the way whomever uses the account lets us know this message is from Ron, through them?

 

[Danke]

Kids these days are so lazy.

 

[CaptUSA]

I don't know what to think about the REP, here and on facebook this week, is it really him or is this just the way whomever uses the account lets us know this message is from Ron, through them?

Lol, you would think he would have learned that lesson, dontcha?

 

[sailingaway]

Well, this and on facebook sound like his sentiments. And is the sort of material he would share.

Home, curled up with his economics text book....

 

[Carson]

It's late and the chart sort of made my head explode. What is it saying to you guys?

It looks to me like 63% of the population was working up until about the 8th and then the Christmas employment cutback occurred and left about 58 percent of us working.

Perhaps commute figures would match those statistics?

 

[sailingaway]

The drop was between 2008 and 2009, it is January of each year, but has not gone back up. It shows how little the 'unemployment numbers' released show of those so long out of work they just aren't counted as unemployed.

 

[Carson]

The drop was between 2008 and 2009, it is January of each year, but has not gone back up. It shows how little the 'unemployment numbers' released show of those so long out of work they just aren't counted as unemployed.

Oh that makes more sense.

Now that I look at again I'm not seeing the gain in employment that I remember seeing during the morning commute here in the San Francisco Bay Area. I'm pretty sure the low in employment was about a year and a half ago when silver peaked at $40.00. As the price fell traffic seemed to pick back up. Also my hours.

I guess that could be what is there in the chart. It felt bigger to me. Anyway if we continue with commodities and stocks rising again we will lose all of the little gain we've made. It was a long drawn out creep up. I'd hate to see us lose it again.

http://www.silverseek.com/quotes/5silver.php



Actually this ten year chart should match Ron's chart better and tell us more.

http://silverprice.org/silver-price-history.html

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

Maxed out their parameters.

This one of birthrate might explain some of the age thing.

http://archive.treasury.gov.au/documents/193/HTML/docshell.asp?URL=round3.asp

I've seen birth rate charts that span my lifetime before and took it personal what the social engineering had, had on me. Looking at this one got me to thinking of the children that did run the gauntlet and managed to be born. They grew up alone! No brothers and sisters.

Wow.

Bad enough all of the broken homes on top of it.

 

[gte811i]

I actually think the lowering of the employment population ratio is a good thing.

For almost 25 years it bounced between 55-57/58 percent. As soon as we went off the gold standard it started going up. What caused the rate to climb so much?

Was it more women entering the work force because they wanted to? or
Was it more women entering the work force because they needed to?

Back in the 50s/60s it was fairly common and not too difficult for one spouse (generally the husband) to provide for the entire family. It is extremely difficult to do so in today's society. Having both spouses working outside the home while having children (especially little children) does massive damage to the family structure.

Maybe a lowering of the emp/ratio will help those single family earners and families who have 1 spouse working . . .

Oh and that chart is a classic head and shoulders top!

 

[itshappening]

I actually think the lowering of the employment population ratio is a good thing.

For almost 25 years it bounced between 55-57/58 percent. As soon as we went off the gold standard it started going up. What caused the rate to climb so much?

Was it more women entering the work force because they wanted to? or
Was it more women entering the work force because they needed to?

Back in the 50s/60s it was fairly common and not too difficult for one spouse (generally the husband) to provide for the entire family. It is extremely difficult to do so in today's society. Having both spouses working outside the home while having children (especially little children) does massive damage to the family structure.

Maybe a lowering of the emp/ratio will help those single family earners and families who have 1 spouse working . . .

Oh and that chart is a classic head and shoulders top!

it's difficult for the man to just work in todays society because the value of money has been stolen over 5 decades by the Federal Reserve. The average job in the 50's pays a lot more in today's money than the average salary today, i.e if you look at in the price of gold average job in the 50's is probably the equiv of $120k today, average salary today is $40-50k ?

That's a whole lot of purchasing power being stolen by inflation and wages not keeping up hence the woman has to work. Ironically, child care costs probably wipe out much of the benefit of the additional income. This is just one horrible example of the consequences of inflation and it will only get worse over the coming decades to the point where the average job will barely put food on the table. The bankers are stealing the value of the dollar and it's insidious and revealing over time.

Bottom line: Bankers are stealing the value and purchasing power of the dollar faster than ever before. If you look at the chart Ron Paul pointed to yesterday in the last 3 years they have managed to increase the money in circulation (and the monetary base) quicker than during the 2000-2010 period. They're getting even more insane as they ramp up the printing press. Save as much as you can now because the future is going to be inflation and very likely hyper-inflation, either way the value of the dollar will plummet in the coming decades. Your social security check will buy a tin of tuna if you're lucky.

 

[Carson]

I actually think the lowering of the employment population ratio is a good thing.

For almost 25 years it bounced between 55-57/58 percent. As soon as we went off the gold standard it started going up. What caused the rate to climb so much?

Was it more women entering the work force because they wanted to? or
Was it more women entering the work force because they needed to?

Back in the 50s/60s it was fairly common and not too difficult for one spouse (generally the husband) to provide for the entire family. It is extremely difficult to do so in today's society. Having both spouses working outside the home while having children (especially little children) does massive damage to the family structure.

Maybe a lowering of the emp/ratio will help those single family earners and families who have 1 spouse working . . .

Oh and that chart is a classic head and shoulders top!

Good points.

 

[sailingaway]

Good points.

except that inflation is such the 'need' is exactly the point. Now families largely NEED that level of employment to get by. It didn't voluntarily drop, the jobs weren't there.

 

[Carson]

except that inflation is such the 'need' is exactly the point. Now families largely NEED that level of employment to get by. It didn't voluntarily drop, the jobs weren't there.

True. That does seem the overriding factor.

On the other hand.

When I was younger everyone worked. The work was divided in a way that couples teamed up. Many crossed the lines as to doing the other teams stuff, and that seemed okay, but by and large there was team work.

Now it's all taxable.???

 

[robert9712000]

I actually think the lowering of the employment population ratio is a good thing.

For almost 25 years it bounced between 55-57/58 percent. As soon as we went off the gold standard it started going up. What caused the rate to climb so much?

Was it more women entering the work force because they wanted to? or
Was it more women entering the work force because they needed to?

Back in the 50s/60s it was fairly common and not too difficult for one spouse (generally the husband) to provide for the entire family. It is extremely difficult to do so in today's society. Having both spouses working outside the home while having children (especially little children) does massive damage to the family structure.

Maybe a lowering of the emp/ratio will help those single family earners and families who have 1 spouse working . . .

Oh and that chart is a classic head and shoulders top!

Heres where its different then back then. You are right that the reason more woman entered the workforce wasn't because of the feminist movement, but because it was getting harder and harder for one person to support a household due to inflation,so alot of woman started entering to help make ends meet.

I think the difference this time though isnt that 1 person is able choose to enter the work force and support a family but that less people are able to find a job and the way alot of familys are getting by is by having more people live together under the same house,that way they can pool resources.I know alot of people whos adult kids have moved home and friends sharing a house or apartment to help lighten the burden of bills.