Uniontown Pennsylvania Message Forums - WWW.UNIONTOWN.COM

URLs rewritten, remove parenthesis (http:)//theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/10-facts-about-the-growing-unemployment-crisis-in-america-that-will-blow-your-mind

and for those of you that LOVED THE NAFTA GATT WTO TYPE POLICIES

AND SINCE YOU KNEW ALL ALONG THESE AND SIMILAR POLICIES WOULD WRECK THIS COUNTY

I SAY ENJOY WHAT'S LEFT OF YOUR SORRY LIVES CAUSE

HELL,

WILL BE FOREVER YOUR HOME.

ALL DISHONORABLE "GAME PLAYERS" OR "DOGS" WILL HAVE THEIR DAY....and soon!


////

There's no better way to make a point than show raw facts.

That graph showing real numbers of population working/non-working ratio itself tells the tale, sans media spin and interpretation.

I didn't understand completely where we stood until I saw the graph.

I'm feeling better that I've moved a large chunk of my retirement out of stocks, I think the market is at a peak and will drop, starting with the first indications of taper. This is more evidence.

Thanks for the post.

Sorry for posting this as administrator but I forgot my normal user password and am too lazy to reset it LOL.

That raw data impressed me so much I wanted to see more and went to the URL listed in the graph, and there are a lot of graphs that somewhat counter that first graph, take a peek at:

URLs rewritten, remove parenthesis (http:)//research.stlouisfed.org/

...when you get a sec and check out those graphs right on the front page, those actually look very promising and don't reflect what that first graph showed.

Not sure if this link will work, but here is that graph that your article is referencing in the straight form on the web site, the article seems to start its graph at a somewhat high point around y2k, when you look at the default full timeline it looks a little different to me. It looks like the y2k range was a somewhat higher point in the big picture and numbers near 1985 were similar to what we are seeing today, historically the numbers don't look too bad when you see the full graph. Not to mention there are a dozen other graphs that show a different picture, I get the feeling that your article might be a little guilty of spin itself.

URLs rewritten, remove parenthesis (http:)//research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=EMRATIO&scale=Left&range=Max&cosd=1948-01-01&coed=2013-10-01&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Monthly&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin&vintage_date=2013-11-12&revision_date=2013-11-12

Trust me, I'm not defending the garbage the spews out of the media, but that article seems at least a little misleading since it didn't show other graphs from the same site but focused on ones that support it's agenda.

This number will have a natural decline in it just by the babyboomer effect.

Of course the raw data itself might not be trustworthy considering all the spin the gov't does on it (not including key things when calculating inflation etc).

HERE IS ANOTHER SOURCE

it's not going to get better either without a miracle


URLs rewritten, remove parenthesis (http:)//cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/americans-participation-labor-force-hits-35-year-low



////