[kiryandil]

Ah, my little sweet-cheeked darling rude changes the subject again.

Here's what we were talking about, meine kleine hübschling:

The unemployment rate depends heavily on the labor participation rate.

Here is an actual Fed economist on the subject (not some anonymous Interwebs sniper with an unknown agenda):

"Interpreting the Recent Decline in Labor Force Participation" - Willem Van Zandweghe (in the Economic Review of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. )
http://www.kc.frb.org/Publicat/EconRev/PDF/12q1VanZandweghe.pdf

Published 1st quarter, 2012.

Your eyes flash beautifully when you're angry, rudey. But don't worry your pretty little head about it. You might catch on eventually if you think about it long enough.

[Toddsterpatriot]

The unemployment rate depends heavily on the labor participation rate.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2879786/posts?page=13#13

LOL!

[1rudeboy]

If you simply went back and re-read my #13 completely, you wouldn't be yammering about subjects being changed. I will tell you this, though, it's pretty darn clear you know you are arguing a point that is not in dispute.

I'll post the "summary" of my #13 again:

the government keeps track of the number of folks receiving UI. It results in the numbers reported as "initial claims" and "continuing claims." Those two numbers stand alone from the "unemployment rate" (U-3 or otherwise). The "labor force participation rate" (which is the primary method to massage the U-3 number) also has nothing to do with the number of folks receiving or not receiving UI. [emphasis added]

Pay particular attention to the italicized portion. It is what set you off. It's odd that you think the subject is something different a day later.

[kiryandil]

It’s amusing watching that sweet little girl rude/Toddy talking to herself...