Mass unemployment is toppling govt's across world (work, definition, invest)
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.
The labor force participation rate (LFPR) is a demographic measure far more than an economic one. It has been declining since 2000, and unless we suddenly pass an immigration reform package that significantly eases worker access across our southern border, LFPR will continue to decline for at least well into the next decade. Meanwhile, nearly four out of five people working part-time are doing so for non-economic reasons. This means that they do not wish to have a full-time job due to a variety of factors such as school or childcare obligations or Social Security income limits.
Unless we start killing off baby boomers, expect it to continue to decline. Baby boomers are retiring. Increasing number of young people are going to college delaying entry to the workforce and spending less total time in the workforce. Rise in the number of women not participating in the workforce.
Unless we start killing off baby boomers, expect it to continue to decline. Baby boomers are retiring. Increasing number of young people are going to college delaying entry to the workforce and spending less total time in the workforce. Rise in the number of women not participating in the workforce.
Baby boomers have been retiring for a while now.
I am a late boomer and I have been on pension 15 years already.
I am a late boomer and I have been on pension 15 years already.
Yes, that's the point. They're retiring and dropping out of the workforce. Until they aren't alive anymore they'll be a drag on labor force participation as, well, they're alive and not in the work force. It was called the baby boom because... well, it was a boom of babies being born following reduced birth rates from the great depression and WWII. They're been retiring and will continue retiring for several more years. Unless we start killing them off they'll keep on reducing the labor force participation rate for quite a while.
Re Pub-911 "Even on-line dictionaries make plain enough the definitions of those words, while also doing a more than adequate job of establishing the difference between luxury and poverty for the purposes of this discussion and others like it."
Poverty simply means being poor. It leaves the question unanswered of how poor. Just poor, period, as if it were an absolute number. When it's actually a relative number. Likewise, luxury simply means something expensive that's not really needed. But it leaves open the question of what's really needed. Therefore, both poverty and luxury, even with their exact dictionary definitions, are ambiguous concepts. If you live in a cardboard box and pay no rent, then from your point of view, having an apartment might be a luxury. If you don't earn enough to afford a new car, then from your point of view you might be in poverty. So the question is still begged, and the argument is getting nowhere, which is what happens to arguments about ambiguous concepts.
Yes, that's the point. They're retiring and dropping out of the workforce. Until they aren't alive anymore they'll be a drag on labor force participation as, well, they're alive and not in the work force.
Those participating in the labor force are those who have a job plus those who do not have a job but are actively looking for one. Those who are not participating in the labor force are those who do not have a job and are not looking for one either. These are typically students, homemakers, active military, institutionalized people, and persons who are retired.
Most among the institutionalized have not much say in their situations, but you'll have to force the rest of these people to do things that are clearly against their will in order to get them to participate in the labor force. How would you envision that working?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
It was called the baby boom because... well, it was a boom of babies being born following reduced birth rates from the great depression and WWII. They're been retiring and will continue retiring for several more years. Unless we start killing them off they'll keep on reducing the labor force participation rate for quite a while.
Yes, that's the whole point. LFPR is principally a DEMOGRAPHIC indicator, not an ECONOMIC indicator. Nobody had ever heard of it until hacks and screamers needed something to whine about after Great Recession unemployment began to fall.
By the way, rather than all the mess of killing off retired people, we could jump start LFPR simply by unclosing the southern border. Immigrants come here to work and when they get here, they do. As a group, they have a very high LFPR.
Another possible way to make things look better at least would be to follow the example of some in this thread and simply change the definitions of all the pertinent variables until things set up more to your liking.
Poverty simply means being poor. It leaves the question unanswered of how poor. Just poor, period, as if it were an absolute number. When it's actually a relative number. Likewise, luxury simply means something expensive that's not really needed. But it leaves open the question of what's really needed. Therefore, both poverty and luxury, even with their exact dictionary definitions, are ambiguous concepts. If you live in a cardboard box and pay no rent, then from your point of view, having an apartment might be a luxury. If you don't earn enough to afford a new car, then from your point of view you might be in poverty. So the question is still begged, and the argument is getting nowhere, which is what happens to arguments about ambiguous concepts.
LOL! Your argument is that no distinction can be made between poverty and luxury. I'd see that as being a little on the desperate side.
What do Egypt, Libya, Syria, and the USA all have in common? All have seen their govt overthrown due to mass unemployment and underemployment. Most young men believe their quality of life will be worse than their father, many can not provide for a wife or children.
Historically wars have been common when a significant percent of prime age young men are out of work. If more jobs are not created soon I think global conflict will occur.
Egypt, Libya, and Syria have nothing in common with the US including unemployment. They have complex religious, political, and social issues that we in the US cannot even grasp.
5% unemployment rate in the US is historically low, and considered the level of "full employment". "Underemployment" is an issue, but the underlying causes are nothing like the middle east. Libya and Egypt have unemployment rates approaching 20%, much larger for it's younger population. Syria of course is in the midst of a civil war.
I do agree a significant population of unemployed young adults is destabilizing. But we are talking about and comparing to 3rd world countries, nations that are unstable even in the best of times. But if you believe this compares to the US you can start posting in the prepper forum with those awaiting the zombie apocolypse.
America is a generous country and California Bay Area cities even more so...
A Section 8 certificate is a gateway to hundreds of programs... including reduced utility rates, childcare, healthcare, food, to summer teenage job experience programs...
Anyone that denies this either does not want to face the reality or chooses to be uninformed.
A little boy I know was born premature with a heart defect... his 31 year old Grandmother holds a housing voucher... she was 31 when he was born.
Over the last 7 years that child has received over a million dollars of care at Stanford at zero cost to the family... not a single penny and it looks like he will go on to live a full and active life.
The family is also housed at no cost at the Ronald McDonald House...
I realize the facts can be hard for some to accept.
Seriously. The kid has a heart defect. You don't think Stanford benefited one bit by him being there. Many doctors probably learned a lot. And never mind that is what the fund raising is for. This is exactly why Stanford has yearly funding. The rich giving money to help the unfortunate.
Good Lord the kid is sick! You think these parents want their kid in this position?
And the Ronald McDonald house is also a charity. Charities are set up for sick people to benefit.
Who knows you grow up and maybe. If you are lucky enough, you'll have a sick kid too! Sounds liike its your dream. You act as if having a sick kid if the way to riches.
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.
