Re: Well this certainly can't be the case...
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 5:36 pm
The article's over a year old. Some of the comments are interesting.
You may have been tutored in economics, but math must not have been part of that.
Try checking with the US census bureau data before writing your bull shit.
2104 US population: 316,000,000
US population under 18: 23.5%
US population over 65: 13.7%
Sum those and you get: 37.2%
Multiply that times the total population of 316,000,000 and you get: 117,552,000
Subtract that from the total population and you get: 198,448,000
You say number working is: 144,586,000
The difference between those two is: 53,862,000
Now subtract off stay-at-home-moms: 5,000,000
And we get: 48,862,00
How many are disabled and cannot work?
How many are still in school after age 18 and not working?
THAT IS NOT 100,000,000. IT IS EASY TO SHOW YOUR NUMBERS ARE WAY OFF.
YOUR ECONOMIC BULL $H1T IS AS BAD AS YOU CLIMATE BULL $H!T, MR. HEARTLAND UNA BOMBER.
Yo, Peter. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ website contradicts your numbers. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm . The actual Bureau of Labor Statistics said employment was WAY up in almost all sectors. Look at the link. Who do you think we should trust: someone clearly partisan, or the government agency you reference (hoping no one would look it up, I suppose)?
Call this President a Muslim sympathizer. There are facts to back that up. There are many things he is. But employment has gone up according to the very agency you claim says 1/3 of the country’s out of work. Why do you lie? Why do you discredit Forbes that way? Go write for Republican party rags where they don’t look things up so long as the content is against the President. More people were out of work under George W. Bush than are out of work today. The economy’s in recovery, and…one can only guess you’re hoping people won’t double check you. Shame on you!