The number of Americans age 16 or older who decided not to work or even to seek a job increased by 8,332,000 …

The increase in the number of unemployed over the same time period (845 thousand) is ONLY ONE-TENTH as large as the 8.3 million decrease in the labor force, just like the tip of an iceberg, which also reveals only one tenth of its total size.

Hey it worked in Germany during the 1930s.

Now I’m teaching in a private home school group in return for having our daughter’s tuition waived. So I guess maybe I’m now part of the underground economy.

sherrimae on January 21, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Yep. That would be you.

And, the very best of luck to you, too.

Let’s start with December 2008, the last full month of the Bush Presidency. Using seasonally-unadjusted numbers (because that’s the proper measure when comparing the same month in multiple years), out of 235,035,000 people who were at least 16 years old and part of the civilian noninstitutional population, there were 5,180,000 people who wanted a job but didn’t have one and hadn’t looked since before mid-November 2008, 80,686,000 who were not a part of the labor force (including the aforementioned 5.2 million), and 10,999,000 who were officially unemployed (out of work and looked for work between mid-November and mid-December).

Fast-forward to December 2012, the last month we currently have figures for. The civilian noninstitutional population grew to 244,350,000 (a 4.0% increase), the number of “officially” unemployed grew to 11,844,000 (a 7.7% increase), the number of those not in the labor force grew to 89,445,000 (a 10.9% increase), and the number of those who want a job but are not counted as unemployed spiked to 6,532,000 (a 26.1% increase).

Can you say “wreckovery”?

Would have been a handy ‘fact’ to have in October. The morning of The Destroyer’s celebratory inauguration ceremony of his second term, notsomuch.

rayra on January 21, 2013 at 12:22 PM

I believe Ed’s been trying to keep the focus on that.

/s

How will they count furloughed Federal workers after the sequester takes place because Harry Reid won’t touch entitlements which are eating the budget alive?

KW64 on January 21, 2013 at 12:31 PM

I’m not even sure it’s the entitlements themselves.

These “entitlement” programs reek of money-laundering operations and boondoggled cash cows for the insiders (of both parties).

After all the billions pumped into the Great Society, poverty should have been exterminated by at least the 1990s.

Obviously, the point is to keep the poor that way and to make them more dependent upon the government.

Aren’t these the same Americans you all call lazy and looking for handouts? Oh I see, they only matter when you are looking to make political attacks.

HotAirLib on January 21, 2013 at 11:45 AM

At least we admit they exist.
You don’t.