re: Forbes Mag - Obama outperforms Reagan on jobs growth and investing

quote:

---

Your graph just shows % of workers at 55 or above and does not account for the number of retirees beginning at age 62. You are comparing apples to oranges. While the numbers of workers + 55 has increased by percentage, it is dwarfed by the number of boomers retiring. Boomers makeup the largest segment of our population so it stands that in a recession more are working, while the number of retirees 62+ is increasing even more. From 2000 to 2010, the number of Americans 65 or older grew faster than the population as a whole. By 2030, the 65+ crowd will have grown to over 70 million.

Let me put this another way. 10,000 Americans turn 65 every day. About 20% of those are part of the labor force. 80% are not. You do the math.

---

You're really reaching here. Sure it would be nicer if the graph showed 62 and above, but it's still completely refutes your assumption that the decline is primarily due to retirees.

I mean every other working age group has decreased in participation, while only one group, the 55+ has increased. If your assumption is true, and the overall increase is due to the 62 and over crowd retiring, then the much smaller 55+ group should also decrease because they make up a greater proportion.

Furthermore, even if we just disregard the 55 and older group altogether altogether, we would see a decrease due to all other age groups. There is no way to argue that the impact is solely due to retirees when everybody else has decreased.

As an example, suppose somebody is arguing that arguing that the population of the United States has grown solely due to the growth of one city (like the 62+). When presented with population change of that city's state (55+), a decrease is shown while all other states (54 and under)have grown. Regardless if that city's population grew (which the state's population decline should cause skepticism anyways) the growth of the other states would discredit the absolute nature of the original argument.

quote:

---

Let me put this another way. 10,000 Americans turn 65 every day. About 20% of those are part of the labor force. 80% are not. You do the math

---

This is a bit deceiving. There are thousands of individuals reaching working age everyday too. Maybe the proportion reaching retirement age relative to those reading working age has increased, but I doubt that the difference has any significant impact when compared to the working population as a whole.

Although the article you posted discusses other groups in decline, I see that Jason Furman was highlighting the aging trend. I'm not one to explicitly question the motives of an individual, but as a White House economic advisor, he is far from an unbiased source.

Everyone just needs to shut the frick up and admit Obama is awesome.

quote:

---

A rightwing rag speaking the truth.

---

You're a few years behind the times. Forbes isn't a conservative rag by any stretch

What a dumbshit article.

quote:

---

Let me put this another way. 10,000 Americans turn 65 every day. About 20% of those are part of the labor force. 80% are not. You do the math.

---

and in 2008, those numbers were about 16% and 84%. 10 years ago they were 14% and 86%.

quote:

---

and in 2008, those numbers were about 16% and 84%. 10 years ago they were 14% and 86%.

---

Do you not agree that the 55 + group can have increased percentages AND the number of retirees also increases, because that is the situation. Its about the total mass of the population group.

Another thing, I never said that retirees are the reason for the declining participation - I said they are a factor, as is the economy. I'm not selling Obama's miracle because it doesn't exist. I'm just pointing out that for those who want to say the economy hasn't improve appreciably under Obama are discounting the improvements.

The problem with this board is that folks tend to think in absolute terms and the reality is that most of the time, you can't judge something fairly in black and white terms. But I understand the negative bias that many have for Obama. I just think that the daily dog pile by the same folks on every aspect of Obama's administration is based more on politics than facts.

quote:

---

So half the drop in the labor force participation rate isn't due to Baby boomers. And even without that boomer drop, we'd have an issue.

---

Almost the entire drop in labor participation rate has been because of Baby Boomers.

Baby Boomers are right now between 50 and 68 years old. That population historically has one of the lowest participation rates next to teenagers. They are old, have outdated skills, and may have enough money to semi-retire but are willing to work for the right job if it comes by. So while they haven't officially retired yet, they are still a part of the workforce but obviously they take jobs less than a 30 or 40 year old would.

quote:

---

Anyone who was an adult during the era of Reagan and is around to witness this monstrosity of a presidency knows there is no comparison. The mood of the country after Carter was horrible just like it is now, and Reagan came in and made us proud to be American's again. People and the economy were revitalized and the mood was optimism. One doesn't need an article or chart to know that Obama is no Reagan, they only need a memory.

---

Because of Reagan or because of new gadgets like microwave ovens, VCR's, CD's, Personal Computers, etc? Because I am going with the "everything BUT Reagan" theory.