- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Forbes Mag - Obama outperforms Reagan on jobs growth and investing
Posted on 9/17/14 at 8:17 pm to 90proofprofessional
Posted on 9/17/14 at 8:17 pm to 90proofprofessional
Exactly
0
Posted on 9/17/14 at 8:23 pm to Jbird
quote:
Why you hating on TT9? It's his quote.
Dude it's your post. Don't make this any harder than it already is. Just. Take it.
It'll be over soon
Posted on 9/17/14 at 8:25 pm to EthanL
You still hold gun owners to the same level of disdain as terrorists?
Posted on 9/17/14 at 8:39 pm to Jbird
quote:
You still hold gun owners to the same level of disdain as terrorists?
No
Posted on 9/17/14 at 8:40 pm to EthanL
quote:he's a typical republican coward.
Dude it's your post. Don't make this any harder than it already is. Just. Take it.
Posted on 9/17/14 at 8:41 pm to TT9
quote:Says the dipshit that deleted his post.
he's a typical republican coward.
Posted on 9/17/14 at 8:46 pm to EthanL
What changed your mind?
Posted on 9/17/14 at 8:55 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
Recognizing that first the economy, then the stock market and now jobs are all trending upward is important – even as all 3 measures will have short-term disappointments.
To keep pace with population growth, the economy needs to create 180k to 220k jobs/ month. That doesn't decrease unemployment in any significant way. It keeps it static. Additionally, when surveying the number of part-time jobs which are counted as created jobs, we truly realize that not all jobs created are created equal.
The economy contracted two quarters ago. Long long long after the actual recession and even long long long after a supposed recovery.
For all the folks who desire to keep smearing lipstick on the pig, it won't change the actual economy.
Posted on 9/17/14 at 9:03 pm to NC_Tigah
While I think the article is biased in favor of Obama, it is common knowledge that the labor participation rate is greatly affected by the large number of baby boomers retiring. As the chart below shows, the labor participation rate peaked in 2000 at 67%. The oldest of the baby boomers began retiring in 2008. By 2020, 25% of Americans will be at or above retirement age. Doesn't matter who is POTUS, with increased retirements, automation, etc, it would have fallen regardless.
Now if you want to subtract baby boomer retirements from the total number not looking for work, then the Labor Participation Rate should be adjusted upward by 1.6 %.
So in reality, the economy is not on steriods, but it doesn't totally suck either. As usual in these arguments, the middle ground is the winner.
More information here LINK
Now if you want to subtract baby boomer retirements from the total number not looking for work, then the Labor Participation Rate should be adjusted upward by 1.6 %.
So in reality, the economy is not on steriods, but it doesn't totally suck either. As usual in these arguments, the middle ground is the winner.
quote:
The participate rate, which is the portion of adults employed or looking for a job, is “one of the most puzzling and for many people [most] misunderstood parts of the labor market,” according to Jason Furman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and a co-author of the report. At 62.8 percent, it is the lowest it’s been since 1978 and has fallen 3.1 percentage points since 2007, a year before the oldest baby boomers turned 62 and become eligible for early Social Security benefits. Baby boomers' retiring accounts for about 1.6 percentage points of the fall.
More information here LINK
This post was edited on 9/17/14 at 9:06 pm
Posted on 9/17/14 at 9:11 pm to Jbird
Own your quote bitch.
Posted on 9/17/14 at 9:12 pm to Big12fan
quote:
At 62.8 percent, it is the lowest it’s been since 1978 and has fallen 3.1 percentage points since 2007, a year before the oldest baby boomers turned 62 and become eligible for early Social Security benefits. Baby boomers' retiring accounts for about 1.6 percentage points of the fall.
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.
Posted on 9/17/14 at 9:17 pm to Big12fan
quote:
The oldest of the baby boomers began retiring in 2008. By 2020, 25% of Americans will be at or above retirement age. Doesn't matter who is POTUS, with increased retirements, automation, etc, it would have fallen regardless.
Posted on 9/17/14 at 9:22 pm to the808bass
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.
The point is that the issue was there before Obama arrived on the scene. It was on a stead decline for most of the 2000s. No doubt the recession or what remains of it is also a key factor, but you can't disagree with the fact that the 1.4 million new jobs added in the first half of 2014 is the best 6 months since 1990. Again, we are in the middle ground as far as grading the performance of the economy under Obama.
This post was edited on 9/17/14 at 9:23 pm
Posted on 9/17/14 at 9:29 pm to Big12fan
quote:
The point is that the issue was there before Obama arrived on the scene.
Yes. Much like every issue in the course of human history, the arc of a trend is usually longer than 4 years or 6 years. That's not a defense of Obama or his economic policies. Real household earnings are still down versus pre recession. It's down 8 whole percent. That's not a recovery, whatever other numbers you want to arrange around it as dressing.
Posted on 9/17/14 at 9:31 pm to Big12fan
quote:Again . . .
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.
The point is that the issue was there before Obama arrived on the scene.
. . . the only LFPR age group not in decline is the very one you claim as responsible for the overall LFPR decline
Posted on 9/17/14 at 9:36 pm to NC_Tigah
You're the right wing version of Tuba with all these graphs, geez.
Posted on 9/17/14 at 9:36 pm to NC_Tigah
Maybe I'm misreading this on my phone, but the graph below immediately follows this quote from the original author, Bob Deitrick.
If this graph is truly what he is referring to, then he either has no idea how to interpret a very basic graph, or he is outright lying. There is clearly a significant drop in recent years; saying anything to the contrary is just inaccurate.
Edit: After looking more closely his appears to be the graph that he is referring to; however, I do think his interpretation I a little deceiving (although it's hard to get a clear view). In particular, the most recent spike, while following a similar trajectory, seems to be significantly greater for u6 than the u3. Therefore, I would think the decreasing trend would have to be greater to compensate.
quote:
As this chart shows, the difference between reported unemployment and all unemployment – including those on the fringe of the workforce – has remained pretty constant since 1994.
If this graph is truly what he is referring to, then he either has no idea how to interpret a very basic graph, or he is outright lying. There is clearly a significant drop in recent years; saying anything to the contrary is just inaccurate.
Edit: After looking more closely his appears to be the graph that he is referring to; however, I do think his interpretation I a little deceiving (although it's hard to get a clear view). In particular, the most recent spike, while following a similar trajectory, seems to be significantly greater for u6 than the u3. Therefore, I would think the decreasing trend would have to be greater to compensate.
This post was edited on 9/17/14 at 10:01 pm
Posted on 9/17/14 at 9:49 pm to TT9
quote:Do you understand the posts?
You're the right wing version of Tuba with all these graphs, geez.
Posted on 9/17/14 at 10:13 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
the only LFPR age group not in decline is the very one you claim as responsible for the overall LFPR decline
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.
Posted on 9/17/14 at 10:29 pm to Big12fan
quote:
You do the math.
The math had already been done. A maximum of half the decrease in labor force participation is due to them.
Page 5 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News