The labor force participation rate is at all-time lows.
Next, up... the clunkering for QE3.... Just wait. Got to love the BS parade.
well as the baby boomers start reaching retirment age, which has happened in the last couple of years, then surely you would expect the labour force participation to decrease quicker than it has in the past. (http://www.babyboomers.com/what-age-are ... omers/936/ this link also has an eddie vedder reference)
and this hypothesis of mine although not proven is at lest backed up by the labour force participation rates graph
which shows the rates have been on a long run downward pattern since about 2002
I love the BS parade....and it leads right to the Capitol.
Obviously everyone on the AMT knows everything, and we put up our ego-infused walls up to any other sort of view, but I just got off the phone with my best friend who is a self-employed commodities trader. And, like you inlet13, as you have "said repetitively [repeatedly] throughout" he still stands by his analysis on why the job market sucks: "banks, banks, wall st. wall st., obstruction, obstruction. That's what is ruining the country." Now, let me build his ethos: 33, millionaire, last year made a 900% return on his trading portfolio. Makes what most of us make in a year in a week (sometimes a day) and works 10 hours/week, and sometimes takes months off at a time. God Bless America!! Land where soldiers, nurses, teachers, firemen make an average of 40-50K a year, a tiny fraction of the important, vital people to our economy!!!
(if anyone does not believe me, send me a pm and you can talk to my friend directly. Obviously, I am a pathetic liar who is trying to show off on a Pearl Jam message board and who wastes his precious life--yes, I will be dead soon, what's 80 years?--spreading lies and hate, so you will probably need to vet me.)
Anyway, 3 things makes me sick:
1. We can't pull an Eisenhower: we can't rebuild the infrastructure of this country. This is a very easy way to employ people during a recession. The fact that we cannot ask people like Alex Rodriquez, the cast of jersey Shore and the Real Housewives shows, Tom Hanks, David Letterman, Jamie Dimon, Lady Gaga, Eddie Vvedder, to chip in a few extra bucks--5% surtax on all income over 1 million, 10% on all income over 10 million?--is appalling. Eisenhow--top marginal tax rate 91%--would be appalled, as would most republicans form that era. Shit, even Barry Goldwater admonished the Republican party for their descent into radical neoconservatism (and this was before 9/11).
2. 99% of the American Public has no clue what has been going on on Wall St. and with the bank, hedge funds, etc. They have no clue what is going on now. Go ahead, ask anyone on the street about the following topics: credit-default swaps, collateral debt obligations, the mortgage-backed securities industry, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns.
3. The fact that there are far too many Americans who are happy--yes, they are HAPPY-- that the jobs number feel short. I am opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I would never, never, root for the failure of my country in those wars. If I do, I am not rooting against Bush, Cheney, Rummy, I am rooting against the soldiers and their families. if one were to root for a shitty jobs forecast, then they are rooting against their fellow Americans. Kind of twisted, no? Ask any unemployed worker out there if they would like to work on rebuilding the roads and bridges of this country. Ask them if they would like to work in a wind turbine factory. Ask them if they would like to work on a high-speed rail project. I think the answer would be a resounding "YES!!!"
it is amazing how we have turned against one another due to subtle differences in our political beliefs. Divide and conquer? The public at large--many of whom are clueless (70%, 80%, 90%?)--has embraced such a vitriolic, egomaniacal, petty outlook on all things American, and has contributed to this venomous discourse that has become the norm.
A sad, sad state of affairs for the "greatest country on the planet," a country that has, in the past 11 years, dealt with 9/11, two wars, a fiscal nightmare, rampant inequality, corporate slavery,Wall St. pillaging, and economic collapse. You would think that tragedy would bring us together. I guess Adrian Veidt was wrong.
This is what happens when a nation of freedom loving folks use that freedom to sit in front of the boob tube, get fat (35% obesity rate and counting), be brainwashed by mainstream media and cable news networks, play Dawn of the Dead, idolize celebrities, and on and on and on.
Sad, sad, sad. And let's not forget: the decline of this great country began in January of 2009.
The labor force participation rate is at all-time lows.
Next, up... the clunkering for QE3.... Just wait. Got to love the BS parade.
well as the baby boomers start reaching retirment age, which has happened in the last couple of years, then surely you would expect the labour force participation to decrease quicker than it has in the past. (http://www.babyboomers.com/what-age-are ... omers/936/ this link also has an eddie vedder reference)
and this hypothesis of mine although not proven is at lest backed up by the labour force participation rates graph
which shows the rates have been on a long run downward pattern since about 2002
There's no doubt that demographics show that a babyboomers are increasingly reaching retirement age. But, that's not what's driving the problem. They haven't been retiring in mass like you suggest, or even like one would expect. See the chart below:
I love the BS parade....and it leads right to the Capitol.
Obviously everyone on the AMT knows everything, and we put up our ego-infused walls up to any other sort of view, but I just got off the phone with my best friend who is a self-employed commodities trader. And, like you inlet13, as you have "said repetitively [repeatedly] throughout" he still stands by his analysis on why the job market sucks: "banks, banks, wall st. wall st., obstruction, obstruction. That's what is ruining the country." Now, let me build his ethos: 33, millionaire, last year made a 900% return on his trading portfolio. Makes what most of us make in a year in a week (sometimes a day) and works 10 hours/week, and sometimes takes months off at a time. God Bless America!! Land where soldiers, nurses, teachers, firemen make an average of 40-50K a year, a tiny fraction of the important, vital people to our economy!!!
(if anyone does not believe me, send me a pm and you can talk to my friend directly. Obviously, I am a pathetic liar who is trying to show off on a Pearl Jam message board and who wastes his precious life--yes, I will be dead soon, what's 80 years?--spreading lies and hate, so you will probably need to vet me.)
Anyway, 3 things makes me sick:
1. We can't pull an Eisenhower: we can't rebuild the infrastructure of this country. This is a very easy way to employ people during a recession. The fact that we cannot ask people like Alex Rodriquez, the cast of jersey Shore and the Real Housewives shows, Tom Hanks, David Letterman, Jamie Dimon, Lady Gaga, Eddie Vvedder, to chip in a few extra bucks--5% surtax on all income over 1 million, 10% on all income over 10 million?--is appalling. Eisenhow--top marginal tax rate 91%--would be appalled, as would most republicans form that era. Shit, even Barry Goldwater admonished the Republican party for their descent into radical neoconservatism (and this was before 9/11).
2. 99% of the American Public has no clue what has been going on on Wall St. and with the bank, hedge funds, etc. They have no clue what is going on now. Go ahead, ask anyone on the street about the following topics: credit-default swaps, collateral debt obligations, the mortgage-backed securities industry, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns.
3. The fact that there are far too many Americans who are happy--yes, they are HAPPY-- that the jobs number feel short. I am opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I would never, never, root for the failure of my country in those wars. If I do, I am not rooting against Bush, Cheney, Rummy, I am rooting against the soldiers and their families. if one were to root for a shitty jobs forecast, then they are rooting against their fellow Americans. Kind of twisted, no? Ask any unemployed worker out there if they would like to work on rebuilding the roads and bridges of this country. Ask them if they would like to work in a wind turbine factory. Ask them if they would like to work on a high-speed rail project. I think the answer would be a resounding "YES!!!"
it is amazing how we have turned against one another due to subtle differences in our political beliefs. Divide and conquer? The public at large--many of whom are clueless (70%, 80%, 90%?)--has embraced such a vitriolic, egomaniacal, petty outlook on all things American, and has contributed to this venomous discourse that has become the norm.
A sad, sad state of affairs for the "greatest country on the planet," a country that has, in the past 11 years, dealt with 9/11, two wars, a fiscal nightmare, rampant inequality, corporate slavery,Wall St. pillaging, and economic collapse. You would think that tragedy would bring us together. I guess Adrian Veidt was wrong.
This is what happens when a nation of freedom loving folks use that freedom to sit in front of the boob tube, get fat (35% obesity rate and counting), be brainwashed by mainstream media and cable news networks, play Dawn of the Dead, idolize celebrities, and on and on and on.
Sad, sad, sad. And let's not forget: the decline of this great country began in January of 2009.
Interesting points. I do worry that politics becomes a game to some. This is a bigger deal than Bush, Obama or whatever joker the next President is. It's jobs. It's our livelihood. It's what feeds my kids and will give them a job, so they can do what they want with their lives. I don't hope for bad economic news... ever. But, I highlight some negative news, like today's poor jobs numbers, to show that our country has it's head in the sand. We think we're "turning the corner". Do you remember the "green shoots" from 2 years ago? They dissipated quick, then they came back, then they went away again. My points are - they are never there.... it's simply a mask by the Fed.
The problem I have is not that people differ in how to get out of problems. It's that they don't acknowledge the problem in and of itself. Unfortunately, some choose to just pretend it doesn't exist. The media helps with this when they are cheerleading and division. Be it Fox cheerleading Romney or other sources cheerleading Obama. They make it a game. The truth is the politicians aren't going to get us out of this. They are a mirror image of us. We get them there. If we think about that... it's really sad. All we can do is educate one another. Acknowledge problems when they exist. And try to formulate real solutions. Then practice them.
Finally, my biggest concern isn't fiscal policy... whcih is what that last paragraph sounds like it's referencing. Although I have opinions on Romney, Obama, Bush, etc. and their policies.... my biggest concern is...
The Fed.... it's monetary policy.
So, many people have no clue what that institution is doing to us, our economy and to the world economy.
The numbers may be accurate but every statistic must be vetted to see what it means. Often a single statistic does not tell a complete story, such as the unemployment rate. So the components of this statistic are producing a declining number, but the unemployment rate can be a misleading, incomplete piece of information to most people. We need to stop worshiping this number so much. It's really what seems to be the problem with most discussions in our culture these days. Everyone is trying so hard to hold a hard line on their argument when often the situation is nuanced and those nuances need to be understood and discussed if progress is to be made.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
Interesting points. I do worry that politics becomes a game to some. This is a bigger deal than Bush, Obama or whatever joker the next President is. It's jobs. It's our livelihood. It's what feeds my kids and will give them a job, so they can do what they want with their lives. I don't hope for bad economic news... ever. But, I highlight some negative news, like today's poor jobs numbers, to show that our country has it's head in the sand. We think we're "turning the corner". Do you remember the "green shoots" from 2 years ago? They dissipated quick, then they came back, then they went away again. My points are - they are never there.... it's simply a mask by the Fed.
Well put. It is a game, but unfortunately the ones in power are the ones holding the NES controllers. Trying my best to take an objective view of things, it is so sad that both political parties have put themselves before the American people. But don't the American people buy into this and support it....to some degree?
And it is OUR livelihood, OUR (well, I don't have kids, but I do have 8 nieces and nephews) kids' future. I wish D.C. would realize this. No more fucking games.
And yes, I remember the green shoots--data with a hole in its foundation, used to make things look rosy. I do think though, that things are getting better--not at the rate that we need--but better. And, there are plenty of things we can do to give the recovery a little push. the first being to fast forward time to November 7th, no matter who wins. This election season will be a nightmare and nothing will get done.
I really wish Obama, in March/April of 2009, would have spoken to the American people and simply stated that the road to recovery was going to be difficult and was going to take 5 years unless the right measures were taken. This was a failure of communication, but also maybe a way to avoid scaring the shit out of the American public. Who knows? I don't think doom and gloom is his style.
The problem I have is not that people differ in how to get out of problems. It's that they don't acknowledge the problem in and of itself. Unfortunately, some choose to just pretend it doesn't exist. The media helps with this when they are cheerleading and division. Be it Fox cheerleading Romney or other sources cheerleading Obama. They make it a game. The truth is the politicians aren't going to get us out of this. They are a mirror image of us. We get them there. If we think about that... it's really sad. All we can do is educate one another. Acknowledge problems when they exist. And try to formulate real solutions. Then practice them.
Absolutely. "They are a mirror image of us"--I say that all the time! The government is, in a way, the people. (And they resemble the Real Housewives more and more every day!!)
We can educate each other, but when we are so grounded (trapped) in our own egos, in our own, often times, prescribes/conditioned views, how is education able to break through that barrier? I don't think it can. I think real knowledge and critical thinking have gone the way of the Dodo. The media, especially the cable "news" netowrks have destroyed any hope I have of the American public getting a real education.
Finally, my biggest concern isn't fiscal policy... whcih is what that last paragraph sounds like it's referencing. Although I have opinions on Romney, Obama, Bush, etc. and their policies.... my biggest concern is...
The Fed.... it's monetary policy.
So, many people have no clue what that institution is doing to us, our economy and to the world economy.
The Fed: not my strong point, though printing more money may be equivalent to Pearl Jam putting Fatal, Out of my Mind, Down, or Sad on an album. It devalues the worth of those damn songs. Okay, bad analogy, but you know what I am getting at.
Change is up to the people, but I'm not sure we are equipped to bring it about. It takes a collective effort, and we too often allow our egos/ideologies to interfere with the path to progress that society needs.
And, those in power really love divide and conquer...............
Wow — what a stinker of a jobs report. First, let me show you why it’s worse than it looks. Then I’ll show you why it’s even worse than that.
The big number, 8.2% unemployment, is down one-tenth of one percent from last month, on 120,000 net new jobs. But 120,000 is only just barely enough to keep up with population growth, because that’s about how many people should enter the labor force each month, every month, the whole year round. But even more people — 164,000 — simply gave up, stopped looking for work, and are no longer any concern of the BLS. The experts had predicted jobs growth of anywhere from 200,000 to 250,000.
ASIDE: We need to net about 1.5 million jobs a year just to stay even with our growing population. We’ve netted about 2.5 million in the almost three years since the Great Recession ended. So we’re almost two million jobs short of nothing more than treading water. Yeah, that’s bad.
AdvertisementTyler Durden said it best: “The unemployment rate drops to 8.2% for one simple reason: the number of people not in the labor force is back to all time highs: 87,897,000.” Jim Pethokoukis noted that if the LFPR were the same as when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.9%. But “discounting for cyclical, aging issues, the unemployment rate would be 9.4%.” Either number is unacceptable near the end of the third year of “recovery.”
But now we get to the really bad part.
If I’m reading BLS correctly, 90,000 of those jobs — 75% of the net — are attributed to the “birth/death” model for new business. And that model has been broken for several years, as ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank have made it increasingly difficult for entrepreneurs. We don’t just have discouraged workers; we also have discouraged employers.
So nobody really knows how many jobs were created last month. As previously noted, “The numbers, they are awful.”
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
The numbers may be accurate but every statistic must be vetted to see what it means. Often a single statistic does not tell a complete story, such as the unemployment rate. So the components of this statistic are producing a declining number, but the unemployment rate can be a misleading, incomplete piece of information to most people. We need to stop worshiping this number so much. It's really what seems to be the problem with most discussions in our culture these days. Everyone is trying so hard to hold a hard line on their argument when often the situation is nuanced and those nuances need to be understood and discussed if progress is to be made.
Love the last sentence of your statement.
Do you see the jobs numbers--over 200K for a while, now 120K--as the best way to view our progress, or lack thereof. And, should we delve deeper--should we look at each individual industry to get a real view of the recovery?
There's no doubt that demographics show that a babyboomers are increasingly reaching retirement age. But, that's not what's driving the problem. They haven't been retiring in mass like you suggest, or even like one would expect. See the chart below:
That chart runs completely against what you are saying.
firstly that graph also shows that labour participation in the 18-54 range between 2001=2006 as it did 2006-pres so the trend has been there since 2001 and which is evidence that the decrease isn't related to the people becoming disillusioned the jobs market and would have some other reason is more structural that people simply giving up. Probably an increase of those 16-22 in education at a guess. but i don't have time to analyse the figures yet
as for saying that the chart runs against what im saying, i would completely disagree, while it does show that those working ages 55 + has increased by aprox 7 percent(changed from around 33% to 40%) and on the face of it that might point to people working longer i will show you how this is in fact not the case. in fact what has actually happend in that graph is that the increase of the population aged 55-65 has increased as a percentage of those 55+. what this means is that those of a working age in the 55+ group has increased rather than people retiring later.
and since they didn't make it easy for me i decided to some math. in my math i have rounded the figure to the nearest thousand. and all figures are in thousands, (so 74,000 represents 74,000,000)
so looking at table 8 we see that the population 55+ increased by 14,00 rising from 60,000 in 2001 to 74,000 in 2009. so while they don't give us the figures for 55-65 i have to work them out. now luckily they give us the figures for 65 plus so all we need to do is to subtact these from the figures for 55= to give us what we want the polulation 55-65. so in 2009 this was this was 74,000-39,000=35,000 while in 2001 this was 60,000-35,000= 25.
so just to recap in 2009 there where 35,000 americans aged 55-65 while in 2001 there where 25,000. from this we can draw those aged 55 to 65 have grown by 10,000 from 2001-2009
so now that i have worked out this data i can figure out by how much the 55-65 group increased as a percentage of the population 55+ since 2001.
so in 2001 55-65 contained 40 percent of the population 55+ (Pop of 55-65/pop of 55( devided by 100/1) (25,000/60,000x100/1)
so in 2009 the 55-65 group = 47% of the population of the group 55+((Pop of 55-65/pop of 55( devided by 100/1) (35,000/74,00 x 100/1)
so in conclusion those of the working age in the age group 55+ has risen by 7%. now back to the the graph that you posted, so we agree it showed that the percentage of those 55+ in the labour force has risen by around 7 percent as per your source, however the reason for this is because that there has been in increase of 7 percent of those aged between 55-65 in that group, not that they are working longer into their life.
just one more final point if in the last 2001-2009 we have seen those 55-65 increase by 7 percent then from 2010 to 2020 it will mean that there will also be a big percentage increase in those leaving the labour participation rate as a whole as these move into retirement age which correlates to what is happening currently, for whatever reason(i think an increase in those going to college and staying in education longer one of the factors if not the main factor but i haven't researched that yet), there are not enough people joining the labour force to replace those leaving.
firstly that graph also shows that labour participation in the 18-54 range between 2001=2006 as it did 2006-pres so the trend has been there since 2001 and which is evidence that the decrease isn't related to the people becoming disillusioned the jobs market and would have some other reason is more structural that people simply giving up. Probably an increase of those 16-22 in education at a guess. but i don't have time to analyse the figures yet
First, the decline in the 18-54 range could have been due to umm… the 2001 recession (from 9/11 and tech bust). Notice how the decline halts at exactly 2003 (right about when job growth returned full force)? It stabilizes there until 2008. What happened that year?
… the fincancial collapse started around… 2008…. Right at the outset of the new recession.
Second, the most important aspect of this chart (and the reason I posted it) shows that the declining labor force is not simply babyboomers retiring. In fact, the labor force participation for those in retirement years hasn’t changed much. See how the labor force participation does not decline at all throughout the entire series for 55+? You claimed it was declining and that was the reason for the decline in the overall labor force participation rate. This shows you with real data (no math needed here) that you aren’t right with that hypothesis. Moreover, look at these charts to provide more proof to my point here:
This isn't to say that babyboomers retiring won't impact labor force participation. It's saying that anyone who claims the drops are solely from that is misguided.
as for saying that the chart runs against what im saying, i would completely disagree, while it does show that those working ages 55 + has increased by aprox 7 percent(changed from around 33% to 40%) and on the face of it that might point to people working longer i will show you how this is in fact not the case. in fact what has actually happend in that graph is that the increase of the population aged 55-65 has increased as a percentage of those 55+. what this means is that those of a working age in the 55+ group has increased rather than people retiring later.
and since they didn't make it easy for me i decided to some math. in my math i have rounded the figure to the nearest thousand. and all figures are in thousands, (so 74,000 represents 74,000,000)
so looking at table 8 we see that the population 55+ increased by 14,00 rising from 60,000 in 2001 to 74,000 in 2009. so while they don't give us the figures for 55-65 i have to work them out. now luckily they give us the figures for 65 plus so all we need to do is to subtact these from the figures for 55= to give us what we want the polulation 55-65. so in 2009 this was this was 74,000-39,000=35,000 while in 2001 this was 60,000-35,000= 25.
so just to recap in 2009 there where 35,000 americans aged 55-65 while in 2001 there where 25,000. from this we can draw those aged 55 to 65 have grown by 10,000 from 2001-2009
so now that i have worked out this data i can figure out by how much the 55-65 group increased as a percentage of the population 55+ since 2001.
so in 2001 55-65 contained 40 percent of the population 55+ (Pop of 55-65/pop of 55( devided by 100/1) (25,000/60,000x100/1)
so in 2009 the 55-65 group = 47% of the population of the group 55+((Pop of 55-65/pop of 55( devided by 100/1) (35,000/74,00 x 100/1)
so in conclusion those of the working age in the age group 55+ has risen by 7%. now back to the the graph that you posted, so we agree it showed that the percentage of those 55+ in the labour force has risen by around 7 percent as per your source, however the reason for this is because that there has been in increase of 7 percent of those aged between 55-65 in that group, not that they are working longer into their life.
.
No offense, but this doesn’t make too much sense… maybe you don’t understand what that the labor force participation rate is a ratio? You did a huge mathematical exercise to point out that the babyboom generation (a very large generation) is aging. I know that, and mentioned it before. How that proves that more or less of that particular population or age cohort is dropping out of the labor force, I don’t understand though. I mean, look at those 16-54 participation rates. They are plummeting and have been since the recession.
Once again, no one’s denying that babyboomers are or will be retiring soon. Sure, that plays a part here. But, let’s not mix messages… I said from the jump that anyone who claims the drop in the labor force participation rate is soley due to baby boom retiring is very much incorrect. My chart proved what I said with real, not made up data. Saying there are more babyboomers in the age cohort 55+ doesn’t do anything whatsoever to disprove what I said or the chart that I provided which shows this problem is not contained in retirement.
The problem is people (across ages) are leaving or have left the labor force. The declining participation rate shown in my chart for 16-54 years olds, and the holding steady of those 55+ proved my point.
Just to reiterate, I want to provide a bit of the basics here - the labor force participation equals the civilian labor force divided by the total noninstitutionalized civilian population. If the total noninstiutionalized population for an age cohort increases, that does not mean the labor force participation rate (a ratio) should necessarily increase or decrease. Why? Well, um… the numerator matters too. In other words, what amount of that noninstutionalized population that’s in the labor force is what really affects the labor force participation rate. Changes to the size of the denominator can be reflected by changes to the size of the numerator. In fact, that’s what we’re measuring... because we're monitoring a ratio.
Comments
well as the baby boomers start reaching retirment age, which has happened in the last couple of years, then surely you would expect the labour force participation to decrease quicker than it has in the past. (http://www.babyboomers.com/what-age-are ... omers/936/ this link also has an eddie vedder reference)
and this hypothesis of mine although not proven is at lest backed up by the labour force participation rates graph
which shows the rates have been on a long run downward pattern since about 2002
Obviously everyone on the AMT knows everything, and we put up our ego-infused walls up to any other sort of view, but I just got off the phone with my best friend who is a self-employed commodities trader. And, like you inlet13, as you have "said repetitively [repeatedly] throughout" he still stands by his analysis on why the job market sucks: "banks, banks, wall st. wall st., obstruction, obstruction. That's what is ruining the country." Now, let me build his ethos: 33, millionaire, last year made a 900% return on his trading portfolio. Makes what most of us make in a year in a week (sometimes a day) and works 10 hours/week, and sometimes takes months off at a time. God Bless America!! Land where soldiers, nurses, teachers, firemen make an average of 40-50K a year, a tiny fraction of the important, vital people to our economy!!!
(if anyone does not believe me, send me a pm and you can talk to my friend directly. Obviously, I am a pathetic liar who is trying to show off on a Pearl Jam message board and who wastes his precious life--yes, I will be dead soon, what's 80 years?--spreading lies and hate, so you will probably need to vet me.)
Anyway, 3 things makes me sick:
1. We can't pull an Eisenhower: we can't rebuild the infrastructure of this country. This is a very easy way to employ people during a recession. The fact that we cannot ask people like Alex Rodriquez, the cast of jersey Shore and the Real Housewives shows, Tom Hanks, David Letterman, Jamie Dimon, Lady Gaga, Eddie Vvedder, to chip in a few extra bucks--5% surtax on all income over 1 million, 10% on all income over 10 million?--is appalling. Eisenhow--top marginal tax rate 91%--would be appalled, as would most republicans form that era. Shit, even Barry Goldwater admonished the Republican party for their descent into radical neoconservatism (and this was before 9/11).
2. 99% of the American Public has no clue what has been going on on Wall St. and with the bank, hedge funds, etc. They have no clue what is going on now. Go ahead, ask anyone on the street about the following topics: credit-default swaps, collateral debt obligations, the mortgage-backed securities industry, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns.
3. The fact that there are far too many Americans who are happy--yes, they are HAPPY-- that the jobs number feel short. I am opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I would never, never, root for the failure of my country in those wars. If I do, I am not rooting against Bush, Cheney, Rummy, I am rooting against the soldiers and their families. if one were to root for a shitty jobs forecast, then they are rooting against their fellow Americans. Kind of twisted, no? Ask any unemployed worker out there if they would like to work on rebuilding the roads and bridges of this country. Ask them if they would like to work in a wind turbine factory. Ask them if they would like to work on a high-speed rail project. I think the answer would be a resounding "YES!!!"
it is amazing how we have turned against one another due to subtle differences in our political beliefs. Divide and conquer? The public at large--many of whom are clueless (70%, 80%, 90%?)--has embraced such a vitriolic, egomaniacal, petty outlook on all things American, and has contributed to this venomous discourse that has become the norm.
A sad, sad state of affairs for the "greatest country on the planet," a country that has, in the past 11 years, dealt with 9/11, two wars, a fiscal nightmare, rampant inequality, corporate slavery,Wall St. pillaging, and economic collapse. You would think that tragedy would bring us together. I guess Adrian Veidt was wrong.
On a side note:
http://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/0 ... 93185.html
This is what happens when a nation of freedom loving folks use that freedom to sit in front of the boob tube, get fat (35% obesity rate and counting), be brainwashed by mainstream media and cable news networks, play Dawn of the Dead, idolize celebrities, and on and on and on.
Sad, sad, sad. And let's not forget: the decline of this great country began in January of 2009.
There's no doubt that demographics show that a babyboomers are increasingly reaching retirement age. But, that's not what's driving the problem. They haven't been retiring in mass like you suggest, or even like one would expect. See the chart below:
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/01/Labor%20Force%20Part%20Rate.jpg
That chart runs completely against what you are saying.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Interesting points. I do worry that politics becomes a game to some. This is a bigger deal than Bush, Obama or whatever joker the next President is. It's jobs. It's our livelihood. It's what feeds my kids and will give them a job, so they can do what they want with their lives. I don't hope for bad economic news... ever. But, I highlight some negative news, like today's poor jobs numbers, to show that our country has it's head in the sand. We think we're "turning the corner". Do you remember the "green shoots" from 2 years ago? They dissipated quick, then they came back, then they went away again. My points are - they are never there.... it's simply a mask by the Fed.
The problem I have is not that people differ in how to get out of problems. It's that they don't acknowledge the problem in and of itself. Unfortunately, some choose to just pretend it doesn't exist. The media helps with this when they are cheerleading and division. Be it Fox cheerleading Romney or other sources cheerleading Obama. They make it a game. The truth is the politicians aren't going to get us out of this. They are a mirror image of us. We get them there. If we think about that... it's really sad. All we can do is educate one another. Acknowledge problems when they exist. And try to formulate real solutions. Then practice them.
Finally, my biggest concern isn't fiscal policy... whcih is what that last paragraph sounds like it's referencing. Although I have opinions on Romney, Obama, Bush, etc. and their policies.... my biggest concern is...
The Fed.... it's monetary policy.
So, many people have no clue what that institution is doing to us, our economy and to the world economy.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
"With our thoughts we make the world"
Well put. It is a game, but unfortunately the ones in power are the ones holding the NES controllers. Trying my best to take an objective view of things, it is so sad that both political parties have put themselves before the American people. But don't the American people buy into this and support it....to some degree?
And it is OUR livelihood, OUR (well, I don't have kids, but I do have 8 nieces and nephews) kids' future. I wish D.C. would realize this. No more fucking games.
And yes, I remember the green shoots--data with a hole in its foundation, used to make things look rosy. I do think though, that things are getting better--not at the rate that we need--but better. And, there are plenty of things we can do to give the recovery a little push. the first being to fast forward time to November 7th, no matter who wins. This election season will be a nightmare and nothing will get done.
I really wish Obama, in March/April of 2009, would have spoken to the American people and simply stated that the road to recovery was going to be difficult and was going to take 5 years unless the right measures were taken. This was a failure of communication, but also maybe a way to avoid scaring the shit out of the American public. Who knows? I don't think doom and gloom is his style.
Absolutely. "They are a mirror image of us"--I say that all the time! The government is, in a way, the people. (And they resemble the Real Housewives more and more every day!!)
We can educate each other, but when we are so grounded (trapped) in our own egos, in our own, often times, prescribes/conditioned views, how is education able to break through that barrier? I don't think it can. I think real knowledge and critical thinking have gone the way of the Dodo. The media, especially the cable "news" netowrks have destroyed any hope I have of the American public getting a real education.
The Fed: not my strong point, though printing more money may be equivalent to Pearl Jam putting Fatal, Out of my Mind, Down, or Sad on an album. It devalues the worth of those damn songs. Okay, bad analogy, but you know what I am getting at.
Change is up to the people, but I'm not sure we are equipped to bring it about. It takes a collective effort, and we too often allow our egos/ideologies to interfere with the path to progress that society needs.
And, those in power really love divide and conquer...............
Wow — what a stinker of a jobs report. First, let me show you why it’s worse than it looks. Then I’ll show you why it’s even worse than that.
The big number, 8.2% unemployment, is down one-tenth of one percent from last month, on 120,000 net new jobs. But 120,000 is only just barely enough to keep up with population growth, because that’s about how many people should enter the labor force each month, every month, the whole year round. But even more people — 164,000 — simply gave up, stopped looking for work, and are no longer any concern of the BLS. The experts had predicted jobs growth of anywhere from 200,000 to 250,000.
ASIDE: We need to net about 1.5 million jobs a year just to stay even with our growing population. We’ve netted about 2.5 million in the almost three years since the Great Recession ended. So we’re almost two million jobs short of nothing more than treading water. Yeah, that’s bad.
AdvertisementTyler Durden said it best: “The unemployment rate drops to 8.2% for one simple reason: the number of people not in the labor force is back to all time highs: 87,897,000.” Jim Pethokoukis noted that if the LFPR were the same as when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.9%. But “discounting for cyclical, aging issues, the unemployment rate would be 9.4%.” Either number is unacceptable near the end of the third year of “recovery.”
But now we get to the really bad part.
If I’m reading BLS correctly, 90,000 of those jobs — 75% of the net — are attributed to the “birth/death” model for new business. And that model has been broken for several years, as ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank have made it increasingly difficult for entrepreneurs. We don’t just have discouraged workers; we also have discouraged employers.
So nobody really knows how many jobs were created last month. As previously noted, “The numbers, they are awful.”
— Socrates
Love the last sentence of your statement.
Do you see the jobs numbers--over 200K for a while, now 120K--as the best way to view our progress, or lack thereof. And, should we delve deeper--should we look at each individual industry to get a real view of the recovery?
firstly that graph also shows that labour participation in the 18-54 range between 2001=2006 as it did 2006-pres so the trend has been there since 2001 and which is evidence that the decrease isn't related to the people becoming disillusioned the jobs market and would have some other reason is more structural that people simply giving up. Probably an increase of those 16-22 in education at a guess. but i don't have time to analyse the figures yet
as for saying that the chart runs against what im saying, i would completely disagree, while it does show that those working ages 55 + has increased by aprox 7 percent(changed from around 33% to 40%) and on the face of it that might point to people working longer i will show you how this is in fact not the case. in fact what has actually happend in that graph is that the increase of the population aged 55-65 has increased as a percentage of those 55+. what this means is that those of a working age in the 55+ group has increased rather than people retiring later.
so i had a look at the census data here http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ ... 2s0007.pdf
and since they didn't make it easy for me i decided to some math. in my math i have rounded the figure to the nearest thousand. and all figures are in thousands, (so 74,000 represents 74,000,000)
so looking at table 8 we see that the population 55+ increased by 14,00 rising from 60,000 in 2001 to 74,000 in 2009. so while they don't give us the figures for 55-65 i have to work them out. now luckily they give us the figures for 65 plus so all we need to do is to subtact these from the figures for 55= to give us what we want the polulation 55-65. so in 2009 this was this was 74,000-39,000=35,000 while in 2001 this was 60,000-35,000= 25.
so just to recap in 2009 there where 35,000 americans aged 55-65 while in 2001 there where 25,000. from this we can draw those aged 55 to 65 have grown by 10,000 from 2001-2009
so now that i have worked out this data i can figure out by how much the 55-65 group increased as a percentage of the population 55+ since 2001.
so in 2001 55-65 contained 40 percent of the population 55+ (Pop of 55-65/pop of 55( devided by 100/1) (25,000/60,000x100/1)
so in 2009 the 55-65 group = 47% of the population of the group 55+((Pop of 55-65/pop of 55( devided by 100/1) (35,000/74,00 x 100/1)
so in conclusion those of the working age in the age group 55+ has risen by 7%. now back to the the graph that you posted, so we agree it showed that the percentage of those 55+ in the labour force has risen by around 7 percent as per your source, however the reason for this is because that there has been in increase of 7 percent of those aged between 55-65 in that group, not that they are working longer into their life.
just one more final point if in the last 2001-2009 we have seen those 55-65 increase by 7 percent then from 2010 to 2020 it will mean that there will also be a big percentage increase in those leaving the labour participation rate as a whole as these move into retirement age which correlates to what is happening currently, for whatever reason(i think an increase in those going to college and staying in education longer one of the factors if not the main factor but i haven't researched that yet), there are not enough people joining the labour force to replace those leaving.
First, the decline in the 18-54 range could have been due to umm… the 2001 recession (from 9/11 and tech bust). Notice how the decline halts at exactly 2003 (right about when job growth returned full force)? It stabilizes there until 2008. What happened that year?
… the fincancial collapse started around… 2008…. Right at the outset of the new recession.
Second, the most important aspect of this chart (and the reason I posted it) shows that the declining labor force is not simply babyboomers retiring. In fact, the labor force participation for those in retirement years hasn’t changed much. See how the labor force participation does not decline at all throughout the entire series for 55+? You claimed it was declining and that was the reason for the decline in the overall labor force participation rate. This shows you with real data (no math needed here) that you aren’t right with that hypothesis. Moreover, look at these charts to provide more proof to my point here:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b33869e20153941e0817970b
http://economistsview.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b33869e20162fd73ba57970d
http://economistsview.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b33869e2015437f1f48a970c
http://economistsview.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b33869e20153941e32c0970b
This isn't to say that babyboomers retiring won't impact labor force participation. It's saying that anyone who claims the drops are solely from that is misguided.
No offense, but this doesn’t make too much sense… maybe you don’t understand what that the labor force participation rate is a ratio? You did a huge mathematical exercise to point out that the babyboom generation (a very large generation) is aging. I know that, and mentioned it before. How that proves that more or less of that particular population or age cohort is dropping out of the labor force, I don’t understand though. I mean, look at those 16-54 participation rates. They are plummeting and have been since the recession.
Once again, no one’s denying that babyboomers are or will be retiring soon. Sure, that plays a part here. But, let’s not mix messages… I said from the jump that anyone who claims the drop in the labor force participation rate is soley due to baby boom retiring is very much incorrect. My chart proved what I said with real, not made up data. Saying there are more babyboomers in the age cohort 55+ doesn’t do anything whatsoever to disprove what I said or the chart that I provided which shows this problem is not contained in retirement.
The problem is people (across ages) are leaving or have left the labor force. The declining participation rate shown in my chart for 16-54 years olds, and the holding steady of those 55+ proved my point.
Just to reiterate, I want to provide a bit of the basics here - the labor force participation equals the civilian labor force divided by the total noninstitutionalized civilian population. If the total noninstiutionalized population for an age cohort increases, that does not mean the labor force participation rate (a ratio) should necessarily increase or decrease. Why? Well, um… the numerator matters too. In other words, what amount of that noninstutionalized population that’s in the labor force is what really affects the labor force participation rate. Changes to the size of the denominator can be reflected by changes to the size of the numerator. In fact, that’s what we’re measuring... because we're monitoring a ratio.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="