When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

What is your source?

Please read my posts. I provided a link. It's the same damn BLS site that Blickers is so deceptively using.

We are not arguing the labor force participation rate are we?

I thought this was in reference to the unemployment rate (either the U3 or the U6 rate).

The unemployment rate does not include retired persons. Therefore the number of retired persons (over 65 or not) will not have an impact on the the unemployment rate (either U3 or U6).

This shitstorm (or tempest in a teapot) erupted when I asserted that the workforce participation rate has decreased significantly over the past 7 years and that Cicerone's prior assertion that everything was OK with a low unemployment rate of 5% was not the whole story. There has been a lot of guorilla dust thrown in the air to obscure that central point since then.

george had made the argument that the labor force participation was down and that retired persons were not in the calculation of participation. Clearly they are. The more retired people there are the lower the labor force participation.

That's true. I remember reading often about people planning to retire long before the social security retirement age - now at 67.

Gotcha. I hadn't realized that the primary argument was side tracked (too quick of reading I suppose).

The 5% is not the whole story by any means. Un/Under-employment is 10%. Wages (adjusted for inflation) have remained FLAT for decades. Our buying power has decreased significantly and essential spending (homes, healthcare, food, energy) costs have continued to rise (inflation).

The middle class has been stagnant or worsening for a long time (50ish years), and the poor people have been stuck for even longer.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Clearly that is wrong based on BLS which george insisted we check while not providing an actual link.

Here is the BLS link
http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#laborforce



So I looked it up as you suggested, george. I had looked it up before I asked you where I could find it. Clearly you were talking out of your ass when you told me to go to the BLS to find support for your claim. More retired people mean a lower labor force participation rate.

I believe that 10% is correct.

Planning to retire and actually retiring before 67 are vastly different things.

Thanks..... I provided a link earlier from the BLS as proof.

Many actuAlly retire before 67.

You are simply wrong once again.

Perhaps so, but when they do that lowers the labor force participation rate. Others who simply give up trying to find work or simply exist on welfare also lower the rate. That of course is the whole ******* point.

The BLS definition is what most people use.

When you find the age tables at BLS we see that participation rates for those from 24-65 is hardly changed. Down slightly for the 24-55 group, up for the 55-64. The biggest drops in participation are in the 16-24 year olds with the 16-19 being the largest part of that.

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm

More kids are staying in school rather than joining the work force.

The biggest change would be found in the census tables that show the number of persons over 65 has increased. The over 65 age group is the fastest growing and has increased over 5 million in the last 10 years. That is 5 million more people used in the labor force calculation that are more likely to not be working or to be only working part time.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb11-cn192.html

Still no answer? A dismissal is a good sign you know Hillary lied. Why on earth would you support someone with so little respect for those who died protecting this country?

What are you talking about here? Lied to them about what?

Hillary said she never blamed the attack[Benghazi] on a video to those family members of the dead.

She also denies telling them the video maker would be arrested. They say she did.

Lol....ok, this is the first I'm hearing about this (and I follow the news pretty closely) and the first thing that comes to mind is .... who the **** cares?

Seriously, if this is the worst stuff you have on her, it amounts to literally nothing.