The Quotable Reich

@Baldimo,

http://jalopnik.com/volkswagen-loses-a-staggering-6-25-million-on-each-bug-1426504241

Volkswagen loses $6.25 million on each bughati sold.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

http://www.gaebler.com/Loss-Leader---Losing-Money-To-Make-Money.htm

Example of losing money to make money.

http://www.inc.com/karl-and-bill/selling-your-product-at-a-loss-can-be-good-for-business.html

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You are posting about rare cases in business and not the norm, seems that razors and video game consoles can work this way but not many businesses. Does insurance work this way?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

They are cases none the less. It's a fact whether you like it or not.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I'm guessing then that you recommend that the insurance companies continue to offer plans on the exchanges even though they do so at a loss?

0 Replies

Robert Reich
22 mins ·
Trump still leads among white men without college degrees by a remarkable 40 points. As the research paper below shows, he continues to perform strongest among the demographic that has historically performed America’s “brawny” jobs requiring strength: the old-fashioned blue-collar workforce composed of men without college degrees, particularly white men.
This group has been in sharp economic decline for more than two decades. The share of non-working men in their prime working years, between 25-54, has doubled since the 1970s, and one-in-six prime-age men in America are either unemployed or not looking for work.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote Reich:

Quote:

The share of non-working men in their prime working years, between 25-54, has doubled since the 1970s, and one-in-six prime-age men in America are either unemployed or not looking for work.

The percentage of men 25-54 who are working used to vary between 85-90 percent back in the seventies and eighties. Now it varies between 80-90 percent. The thing is, this would hardly be the cause of anti-Obama, anti-establishment anger since under Obama, the percentage has risen from 80 all the way back up to 85 percent. Things have been improving nicely in that regard for Obama's whole term.

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS12300061_21815_1471888143506.gif

1 Reply

@Blickers,

To bad the overall workforce participation rate is pretty low.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Screw workforce participation rate.
The workforce participation rate will change exactly the same amount if 10 Million people get hired that month, or if 10 Million people get laid off that month. The statistic will be exactly the same.

So what good is it?

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Quote:

Screw workforce participation rate.

It's low so screw it. It only shows the total amount of people who are working in the US. When that # is low, it means that there are not as many employed people as the unemployment # reflects. Remember the unemployment # only shows those people who are receiving unemployment payments. If you run out of payments, you get dropped off the roles and are no longer counted as unemployed even though you don't have a job.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote baldimo:

Quote:

It's low so screw it. It only shows the total amount of people who are working in the US.

No, it does not "shows the total amount of people who are working in the US." That's wrong. See-you tried to throw that number up in my face and you just demonstrated that even you don't know what the hell it is.

The conservatives have adopted this little-understood, minor statistic as a battle-axe to go after the Obama Administration, and most of them, like you, don't even know what the heck they even are talking about.

To repeat: If in one month 10 Million people get hired, or instead in that same month 10 Million people get laid off their job, the workforce participation rate will be the same in both cases. No difference.

So what good is it?

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Are you sure you what you are talking about?

Labor Force Participation

Quote:

Basic concepts

The labor force participation rate is the percentage of the population that is either employed or unemployed (that is, either working or actively seeking work)
People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for a job, and available for work are unemployed.
The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.
See http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm and http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_intro.pdf for more detailed technical information

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Quote:

To repeat: If in one month 10 Million people get hired, or instead in that same month 10 Million people get laid off their job, the workforce participation rate will be the same in both cases. No difference.

If we had an even flow of people loosing jobs and people getting jobs but that is never the case. It shows the amount of people in the workforce vs the population. When the #'s are low it shows that less people are actually working and reflects better than the unemployment rate.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix:
Thank you for giving us the definition of workforce participation rate, thereby illustrating how minor and of small importance that number is.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

It's only of "small importance" because liberals don't accept the fact that less people are working now then when Obama came into office. In fact it is a more important # then you want to admit. Less people working now than there was 8 years ago is no small thing.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote Baldimo:

Quote:

It shows the amount of people in the workforce vs the population. When the #'s [workforce participation rate] are low it shows that less people are actually working and reflects better than the unemployment rate.

No, that's not true at all. Even after your compatriot McGentrix gave you the definition of workforce participation rate, your posts still show you don't know what you are talking about.

When the workforce participation goes low it does NOT necessarily mean that fewer people are working, either in real numbers or percentagewise. When the workforce participation rate goes higher it does mean more people are working, either in real numbers or percentagewise.

So, what the hell good is workforce participation rate?

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Got any answers, Baldimo? We are talking about the workforce participation rate that conservatives have been throwing around for years-and most of them, including yourself, don't even know what it is or what it shows.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

When the workforce participation goes low it does NOT necessarily mean that fewer people are working, either in real numbers or percentagewise. When the workforce participation rate goes higher it does mean more people are working, either in real numbers or percentagewise.

So your claim is, if the participation rate is low it doesn't mean less people are working, but if it is high, it could mean more people are working? So a low # doesn't mean bad but a high # does mean good?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote Baldimo:

Quote:

So your claim is, if the participation rate is low it doesn't mean less people are working,

If the workforce participation rate drops it does not necessarily mean fewer people are working. Fewer people could in fact be working, but then again, the same amount of people might be working. In fact, more people might be working.

Quote Baldimo:

Quote:

but if it, [workforce participation rate], is high, it could mean more people are working?

If the workforce participation rate rises, more people might well be working. On the other hand, the same amount of people might be working. In fact, fewer people might be working.

Quote Baldimo:

Quote:

So a low # doesn't mean bad but a high # does mean good?

Oh no, it doesn't mean that at all.

Look, we're not the folks who picked this lemon of a statistic to harp on for the last seven years. You guys did. Now that you've got it, you don't know what it is or what the heck to do with it.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Quote:

If the workforce participation rate drops it does not necessarily mean fewer people are working. Fewer people could in fact be working, but then again, the same amount of people might be working. In fact, more people might be working.

Quote:

If the workforce participation rate rises, more people might well be working. On the other hand, the same amount of people might be working. In fact, fewer people might be working.

You must be using that common core math...

Less doesn't really mean less, it could mean more, but then more could mean less but it could mean more as well. It really depends on how you want to interpret participation rate to mean... oh and since it isn't a good # for Obama and the economy you will just pretend it doesn't mean anything.

1 Reply

The Quotable Reich

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know