- 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 9/18/14 at 9:46 am to 90proofprofessional
Posted on 9/18/14 at 9:46 am to 90proofprofessional
quote: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.
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.
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.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 9:54 am to mmcgrath
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?
How can you ignore that all other age buckets are declining, and that it is the youngest buckets that are declining the fastest?
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.
How can you ignore that all other age buckets are declining, and that it is the youngest buckets that are declining the fastest?
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.
This post was edited on 9/18/14 at 10:00 am
Posted on 9/18/14 at 10:58 am to mmcgrath
quote:No.
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.
"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.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 1:11 pm to mmcgrath
quote:Ooooooh. Now I get it. Your uncle story totally proves what's happening in the entire country. Sample of n=1. Seems adequate. Why didn't you say so?
My uncle is about 60 and has been retired from the NYPD at full benefits ($85K per year?) for about 10 years now.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News