DC Tom Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Ummm, no, there was very low unemployment in ww2 And if you don't trust the good numbers nothing I can do to chug your mind that it's all a conspiracy 1.2% in 1944. So low, that would actually be bad in a normal economy, as there's no available workforce for economic expansion. The key word being: "normal". It was a wartime economy. Unemployment was low in no small part because such a large portion of the workforce was drafted out of the workforce. And somewhere near 80% of government spending was directly related to the war effort...so if you want to argue that we should increase military spending and start a major war to spur the economy and jobs growth based on the example of WWII... Some job creatn in the public sector and people dropping out of job market. What's your point? My point was that you never answered Chef's question. And employment in the public sector dropped by 5000 in November, according to the report. But nice try, dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Untrue. "Three" has been known to dissemble, and "seven" is a right dishonest B word. But I think we've all gotten back at those numbers by lying to get to sixty-nine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 (edited) and "seven" is a right dishonest B word. But seven is a hot lesbian. Seven Ate Nine Edited December 4, 2011 by /dev/null Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 ww2 the unemployment rate in ww2 was like 2 % so what are you talking about??? And the pe pole dropping out of the work force, are they the baby boomers retiring? I see. So, "since WW2" is the same as "during WW2". I need to rethink a lot of timeline things. Might help with global warming arguments! Gee thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted December 4, 2011 Author Share Posted December 4, 2011 1.2% in 1944. So low, that would actually be bad in a normal economy, as there's no available workforce for economic expansion. The key word being: "normal". It was a wartime economy. Unemployment was low in no small part because such a large portion of the workforce was drafted out of the workforce. But they were employed, actually. As were the many people who were working to support the troops This sort of sounds like your silly everyone has left Buffalo so unemployment should be low argument, ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 But they were employed, actually. As were the many people who were working to support the troops Serving military personnel aren't considered part of the labor force, !@#$wit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 I see. So, "since WW2" is the same as "during WW2". I need to rethink a lot of timeline things. Might help with global warming arguments! Gee thanks! Don't bother Ox, Davey Boy is one of those who reads into any response, only those things that he wants to believe. Thus, this foolish distraction about World War 2. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts