[kiryandil]

rude is just blowing smoke. 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.

[1rudeboy]

I'm just doing my part to challenge probably the single most persistent economic myth on FR. You are trying to perpetuate it. I will tell you this: you shouldn't use technical economic terms if you do not understand what they mean.

And it's bad form to parachute onto a thread accusing anyone of BS when they've cited to authority. The "hidden agenda" stuff I can leave behind. Jonah Goldberg illustrated how the allegation is a symptom of a weak mind.

So, if I am engaged in BS (with an alleged hidden agenda), you should have no trouble demonstrating it. Otherwise, you are just talking out of your behind.

[1rudeboy]

One more thing--your comment that,

the "unemployment rate depends heavily on the labor participation rate," and my comment that,

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" does not contradict mine.

They simply do not contradict each other. You just might be too dense to see it. Looks like my crap is worth reading, after all.