- Joined
- Dec 20, 2012
- Messages
- 7,302
- Reaction score
- 3,402
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
It's 101,000,000 age 16+ not in prison or an institution thy aren't working. Your 92 million are those not trying to work. Over half are old, disabled, both, students, stay home soused etc.92,000,000 people aren't working. And you are the stats god?
LOL, only in your warped little delusional world.
92,000,000 people aren't working. And you are the stats god?
LOL, only in your warped little delusional world.
Maybe he doesn't consider them "people"Do you REALLY expect every single high schooler and college student to have a job? Do you REALLY expect my 99 year old grandmother to have a job?
Really?
Do you just not like facts that disagree with you or something? The working-age population has increased considerably, while employment levels are at the same level they were before the increase. Obviously, that translates to a lower labor-force participation rate among people below retirement age and thus points to the labor force participation figure not being affected merely by retirement of baby-boomers. What you are saying is completely at odds with what every single expert has said about the labor-force participation rate. It is a reflection of the economy that labor-force participation rates have declined so much, not demographics.
Do you REALLY expect every single high schooler and college student to have a job? Do you REALLY expect my 99 year old grandmother to have a job?
Really?
That's only 18-65 year old people.
You see, when you don't care if what you say is truth or not, that's the same as lying. You have no idea what the age groups actually are...at best you're just assuming.That's only 18-65 year old people.
Well, you don't...BLS never uses 65 as an upper bound. But we can derive the 18-64 Not in the Labor Force. A-13. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by age, sex, and raceWhere do you find the figures broken down like that? .
You see, when you don't care if what you say is truth or not, that's the same as lying. You have no idea what the age groups actually are...at best you're just assuming.
Well, you don't...BLS never uses 65 as an upper bound. But we can derive the 18-64 Not in the Labor Force. A-13. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by age, sex, and race
Total age 16+ Not in the Labor Force: 91,782,000
Age 16-17 Not in the Labor Force: 7,006,000
Age 65+ Not in the Labor Force: 36,324,000
So: 91,782,000-7,006,000-36,324,000=48,452,000
And doing the same for Unemployed:
16+ = 9,443,000
16 - 17 = 443,000
65+ = 419,000
9,443,000-443,000-419,000 = 8,581,000
Which means total without work age 18-64 is 57,003,000
No.
the CLFPR includes people over 65, and every high school and college age person. That's one of the issues with that metric.
Due to the fact that the baby boomers have been retiring in mass, we now have a larger percent of retired people than ever, which makes the CLFPR look much worse than it actually is. We should probably narrow the age range to something like age 25-65.
Please try and look over the conversation before commenting. The working-age population has gone up a lot, yet the employment level is the same. Many people work in high school, never mind college where it is even more common. Not only do you have to consider those who are reaching working age, but those moving into the average age of higher employment. All stats point to one unavoidable conclusion: a large percentage of workers have left the work force for economic reasons. How much of it is a product of that is up for dispute, but no one would argue that the economy is not a heavy contributor. Higher levels of retirement would have continued a much slower gradual decline, but the economy caused a more precipitous decline. This is recognized as fact among every expert economist and serious commentator. It is also a significant part of what is causing the decline in the unemployment rate as many who were unemployed have ceased looking for work due to a lack of available jobs and are thus no longer considered in the unemployment stats. The low-level growth of jobs does provide some benefit to the economy as any increase in wage-earners has a positive impact, but the U.S. is not even close to being at its pre-crisis point of economic well-being.
Please try and look over the conversation before commenting. The working-age population has gone up a lot, yet the employment level is the same. Many people work in high school, never mind college where it is even more common. Not only do you have to consider those who are reaching working age, but those moving into the average age of higher employment. All stats point to one unavoidable conclusion: a large percentage of workers have left the work force for economic reasons. How much of it is a product of that is up for dispute, but no one would argue that the economy is not a heavy contributor. Higher levels of retirement would have continued a much slower gradual decline, but the economy caused a more precipitous decline. This is recognized as fact among every expert economist and serious commentator. It is also a significant part of what is causing the decline in the unemployment rate as many who were unemployed have ceased looking for work due to a lack of available jobs and are thus no longer considered in the unemployment stats. The low-level growth of jobs does provide some benefit to the economy as any increase in wage-earners has a positive impact, but the U.S. is not even close to being at its pre-crisis point of economic well-being.
are young people entering the work force faster than the boomers are now retiring from it?
i have looked for the data and was unable to find it
are young people entering the work force faster than the boomers are now retiring from it?
i have looked for the data and was unable to find it
Except they don't?Do you just not like facts that disagree with you or something?
Exactly. That was my point all along. There are more people in the labor force than there was before the recession.The working-age population has increased considerably
Not everyone retires at the same age. I thought this was common sense. We're talking about Baby Boomers and they are retiring, whether your acknowledge it or not.while employment levels are at the same level they were before the increase. Obviously, that translates to a lower labor-force participation rate among people below retirement age
I never said JUST the Baby Boomers. Is it really so hard for people to understand an argument completely before making ridiculous posts about it?and thus points to the labor force participation figure not being affected merely by retirement of baby-boomers.
I guess when you were proven wrong over and over again, all you had left was to say something which had nothing to do with what we were talking about. That's an incredibly dishonest tactic you just tried to employ. I would be ashamed of myself if I felt the need to make useless and unrelated comments to avoid admitting I was wrong, like you just did.92,000,000 people aren't working. And you are the stats god?
LOL, only in your warped little delusional world.
Exactly. That was my point all along. There are more people in the labor force than there was before the recession.
Not everyone retires at the same age. I thought this was common sense. We're talking about Baby Boomers and they are retiring, whether your acknowledge it or not.
I never said JUST the Baby Boomers.
Just admit you don't understand how jobs reports work and admit you were wrong about the number of people in the labor force.
*sigh*Working-age population, not working population.
*sigh*
It amazes me how you keep thinking you're making relevant points, while simultaneously continually missing my points. Take time to read what I said and then get back to me.
What you're likely referring to is the labor force participation rate. Big difference. And how is it explained? The Baby Boomers are retiring. That's how it is explained.
...The biggest decline by number and by percentage is in the under 55 crowd. Are you saying those people are "retiring" in the millions?...
I figure if they are not working, and not looking for work, then they are retiring.
My mother-in-law chose to not work after age 50 (about 15 years ago), she essentially retired, I don't know what else you could call it.
It declined among every under 55 age group, not just those close to 55. You can call it all retiring, but that's not very credible.
Well what would you call it then? Being a housewife or stay at home dad, or college student? Is any of that so horrible? We had an even lower percent of our people working outside the home prior to 1978 than we do today.
I don't think that labels are important. The CLFPR peaked in 1999 and has been dropping ever since. I'm sure there are lots of reasons for this happening, and I am sure that this trend will continue for decades, until there are virtually no more jobs (as the need for human labor continues to be replaced with technology).
I'm not even sure what we are arguing about, or are we even arguing?
We are arguing the insistence of some people that this cannot possibly be economic in origin. After all, if it were economic in origin, it would suggest the economy is not as stellar as many want to believe. Natch, aside from the usual people who just refuse to believe the economy is in bad shape, a lot of it is partisan in nature. If the "recovery" is mostly illusory then it means Obama has not saved America like the liberal Übermensch many wanted.
The unemployment rate is 6.3%, which is higher than the normal 5% which is considered full employment. So obviously, there are people who are not working due to unemployment.
I don't know that anyone claims that our economy is stellar, not even Obama, except that maybe it is stellar compared to the way it was during the Great Bush Recession.
The labor force participation rate is at issue here. You are really stretching credulity if you are insisting that the significant decline in labor participation by people age 25-34 is anything but a consequence of the economy. No shortage of analysts have confirmed that the decline in labor force participation is primarily driven by the state of the economy. Having the same amount of people in the labor force as before the crisis is not a good thing when there are far more people needing financial support. The percentage of GDP represented by corporate profits is another one of those bad signs given that they are mostly hoarding cash rather than putting it to work in the system.
The "Great Bush Recession" is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. It is a partisan take on economics that prevents people from viewing the numbers realistically.
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?