ocean515
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 36,760
- Reaction score
- 15,468
- Location
- Southern California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
If your opinion is "age attributed to half of the decline in the labor force participation rate", i am giving it a nod.
We have already agreed, pages ago, that boomers are delaying retirement. If this is your only opinion, why use it as a means to reject the position of someone who agrees with the bold?
You wrote there is not a single credible study that supports my opinion.
You have now admitted there are.
I think I will leave you to find a huckleberry who is willing to play your game. I'm not one of them.
He claimed that many baby boomers were delaying retirement. How can this possibly be shown to be incorrect based on a claim that half of the decline in overall participation rate can be attributable to age? That's just nonsense. What you've posted tells us nothing about whether or not baby boomers are delaying retirement.
Because it's got to be one or the other, right? :roll:
You wrote there is not a single credible study that supports my opinion. You have now admitted there are. I think I will leave you to find a huckleberry who is willing to play your game. I'm not one of them.
I usually just ignore him.
This time I saw a link so I followed him.
But normally, he is on my Ignore list.
Imo, he has a closed mind and comes on here primarily to troll...he is a waste of my time.
Your rule is to ignore anyone that has destroyed your argument.I usually just ignore him.
This time I saw a link so I followed him.
But normally, he is on my Ignore list.
Imo, he has a closed mind and comes on here primarily to troll...he is a waste of my time.
No, there are lot's of factors involved, none of them were created by Obama though.
Our school dropout rate is at a record low, and we have the highest percentage of our population ever attending college. Many of those people are choosing education over immediately entering our workforce.
More males are deciding to be stay at home parents, and the trend for females joining our workforce peaked years ago.
And certainly there are some folks who decided that if they can't find a job in their preferred field making a decent wage, that they can afford to not work (early retirement, single income earner families, etc). Yes, it IS a sign of a less that booming economy, and a result of the Great Bush Recession, but it is also about technology replacing the need for human labor. This trend will continue to some extent, even if our economy was booming.
I can't think of a single thing that President Mit Romney (or anyone else) would have done to keep people from retiring, or to get students to drop out of school, or to force stay at home spouses to start seeking work. It's simply not an Obama issue.
Obama isn't requiring that people retire, or that they go to school, or that they become homemakers. Back in the olden days, these were considered positive traits by conservatives, I really don't understand why conservatives are rejecting good family values. That's part of the reason why I left the republican party.
Yes, your math is correct. However the bulk of the Baby Boomers are just now crossing over the 60 threshold, which would mean the vast majority of them are all opting to take early retirement...
Your rule is to ignore anyone that has destroyed your argument.
Shame on people retiring and lowering the number of folks in the work force.
You wrote there is not a single credible study that supports my opinion. You have now admitted there are. I think I will leave you to find a huckleberry who is willing to play your game. I'm not one of them.
Given the penalty, and the impact of declines in the value of held assets, I'm not convinced the contribution to the participation rate decline is as significant as what is being suggested.
That's good news for the country.
Which of Obama's specific policies that he implemented as POTUS can be directly associated with and credited for this fantastic news?
You are making an assumption with no figures to support it. There were more babies born in 1946 than in any other year up until that time (a darned big surge), and every year after that there have been even more born. It shouldn't surprise anyone that we have more people choosing to retire every year. They don't even have to be retiring early, they just have to be retiring.
And not only is it that we a surge of people retiring, we are also living longer, which means that every year the percentage of people who are in retirement will increase, thus the LFPR will tend to decline.
The last time the economy was still in a slump?
September jobs report: Payrolls down, unemployment unchanged - Oct. 8, 2010
Reality denied.
Not slashing spending. Not increasing taxes on lower income earners. That's about it.
The economy stayed down under Reagan for years -- and only rebounded once the Fed relaxed interest rates.lifeisshort said:If Romney won we would have real economic improvement like when Reagan won.
:lol: :lol: :lol:These numbers consist of teenagers and people over 55.
Unemployment went up for everybody else.
It doesn't matter what this "report" says because real people are really feeling what Obama's real economic policy is really about.
These numbers consist of teenagers and people over 55.
Unemployment went up for everybody else.
It doesn't matter what this "report" says because real people are really feeling what Obama's real economic policy is really about.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
So when shown how utterly absurd your last comment was, you decide to move the goalposts, and in the process, rendered your last post even more dumb than it was previously (as, according to you, this is now a "bad" jobs report, thus ruining your earlier assertion the books are cooked before an election to provide good news...and to prove this "bad" report, you use the source you claim is inaccurate).
I swear the anti-Obama crowd are some of the most illogical (and most transparent) people I've ever seen.
Jobless Rate in U.S. Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump - Bloomberg
I know, I know... it's only true if it's bad news Obama.
To those of us that are not abject Obama haters, this is fantastic news!
And your comment, in no way, addresses what I actually said. But thank you for missing the point (as you so often seem to do when replying to me).O
Come on now.
The fact that this jobs report is bad (imo - all extra employed are teenagers and over 55 PLUS 82K less 20-54 employed PLUS average hourly wage dropped) in no way proves that the numbers were not 'cooked' (nor does it prove the opposite).
How do you know the numbers weren't awesome and the BLS was instructed to cook the books to make the Dems not look great for the midterm elections?How do you know the numbers were truly horrible and the BLS was instructed to cook the books to make the Dem's look good for the midterm elections?
Good try, but your fallacious argument is laughable.If you have factual proof from an unbiased source that proves that the BLS did not deliberately alter the numbers
Given your earlier statement about how you ignore people who have proven you wrong, please do me a favor and ignore me now. Your schtick is tiresome, transparent and, ultimately, devoid of logic.And since I assume you have no such proof, then you cannot factually say that the BLS did not alter the numbers.
And your comment, in no way, addresses what I actually said. But thank you for missing the point (as you so often seem to do when replying to me).
How do you know the numbers weren't awesome and the BLS was instructed to cook the books to make the Dems not look great for the midterm elections?
The conspiracy theory nonsense is stupid, and anyone who buys it is someone who cares far less about the truth than they do their own personal position. When facts threaten one's position, the intellectually honest will reconsider their position. The intellectually dishonest will ignore the facts and claim they are untrue, often times with no evidence to support such an accusation.
Good try, but your fallacious argument is laughable.
It's not on me to prove the nonpartisan BLS didn't alter the numbers they report every month and have for decades. It's on YOU to prove they did. And since you have zero evidence of this, it's clear you are simply talking out of your ass.
Given your earlier statement about how you ignore people who have proven you wrong, please do me a favor and ignore me now. Your schtick is tiresome, transparent and, ultimately, devoid of logic.
BLS does not "cook the books." Its data is independent of the White House or Congress. Moreover, the basis of the labor force participation data you provide is also very same BLS that reports the headline unemployment figure.
Jobless Rate in U.S. Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump - Bloomberg
I know, I know... it's only true if it's bad news Obama.
To those of us that are not abject Obama haters, this is fantastic news!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?