koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
another NIGGER
That's a zumi shitstain.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
another NIGGER
Jobs growth hits slowest pace in nine months
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/eco...t-pace-nine-months-1B9229443?ocid=msnhp&pos=1
Merc has his point all upside down.
As people retire they are no longer counted as part of the labor force. Thus, the participation rate would go up, not down.
No, I'm right. The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a percent of the population; the population most definitely includes retirees. You're correct that retirees aren't counted as being in the labor force, therefore unemployment will not spike because of the baby boomers retiring - but in no way are they removed from the population count.
The CBO reports that they expect the labor force participation rate to drop further as workers continue to retire. They don't expect the decline to bottom out until late 2014. And now I can't find the link to that but I think that's what their crystal ball is telling them.
No, it's the number of employed as a percentage of the population between 16 and 64 (minus several minor demographics).
But it's a beautiful day, so this isn't that important to me.
Okay well here are the raw numbers that the BLS is using and as you can see they're incorporating people age 65+ into their population total for this calculation. It's right there on the first page at the top.
http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea13.pdf
Growth is growth and better than the alternative.
Well, no. The goons who put their feet down have been fired.Dollars Over Decency: School Kids Without Money Have Lunch Taken Away And Thrown Out
2013/04/05
By Justin "Filthy Liberal Scum" Rosario
Conservatives and liberals have two distinct views of the world. In one, no child ever goes hungry regardless of whether or not they can pay for food. In the other, you have this:
ATTLEBORO — As many as 25 students at Coelho Middle School were denied meals or told to throw their lunches away Tuesday because they could not pay or their pre-paid accounts did not contain enough money, school officials said today.
Parents said some of the children cried after they were not allowed to eat or had to toss out their lunches.
School officials said an on-site employee from Whitson’s, the school system’s school lunch provider, apparently gave the order not to extend meals to students who could not pay or whose credit was already overextended.
Imagine, for a second, the mindset required to force hungry children to throw food in the garbage? It’s not like the food was given to a child that could pay, it was just wasted. It’s the ultimate in conservative thought: I will gain nothing from this but the satisfaction of knowing you did not get a free meal.
This is why privatizing government functions is a bad idea in almost every circumstance but particularly in those that provide a direct service. Once a profit motive is introduced, it ceases to be about fulfilling a public need, now it becomes about making a profit by any means necessary. The idea of providing children a nutritious meal so they can grow and learn and contribute to society becomes a narrow and selfish pursuit of the bottom line. If children are left to go hungry, well, that’s capitalism for you!
It’s not as if they couldn’t feed them, the district has a policy where a student that can’t pay for the regular meal will be provided with a cheese sandwich and milk. It’s not the most appealing of meals but it will certainly keep a child fed. But instead, this privately run company decided that over twenty kids simply shouldn’t eat if it was going to cost the company money:
Parents said they were told by their children that some pupils in the cafeteria line had already picked up their lunch and were told at the checkout they had to throw it away.
Victoria Greaves, 11, a fifth grader at Coelho, said a cashier told her to throw away her lunch because there was not enough money in her account. She said she threw her meal away and got nothing to eat.
We’re left to wonder what the cashier planned on doing if the child refused to comply. Would they physically take the food away? Was the couple of dollars really that important?
The larger question that isn’t being asked yet is how did we come to a point where anyone can even think that depriving children of food is a moral thing to do? In the richest nation on Earth, are we so blinded by greed and the pursuit of the Holy Dollar that we don’t even consider that going out of our way to let a child go hungry to be the act of a sociopath? Would we rather throw food in the garbage than let someone eat it for free? Who thinks that way?
House Republicans recently proposed cuts to nutrition assistance that will kick 280,000 low-income children off automatic enrollment in the Free School Lunch and Breakfast Program. Those same kids and 1.5 million other people will also lose their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly food stamp benefits) that help them afford food at home.
Ah. Well, that explains that, doesn’t it?
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/04/05/dollars-over-decency-school-kids-without-money-have-lunch-taken-away-and-thrown-out/
Dollars Over Decency: School Kids Without Money Have Lunch Taken Away And Thrown Out
2013/04/05
By Justin "Filthy Liberal Scum" Rosario
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/04/05/dollars-over-decency-school-kids-without-money-have-lunch-taken-away-and-thrown-out/
LEGAL EDUCATION UPDATE: WSJ: More Than 50% of Law Graduates Aren’t Making a Living.
Law graduates?
Fuck that shit, they shoulda studied CUNT STUFF
They shouldn't have gone into such a low-paying career.
yes
they shoulda been in CUNT STUDIES