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

quote:

---

Empirical evidence that is DEVASTATING to this very strong claim has been presented ITT.

---

Can you please highlight the "devastating" evidence please. Because half of what I see is discussing retirement rates which is just beginning for Baby Boomers and drives participation rates back up.

Edit: I see that you added a link under ITT.

As you can see in the graph, the participation rates for 25-54 and 55+ are relatively level over the last 6 years. However the participation rate for the older group is about 40% while it is 80% for the younger group.

Riddle me this: If the percentage of the workforce above 55 increase to 20%+ from 16%, while the highest participating group drops percentage wise at the same time, do you think that participation rates go up or down?

The OBVIOUS answer is that participation rates are down because we have a lot more older Americans who haven't reached retirement age now vs 6-10 years ago.

Unless I have fundamentally misunderstood the definition of participation rate as it applies to retirees, I do not see how your last two paragraphs in the edit follow.

quote:

---

Unless I have fundamentally misunderstood the definition of participation rate as it applies to retirees, I do not see how your last two paragraphs in the edit follow.

---

Unless you actually indicate you are retired, you are considered part of the work force. A 60 year old who took a layoff or left a job when their pension was vested is unemployed but since social security and perhaps their pension benefits haven't kicked in, they haven't officially called it quits. They may not even be actively looking for a new job but may take some part time work.

My uncle is about 60 and has been retired from the NYPD at full benefits ($85K per year?) for about 10 years now. He sometimes works part time as a bartender mostly just for enjoyment and may occasionally take up a "contract" assignment. He is all but retired but would be considered part of the work force that is either marginally employed or maybe unemployed / not actively seeking work.

But the bottom line is that the reasons don't matter. All that matters is that that age group participates the least and right now we have more people in that age group as a percentage of the population than ever before.

quote:

---

The OBVIOUS answer is that participation rates are down because we have a lot more older Americans who haven't reached retirement age now vs 6-10 years ago.

---

Gotdamn you dumb.

quote:

---

Americans disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy by a 2:1 margin.

But Americans are also the stupid people who voted for him. When are we supposed to think their opinion is important, again?

---

I believe the people who voted for obama and the people who participate in polls on economic factors are two entirely different groups of people.

quote:

---

You offer the example of your uncle, who by your account is neither retired nor a discouraged worker, as evidence that retiring boomers are responsible for- your words- "almost the entire drop" in the LFPR?

---

When he is working part time he will not appear in the regular unemployment numbers but will factor in the U-6. When he is not working he is not looking for work so will be considered a non participant. Perhaps he says he would take a job but there is nothing out there for him right now. Then he would factor in the U-7.

The bottom line is that as you get into the 50's and 60's, more people are semi retired and the participation rate drops. No matter what.

quote:

---

How can you ignore that all other age buckets are declining, and that it is the youngest buckets that are declining the fastest?

---

Because any declines following the recession are relatively very small and their numbers are dropping as a percentage of the population, so any affect is minimized.

quote:

---

ETA: this discussion might be pulling away from the successfully-trolled direction of the thread, as young folks' decline in LF participation isn't Obama's fault- it goes back to the 80-90's.

---

Fair point. It was Reagan's fault. jk.

quote:

---

:| It's been dropping since the mid-90's.

---

The oldest Baby Boomers are 68 right now. They started turning 50 in 1996, so that would be about right.

quote:

---

Ok, let's say it's 2040, and the boomers are all retired and many dead. Suppose we see declining PR's in the 35&unders, and this time with no large retiring cohort to help make room for them. Would you deny that there is a real labor market problem in that case?

---

If the regular unemployment is 5% and most of the people who are not participating aren't collecting any welfare, why should I think there is a problem in the labor market? It would seem with low unemployment that there are jobs for most anyone who wants one.

If people aren't working and don't care enough to look for a job, whether they are discouraged or not, should mean that they are doing OK. It's when unemployment hits the teens for people who need and want a job that we should worry.

quote:

---

All that matters is that that age group participates the least and right now we have more people in that age group as a percentage of the population than ever before.

---

No.

"All that matters" is the number of employed individuals in that category is at all time highs.

The percentage of employed individuals in that category is also at all time highs.

Not only has the >55y/o age group not contributed to the decline in LFPR, it has blunted it. Over the past decade the overall % of >65y/o's who remain active in the workforce has increased nearly 30%. In the meantime, young workers are getting massacred by Obamanomics.

quote:

---

The bottom line is that as you get into the 50's and 60's, more people are semi retired and the participation rate drops. No matter what.

---

quote:

---

In 2010, 16.2 percent of the population aged 65 and over were employed, up from 14.5 percent in 2005. In contrast, 60.3 percent of the 20 to 24 age group were employed in 2010, down from 68.0 percent in 2005.

Employment shares declined from 2005 to 2010 for all age groups younger than age 55. There was no statistical change in the employment share for workers aged 55 to 64 nor those aged 70 to 74. Engemann and Wall (2010) found that more people aged 55 and over were employed during the recession than would have been if there was no recession.

Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics employment data, Engemann and Wall found that during the 2007–2009 period, employment grew by 7.4 percent for the population aged 55 and over. Based on trends prior to the recession, employment for this age group was expected to grow by only 6.1 percent. All younger age groups experienced a decline in employment during the same 2007 to 2009 period.

---

LINK

quote:

---

Good Lord

---

im no economics major but the unemployment graphs are very similiar. You can insert your "but.. but... but.." reasons for why you think its actually worse, but the trends are similiar none the less.