Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's no such thing as a "real" unemployment rate. There are various measures for unemployment, and they all have a purpose. Measures like U-3 exist to get around shortcomings with total participation rate.
The Great recession was, in the long term, a blip in labor force participation rate (much like prior recessions). There is a long term decline in labor force participation because of . . . wait for it . . . an aging population.
Well, I guess it's better than the 0% right of your post.
Since 2003, those 65 years and older have seen their labor force participation rate rise from 13.99 percent to 18.7 percent. Those aged 55-64 saw their rate rise from 62.44 percent to 64.36 percent
You misunderstand the issue: while comparing the LFPR of older people today to older workers of the past, there is a small uptick. But there are a lot more older people today than there once were. Your Forbes editorial gets 5/5 Pinocchios for misleading deployment of statistics.
You can see that, for both men and women, participation rates are absolutely higher for younger people and absolutely lower as people age. That a higher percentage of 70 year-olds is in the labor force today than in 1990 is true, but the percentage of 70 year-olds in the labor force today is lower than the percentage of 30 year-olds in the labor force today.
There's no such thing as a "real" unemployment rate. There are various measures for unemployment, and they all have a purpose. Measures like U-3 exist to get around shortcomings with total participation rate.
Thank you.
When people say there is some different "real" unemployment rate that experts use, those experts invariably turn out to be some guy with a blog.
That's basically civilian labor force participation rate, not unemployment rate. It's fairly normal, yes. At its highest, civilian labor force participation rate was 67.3% and is currently 62.6%. A lot more young people aren't working because they're getting an education. Usually the types of jobs students had are the ones we're now calling for a $15/minimum wage for, flipping burgers and the like. Stay-at-home moms is also increasing, combined with the new emergence of stay-at-home dads.
It really doesn't bug me at all. As long as people aren't on welfare, I don't particularly care if they work or not. That's a personal decision. If they don't want to work because they're focusing on school and the employment opportunities aren't that great or so they can be a stay-at-home parent or just stay-at-home wife/husband, I'm fine with that. The only part of it that does trouble me is trying to turn jobs for teenagers and college students into de facto careers. Part of the reason students aren't working is because those jobs are now taken up by people working them as careers instead of part-time jobs while they improve themselves. Again, I'm fine with that but not in conjunction with using the government to enforce a paradigm shift to substantially higher minimum wage. Index it to inflation, fine. Double the minimum wage in a short time frame? Not fine.
Show me evidence that these jobs are for teenager and college students. Why do people continue to make the same garbage argument with no evidence to back it up and act like it is a fact.
The labor department is a taxpayers waste of money as they report erroneous statistics just short of a literal scam. The reporting is not necessarily done by spin doctors ,but rather the bogus criteria used to collect data. Part-time jobs today can score entry ,but what's not reported that too many ( millions of jobs) are one day, 6 hours as opposed to 8 traditional hours or subject to cancellation on a whim or in fairness demand that has been poorly perceived. You aren't needed today. Oh it got busy can you come in for three hours?. I agree with fellow poster that unemployment is easily 26%.and 40 hour with benefits 40%!!
The OP asked: How many people do you know who are homemakers? I don't know of anyone.
I really think it depends on your socioeconomic class. If you live in the land of 5%ers, you'll know tons of families where they have the wealth to drop down to a single income and focus on raising a family. If you're in working class housing and work an hourly wage job, that's unlikely to be your experience. Everybody works because it would be challenging to pay your bills without having two incomes even factoring in daycare costs.
I know several stay-at-home dads with high income wives.
The 5%ers, by definition, are 5% of the population. No one in the bottom 20% can afford to be a stay-at-home parent. Many of the are stay-at-home in the bottom 50% are so because there are not enough jobs out there. The 50-95%ers may have that option.
No one in the bottom 20% can afford to be a stay-at-home parent.
Sheesh dude what do you just state whatever pops into your head as fact whether you know it is true or not? The lower the education and income level the higher the chance someone is a stay-at-home parent.
- The percentage of mothers who are employed rises from 48% among those with no college education to 66% of those with some college experience, 75% of those with a college degree, and 84% of those with postgraduate education.
- A similar pattern is seen by income, contradicting any possible assumption that stay-at-home moms are largely privileged. Low-income mothers are far less likely to be employed than are upper-income mothers (45% vs. 77%), a finding that is repeated with fathers
- These patterns may highlight the economic constraints that childcare costs put on women and families. Unless a mother can obtain a good job, likely depending on whether she has advanced education, there may be little or no financial benefit to her working. And, as a result, the household's overall income is lower than in households where the mother does work.
A growing share of stay-at-home mothers (6% in 2012, compared with 1% in 2000) say they are home with their children because they cannot find a job. With incomes stagnant in recent years for all but the college-educated, less educated workers in particular may weigh the cost of child care against wages and decide it makes more economic sense to stay home
The labor department is a taxpayers waste of money as they report erroneous statistics just short of a literal scam. The reporting is not necessarily done by spin doctors ,but rather the bogus criteria used to collect data. Part-time jobs today can score entry ,but what's not reported that too many ( millions of jobs) are one day, 6 hours as opposed to 8 traditional hours or subject to cancellation on a whim or in fairness demand that has been poorly perceived. You aren't needed today. Oh it got busy can you come in for three hours?. I agree with fellow poster that unemployment is easily 26%.and 40 hour with benefits 40%!!
According to the U-100 measure I just made up, that only counts un-lose-able jobs, 100% of the population is unemployed. This will surely have an impact on public policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang
Sheesh dude what do you just state whatever pops into your head as fact whether you know it is true or not? The lower the education and income level the higher the chance someone is a stay-at-home parent.
That doesn't mean they can afford to be stay-at-home parents, it just means they don't have another option.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
