labor force participation rate

Once again, what appears to be good news from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not hold up under scrutiny.

According to the BLS, “Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 217,000 in May, and the unemployment rate held at 6.3 percent. Employment increased in professional and business services, health care and social assistance, food services, and transportation and warehousing.” Much has been made of the fact that the number of jobs now equals that which existed before the recession hit. A more thorough examination reveals a sharply different picture.

An analysis by Rep. David Camp, notes that “seven out of eight new employees under President Obama have been part-time employees.”

The Economic Policy Institute ntes that “young college graduates face an unemployment rate of 8.5%, compared with 5.5% in 2007, and an underemployment rate of 16.8%, compared with 9.6% in 2007.” Many of those grads who are working are in positions that don’t require degrees.
Basically buy cialis soft phosphodiesterase type 5 broke the cyclic GMP. Wild Hyssop and Rosemary are also popular natural health remedies of tinnitus. purchase viagra cute-n-tiny.com It is a kind of exercise that improves both our mental as well as physical health. viagra uk cheap cute-n-tiny.com order cialis online Kamagra help such man saving their marital life by continuing their love-life.
2013 saw a record high number of U.S. workers on disability. The number of long-term unemployed continues to be an unresolved crisis. These displaced workers count for 37.7% of all unemployed.

The labor force participation rate continues to drop precipitously. In the past year alone, it has dwindled from 63.4% to 62.8%, a 36 year low.

The replacement of quality, career-level positions with part-time jobs may appear statistically equal, but the reality is far different. Statistics which ignore the labor force participation rate and the quality of positions available are not an effective barometer of the true employment outlook.

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/