U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 03-11-2012, 04:48 PM
 
8,487 posts, read 5,875,686 times
Reputation: 1114

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Actually it IS THAT significant. The Babyboom generation is HUGE (80 MILLION people) - dwarfing the previous generation (and signficantly bigger than later ones) - take a look at the 2nd chart to see just how enormous the jump in the birth rate was during the Babyboom years -it's a HUGE demographic wave. It's so big - and the effects of it passing out of the labor force are so profound that it's likely to generate a labor SHORTAGE over the next decade or so - which will be really good news for workers' wages.

Ken
Yeah, but how many are now retiring? That grp is those born from 46-64. We are talking about now. Not a trend over time. I am sure a bad economy does push an increase in retirees.

Last edited by CDusr; 03-11-2012 at 05:00 PM..
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-11-2012, 06:12 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,874 posts, read 22,685,733 times
Reputation: 7147
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
Then why not blame Clinton or let's go further and go back to Carter, maybe Nixon or FDR for that matter? We all know recessions take years to recover from, but this one has moved mush slower than usual...
Take it up with the American People. They have this odd habit of actually holding the guy in charge responsible for what happens on HIS watch.
Wierd eh?

Regarding the time it's taken for recovery - it HAS taken longer than usual, but it was ALSO much more SEVERE than usual. It also took place in an era when the US has MUCH more economic competition abroad than we've ever had before.

Ken
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,833 posts, read 5,815,149 times
Reputation: 3404
Quote:
Originally Posted by strawberrykiki View Post
No thanks. I believe Obama is on the right track. Not perfect, but considering the disaster he inherited, I think he's doing the best he can esepcially when he has a Congress that blocks any progress he tries to make. I'm giving him four more years.
Just how was he blocked when he had a super majority? How is he blocked when he dictates to all of us by executive order? None of this bothers you? Amazing.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 06:24 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
71,565 posts, read 83,080,621 times
Reputation: 41406
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Take it up with the American People. They have this odd habit of actually holding the guy in charge responsible for what happens on HIS watch.
Wierd eh?

Regarding the time it's taken for recovery - it HAS taken longer than usual, but it was ALSO much more SEVERE than usual. It also took place in an era when the US has MUCH more economic competition abroad than we've ever had before.

Ken
so are you one that is saying it is all Bush's fault? I was posting tongue in cheek btw. I am so tired of hearing it was all Bush's fault. Yes, whomever is in charge gets the blumt of the blame, just like the coach who's team doesn't do well. it is his/her fault. Or the other way around, the coach is almost God when the team is winning. I do agree, the world market has a lot to do with what happens in America. That is why I am the first person to say, don't give the Pres credit for a great stock market or visa versa.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 06:37 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,874 posts, read 22,685,733 times
Reputation: 7147
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
so are you one that is saying it is all Bush's fault? I was posting tongue in cheek btw. I am so tired of hearing it was all Bush's fault. Yes, whomever is in charge gets the blumt of the blame, just like the coach who's team doesn't do well. it is his/her fault. Or the other way around, the coach is almost God when the team is winning. I do agree, the world market has a lot to do with what happens in America. That is why I am the first person to say, don't give the Pres credit for a great stock market or visa versa.
Not ALL his fault, but the PRESIDENT is the one the American people LOOK TO when there are problems - that's the NATURE of being the LEADER - and he was the PRESIDENT when it all went down. WHO I think was at fault (or who YOU think was at fault for that matter) is not really relevent to the discussion, the issue was "who do the AMERICAN PEOPLE" feel was at fault - and on that question the American People have made it clear that for the most part they blame Bush. You may find that to be fair or unfair depending on your point of view and political leanings, but NONE of that changes what the AMERICAN PEOPLE feel.

Ken
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2012, 08:04 PM
 
8,487 posts, read 5,875,686 times
Reputation: 1114
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Actually it IS THAT significant. The Babyboom generation is HUGE (80 MILLION people) - dwarfing the previous generation (and signficantly bigger than later ones) - take a look at the 2nd chart to see just how enormous the jump in the birth rate was during the Babyboom years -it's a HUGE demographic wave. It's so big - and the effects of it passing out of the labor force are so profound that it's likely to generate a labor SHORTAGE over the next decade or so - which will be really good news for workers' wages.

Ken
Thought this article was very suited to this discussion.

Poof! The Government

Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2012, 08:29 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,874 posts, read 22,685,733 times
Reputation: 7147
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr View Post
Thought this article was very suited to this discussion.

Poof! The Government
Sorry, I don't buy it. Right off the bat I spot an obvious error (or more likely - deliberate misrepresentation). Graph D shows the "headline" UE rate at around 9% for 2012 and states "The graph above is our starting point and first "box". It shows the "headline" U-3 rate of unemployment in the US from 2007 through 2012 which is featured in newspaper articles and discussed on the cable business news. The rates shown are annual averages, except for 2012." The 2012 numbers are NOT near 9% - they are 8.3 (both for Jan & February).

Sorry, it's bunk.

Ken
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2012, 09:09 PM
 
8,487 posts, read 5,875,686 times
Reputation: 1114
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Sorry, I don't buy it. Right off the bat I spot an obvious error (or more likely - deliberate misrepresentation). Graph D shows the "headline" UE rate at around 9% for 2012 and states "The graph above is our starting point and first "box". It shows the "headline" U-3 rate of unemployment in the US from 2007 through 2012 which is featured in newspaper articles and discussed on the cable business news. The rates shown are annual averages, except for 2012." The 2012 numbers are NOT near 9% - they are 8.3 (both for Jan & February).

Sorry, it's bunk.

Ken
This is what it states. The Graph D shows 8.8%. Your statement hardly debunks anything.

"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in January of 2012 the civilian labor force was 153.5 million people, of which 13.5 million were unemployed. Thus the actual unemployment rate was 8.8%, and seasonal adjustments dropped the reported unemployment rates to 8.3%."

BLS data
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

Last edited by CDusr; 03-13-2012 at 09:34 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2012, 09:33 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,874 posts, read 22,685,733 times
Reputation: 7147
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr View Post
This is what it states. The Graph D shows 8.8%. Your statement hardly debunks anything.

"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in January of 2012 the civilian labor force was 153.5 million people, of which 13.5 million were unemployed. Thus the actual unemployment rate was 8.8%, and seasonal adjustments dropped the reported unemployment rates to 8.3%."
OK, I'll buy that.

As I've already said however, the Babyboomers leaving the job market is probably the major factor on the lowering of the labor participation rate.

"Now that the economy is truly expanding once again, many observers are predicting that formerly discouraged workers will flood back into the labor market and reverse the decline in unemployment that we’ve seen over the last few months.

...

Not so, says the macro-economic team at Barclays. They ran models showing that demographics, and especially retirement amongst baby boomers, has played a larger role in pushing the labor participation rate down than other factors have. “Only about a third of the drop in the labor force participation rate is accounted for by those who say they want a job, and only about 15% by those who want a job and are also of prime working age – i.e., between 25-54,”


A Barclays report suggests that the recent decline in the labor participation rate has more to do with demographics than discouraged workers | Business | TIME.com

Ken

Last edited by LordBalfor; 03-13-2012 at 10:06 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2012, 11:06 PM
 
Location: University City, Philadelphia
22,592 posts, read 12,265,275 times
Reputation: 15480
Quote:
Originally Posted by A&M_Indie_08 View Post
No big surprise that Obama voters don't want change.... after all, when one gets used to the welfare check, I suppose it is a little hard to want to get up and better yourself
Well actually, I'm a businessman, property owner and a landlord. Nope, never collected welfare. In fact I never met anyone in my life who collected welfare. Is welfare even still around? I thought they did most of it away ...

So if you think you're so clever by demonizing Democrats as "welfare check collectors" go ahead and wallow in your fantasy world.

I'll wager I pay more in taxes than you do.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top