Another RepubliQ myth exploded

A constant and thematic whine from the RepubliQ has been that social welfare programs make people lazy and serve as a disincentive to work. That's what's behind the recent push to make SNAP, Medicaid, etc. recipients jump through more hoops.

If this were true, then American workforce participation would be low. However, it's actually as high as it's been since 2001.

Now, stupid Tommie-poo, among others far less moronic than he, has been quick to point out that overall workforce participation has dropped. But you have to be smart enough to interpret the data. The aging of the population means that a smaller percentage of the population is part of the workforce. SO...a drop in workforce participation percentage would be natural. BUT...if you look at the data for prime working years--age 24 to 55--that participation percentage has gone up. FURTHERMORE...the overall drop in workforce participation percentage has been only about half of the drop in overall working-age percentage of the population. This means, if you're smarter than stupid Tommie-poo, that more people are working than ever before.

Why is this? Primarily, it's because three marginalized groups are participating in the workforce to a greater extent than ever before: women, the disabled, and FEELTHY IMMERGENTS. Federal laws that prohibit discrimination against women and the disabled have produced greater job opportunities for them. And immigrants tend to be younger and more motivated than any other group.

Ain't it great how liberal policies have produced an economy where everyone who wants a job can get one? America! Where not everyone is white, male, and Anglo-Saxon!

I guess you could put that with their trickle-down 

economic policy.

Doesn't matter according to the recent UN proclamation ...we're all going to die anyway due to catastrophic climate change events if we don't globally coalesce and spend a  few trillion on mitigation to save ourselves. Never mind that they and their assorted co-alarmists have been predicting human melting / spontaneous combustion since 1992 ( maybe 1975), at least. OTOH, a lot of cash has historically changed hands with their efforts...they as a group just need more funds in order to preserve humanity. I'll just add that it is indeed hotter than popcorn fart in the SW US of A of late, and they tell us that 2023 will be the hottest year on record..ever. I guess the bovines in the area have upped their fart factors for some undefined reason this year.

Sorry about the topic change, but this is obviously a live or die situation / critically important. Plus, it'll provide for more argumentative content, surely. Carry on. Cheers.

However, it's actually as high as it's been since 2001.

It is hard to figure out if kevin is stupid, a liar or a stupid liar.

The 2001 participation rate was 67.2%.  It is now 62.6%

https://www.multpl.com/us-labor-force-participation-rate/table/by-year

I KNEW stupid Tommie-poo would be unable to comprehend why ACTUAL labor force participation is so high.

I'll repeat myself for the benefit of anyone as thick as he is. Yes, the RAW PERCENTAGE NUMBER is lower. That's because the population is older and therefore the percentage of the population that is part of the workforce is smaller. THEREFORE, a commensurate drop in the workforce participation rate would be expected. But the drop was only half what it "should" have been based on the population's aging.

The more meaningful data point is "prime working age" labor force participation, which as I explained, is higher than ever. That's the conclusion you reach if you're not like stupid Tommie-poo, and you don't make your evaluations BEFORE you even look at the data.

Stupid Tommie-poo.

The argument, "They've been saying this for fourteen hundred years now and we haven't all died, so why should we listen to them now?" is so breathtakingly inane, I'm even surprised that so many conservatives continue to fervently believe in it. I mean, they believe a LOT of nonsense, but that argument is STOOOOPID. Not to mention dangerous.

Climate change has already killed tens of thousands of people and made the lives of many, many more miserable. Not to mention shorter. Calling those who call attention to it "alarmists" is beyond idiotic.

What the ignorant (large Venn diagram intersection with conservatives) fail to understand about science is that it evolves, and that NO conclusion is touted as so definitive that it can't and shouldn't be changed if the data warrant it. But fifty-plus years of that data have been remarkably consistent. Only a complete irresponsible fucking moron (see Venn diagram) would claim that climate change isn't real and is just some liberal hoax.

And yeah, it'll take trillions of bucks to avert catastrophe if we can manage to do that at all. But what is that compared to the aggregate gross economic product of the planet since the advent of the industrial revolution? Chew on this: one reason why the world has been so economically successful (for the most part; people's lives are indisputably better and longer) is that we've been tossing our trash out into the street instead of properly disposing of it. So those trillions of bucks are just costs we haven't been willing to pay. And yeah, prior generations have stuck present and future generations with the bills.

It would have cost a lot less to fix climate change if we hadn't up to now just kept shoving the problem over our event horizon.

Wrong again.  The younger ages have gone down while the older groups have gone up

https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm

This is all beyond you, Tom.

Every member of the FED including Trump's appointed chairman claim the employment situation in the US is too hot.    Thats why they are implementing policy to slow it down.

But Tom is making the oppositte argument and trying to say unemployment is rampant.   

But then again, Tom makes the oppositte argument from the experts on a wide array of topics:  climate, pandemics, medical science, constitutional law.    So its par for the course.   

Our gentle readers just need to decide for themselves as to who understands the economy better:   Every member of the United States Fed or Tom.       Its a real coin flip, isnt it?

I'm not a climate change denier..whatsoever. It's always changed of its own accord. Who would reject environmental stewardship? Who rejects clean air, clean water, and a bearable climate? I have no problem agreeing that earth temps have increased a little over 1 degree centigrade since the pre-industrial age..or that CO2 levels have increased to over 400 ppm in that same time interval. I do reject  some of the proposed ways and means to affect climate and the proposed costs to achieve those ends.Common sense suggests we listen to specialty scientists up to a point..but it also tells us not to jump through our collective asses when proposed solutions just don't make much sense. Yeah, science obviously evolves..but it's not always necessarily right at any given point in time. I'll avoid bringing up all the Covid science tenets that didn't pan out in reality. Scuse me..*l*. Next week's source of conflict. maybe.

There's an entire bevy of worldwide educational institutions and agencies that have been and will continue to be dependent on funding sources to justify their specialty existence with these climate issues. It's a significant clique that requires an endless source of funding..makes me skeptical, that part. We need to be good stewards of our environment, but, in the end, humans aren't smart enough to control the climate / weather, per se. We do not have the power to mitigate the cyclic nature of weather / climate... never will. The involved variables are endless. Reasonable efforts to limit emissions are OK, although as a side note I don't savvy how they're going to eliminate the water vapor blanket that naturally surrounds our planet as a really important greenhouse gas..likely at least as important as CO2. But I'm no climatologist..and I'm happy about that. Proponents of climate change refer to it as the current " most important existential threat to mankind", depending on the day of the week and whom has been indicted recently in the latest news cycle. One crisis after another, per normal.

Siding with the UN on this issue and their proposed world-wide regulatory attempt as a "governing body" of climate change involved  humankind is ridiculous. That's all I need and aspire to..one more group telling me how to think and how to live my life. Not happening. But, if you care to participate in that, best of luck to you.