- 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 10:14 am to 90proofprofessional
Posted on 9/18/14 at 10:14 am to 90proofprofessional
quote: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.
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?
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: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.
How can you ignore that all other age buckets are declining, and that it is the youngest buckets that are declining the fastest?
quote:Fair point. It was Reagan's fault. jk.
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 10:17 am
3
Posted on 9/18/14 at 10:24 am to mmcgrath
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.
:| It's been dropping since the mid-90's.
quote:
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.
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?
ETA: to be precise, I'm not saying I think that the boomers have no effect. I'm saying I think their effect is still mostly ahead of us, and that they are not driving the decline YET. The thing is, you'd expect to see increasing participation rates in the younger cohorts if age alone were the cause. It's worrying that we do not see that.
This post was edited on 9/18/14 at 10:27 am
Posted on 9/18/14 at 11:15 am to mmcgrath
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
Posted on 9/18/14 at 11:28 am to mmcgrath
quote:
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.
Even the White House report that was linked by Big12Fan, which obviously has strong incentive to minimize the drop in participation rate, does not make the claims you are making. They claim that part of the decline is due to aging, part of the decline is due on the economy(not negligible like you state), and unknown causes for the recent decline. Although, they appear to overweight the influence of aging (their models consistently under predicts compare to the observed data until 2008), even they can't support the extent of your claims.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News