Started By
Message

re: Record 95,102,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Up 18% Since Obama Took Office

Posted on 1/6/17 at 4:11 pm to
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
124099 posts
Posted on 1/6/17 at 4:11 pm to
quote:

So it DOES include retirees after all.
Yep. Thank goodness, eh?

Otherwise the numbers might look even worse for Obama
Posted by Eurocat
Member since Apr 2004
15048 posts
Posted on 1/6/17 at 4:12 pm to
quote:

if people believe the UE rate is under 5% then I don't know what to say.


There are help wante signs all over the place in the NY area. No shortage of jobs.
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35240 posts
Posted on 1/6/17 at 4:15 pm to
quote:

The entire populations of the UK and France is equal to the amount of people unemployed in the US. Think about that.
Imagine what the China or India unemployed population is then.

It's almost as if much larger populations result in much larger subpopulations.

Weird.
This post was edited on 1/6/17 at 4:23 pm
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35240 posts
Posted on 1/6/17 at 4:17 pm to
quote:

Otherwise the numbers might look even worse for Obama
Maybe but we can get into something like the Simpson's Paradox with this.
Posted by ForeLSU
The Corner of Sanity and Madness
Member since Sep 2003
41525 posts
Posted on 1/6/17 at 4:37 pm to
I stated "from a pure number standpoint". I would say the trend is pretty consistent and established.

Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
124099 posts
Posted on 1/6/17 at 5:07 pm to
quote:

I would say the trend is pretty consistent and established.
When the variance is 0.75 vs 3, yet a scale of 1-to-100 is employed, you're correct, the 400% change is not particularly noticeable.
Posted by RockyMtnTigerWDE
War Damn Eagle Dad!
Member since Oct 2010
105431 posts
Posted on 1/6/17 at 5:09 pm to
If you see a help wanted sign it isn't for a job that you won't be getting subsidies and government help too.
Posted by ForeLSU
The Corner of Sanity and Madness
Member since Sep 2003
41525 posts
Posted on 1/6/17 at 5:16 pm to
quote:

When the variance is 0.75 vs 3, yet a scale of 1-to-100 is employed, you're correct, the 400% change is not particularly noticeable.


Posted by mmcgrath
Indianapolis
Member since Feb 2010
35453 posts
Posted on 1/6/17 at 5:24 pm to
quote:

Actually I was incorrect. That 95 million # is basically all humans 16 and over capable of work. I was mistaken.

However, the stagnation of our economy is not due to retirees. I've posted the statistics tirelessly in the past showing older people working longer due to uncertainty in the economy, record # of food stamps, declining home ownership, lowering of work week hours, part-time vs. full time jobs and decreasing to stagnant median income.

I'm not posting the links to that today because I'm off. Mmcgrath, you know of the stats I've posted. We've had this argument many times.


Thank you for admitting that. Obviously the "anthrax is airborne" poster would never admit to a mistake.

In actuality, short term recessions cause the LFP rate to spike as some of those stay at home moms and early retirees jump back into the workforce to make ends meet. People close to retirement hold off. Then when the recession is over the rate falls back down to where it would have been if it followed the trend.

On top of that, the characteristics of the Baby Boomers was that they worked until longer in life and had more dual income families than the generations before and after. The younger generations nowadays tend to have more stay at home moms than Baby Boomers, believe it or not.

Finally, the excessive public raises handed out in the late 1990's are coming home to roost as new workers are retiring after 20 years since their pensions (meant to be based off lower wages) are so lucrative. I have several cousins just shy of 50 who are retired former police officers. With pensions close to or above 6 figures, why work?
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
124099 posts
Posted on 1/6/17 at 5:30 pm to
quote:

In actuality, short term recessions cause the LFP rate to spike as some of those stay at home moms and early retirees jump back into the workforce to make ends meet. People close to retirement hold off. Then when the recession is over the rate falls back down to where it would have been if it followed the trend
It's been EIGHT YEARS!
Posted by mmcgrath
Indianapolis
Member since Feb 2010
35453 posts
Posted on 1/6/17 at 5:47 pm to
quote:

quote:

In actuality, short term recessions cause the LFP rate to spike as some of those stay at home moms and early retirees jump back into the workforce to make ends meet. People close to retirement hold off. Then when the recession is over the rate falls back down to where it would have been if it followed the trend

It's been EIGHT YEARS!
Spike, as in to go up. I was mostly referring to the blip you see between 2006 and 2010 on the LFP rate graph, but you already know that. LFP follows trends spanning decades and are unaffected by any national policy or economic conditions except in the short term. The only way to artificially raise it is to sink the economy.
This post was edited on 1/6/17 at 5:48 pm
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
124099 posts
Posted on 1/6/17 at 5:55 pm to
quote:

I was mostly referring to the blip you see between 2006 and 2010 on the LFP rate graph
Do tell.

Posted by Big12fan
Dallas
Member since Nov 2011
5340 posts
Posted on 1/6/17 at 5:58 pm to
There's a lot of ignorance in this thread. Hopefully a few of you will read about the difference between avaiable jobs and labor force participation rates.

From July 2015

quote:

There are more job openings available in America today than at any point since the Bureau of Labor Statistics first started tracking vacancy data back in December 2000. Yet the percentage of adult Americans working or actively looking for a job stands at 62.6 percent, the lowest level in nearly four decades.


The problem is not jobs. Its that they aren't getting filled. And there is no one single reason but a combination of reasons, so pay attention you fricking simpletons.

quote:

"What that means is the low levels of participation we see today are not primarily due to the economic cycle. They're due to a much longer lasting demographic influence," Wolfers said. "It's actually something that's going to continue over the next decade."

Baby boomers – made up of the large subset of Americans born between 1946 and 1964 – dominated the domestic labor market for years. But now that they're leaving the workforce en masse, their exodus has dragged (and will continue to drag) on the country's overall participation rate.

"Baby boomers in a big lump are leaving the labor force. And that explains about half of the drop in the labor force participation rate between 2007 and the end of 2014," says Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist at Glassdoor. "The second factor is education – people getting more education and staying in school longer. If you get an MBA, you're out of the labor force for three years. If you get a Ph.D., you're out of the labor force for 5 years, maybe 7 years."



and it continues

LINK
Posted by MrCarton
Paradise Valley, MT
Member since Dec 2009
20231 posts
Posted on 1/6/17 at 6:00 pm to
quote:

If this was a trend before Obama was sworn in, then how can this be pinned on him?


I don't blame the crisis on him. I call him out for taking credit for shite that's clearly not true.
Posted by Putty
Member since Oct 2003
25488 posts
Posted on 1/6/17 at 7:35 pm to
Liar. Unemployment is down. Fake news.
Posted by AlaTiger
America
Member since Aug 2006
21123 posts
Posted on 1/6/17 at 8:44 pm to
quote:

So it does include retirees and students. Am I reading this wrong or am I crazy?


Yes. It includes retirees. Every time this issue comes up on this board, people come on here and say that it doesn't include retirees. Then, you can look it up and literally every article you find about the LFP, including definitions, say that it is those 16 and older. Period. Including retirees.

There are even breakdowns for age including those 25-64. That age group has an LPR of around 77%, I believe.

As Baby Boomers age and younger people go to college and stay in college more, as women stay home with kids more than in the past, as people retire early, go on disability, or just don't adapt and develop skills with a changing job market and find ways to not work and live off others or the government, the LFP has dropped. Our workforce is aging, but people are living longer as well.

Am I wrong? Can someone post something definitive that says the LFP is just those age 16-65? I have not seen anything.

Check this out. It explains it well:LINK /
This post was edited on 1/6/17 at 9:03 pm
Posted by AlaTiger
America
Member since Aug 2006
21123 posts
Posted on 1/6/17 at 8:56 pm to
quote:

"What that means is the low levels of participation we see today are not primarily due to the economic cycle. They're due to a much longer lasting demographic influence," Wolfers said. "It's actually something that's going to continue over the next decade."

Baby boomers – made up of the large subset of Americans born between 1946 and 1964 – dominated the domestic labor market for years. But now that they're leaving the workforce en masse, their exodus has dragged (and will continue to drag) on the country's overall participation rate.

"Baby boomers in a big lump are leaving the labor force. And that explains about half of the drop in the labor force participation rate between 2007 and the end of 2014," says Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist at Glassdoor. "The second factor is education – people getting more education and staying in school longer. If you get an MBA, you're out of the labor force for three years. If you get a Ph.D., you're out of the labor force for 5 years, maybe 7 years."




Yes. Thank you. This is what every single assessment of the Labor Participation Rate says. How in the world do we keep believing that the drop is because people cannot find work who are looking?

The gap in population and jobs has been filled by immigrants, but now they are going to be reduced as well. So, the supply of jobs will go beyond the demand of those looking for work and we will either had contraction of the job market and availability, or automation and outsourcing will continue. But, since jobs can't go overseas anymore, then companies will have to downsize. The difference in supply and demand always creates a recession/contraction of the economy. This is basic economics. But, instead of growing the economy, we are actually moving in a direction of shrinking it all because people are too stupid to understand simple data and facts and because, OH NO!!! Brown people are taking our jobs!!!

A contraction of the supply of workers will not cause wages to go up in the long run. It might create a wage bubble in some fields, but the bubble will burst when their is a shrinking market for products. This will cause the economy to shrink, ultimately. Unless, of course, we are able to increase our markets around the world, but that is unlikely because we are pulling back from global involvement (which will increase instability) and we are going to engage in currency wars and trade wars led by tariffs, driving prices of imports up and making it more expensive for countries to send goods to the U.S. They will close their doors to U.S. products in retaliation and the global economy will slow as "wall" go up everywhere. How do wages rise in that situation? This isn't post WW2 when the industrialized world was in ruins and all that remained was America to rebuild everything. We are in a much different situation than 1945-60. It is shocking that those wanting to MAGA don't seem to realize that.

But, whatever. I'm just a globalist capitalist (or something) who doesn't understand the world.
Posted by AlaTiger
America
Member since Aug 2006
21123 posts
Posted on 1/6/17 at 9:01 pm to
Looks like Baby Boomers retiring and Millennials not entering the workforce in the same numbers. Lots of things were set back by the 2007-2009 Great Recession as well. People stayed in school longer and trillions of dollars in wealth were wiped out. Blaming Obama for ALL of this is just stupid, in my opinion.

Inflation has stayed low, interest rates are incredibly low, taxes are higher, but it isn't like they are THAT much higher to create a huge contraction of business. What has Obama done to drive the LFP that low if it isn't about demographic issues? Can you list his policies? Because, those are the things that we need to change right away to get it back up, right? So, let's change those things that Obama instituted to drive the LFP down 5%
This post was edited on 1/6/17 at 9:04 pm
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
57357 posts
Posted on 1/6/17 at 9:30 pm to
quote:

By all means, don't let facts stand in your way, Haughton.
It's hilarious they still cling to this. Given the decreased participation rates in other age groups... on would have to presume that when a person retires... no one move up to fill that job. Younger age groups should be at record high participation rates if their theory was true.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
124099 posts
Posted on 1/6/17 at 9:59 pm to
quote:

Blaming Obama for ALL of this is just stupid, in my opinion.
It has been EIGHT (8) years! EIGHT (8) long-arse years! Are you still blaming the other 'W' guy?

You want to define "stupid"?
Blaming Bush at this stage fully qualifies.

Obama has overseen the worst post-recession economic recovery in the history of our country. It is what it is. He berated business. He increased taxes. He increased regulations. He oversaw and encouraged social unrest. He was awful.
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram