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.
Do you really think the participation rate changed because people who don't exist are being counted in the civilian workforce as though they did?
It stayed low because a lack of workplace replenishments b/w generations meant there were virtually the same qty of jobs for fewer people. No different than unemployment rates, which drop when labor supply drops.
The participation rate is simply working/available, so if the denominator drops faster than the numerator (proportinately), the rate rises. You do know what a denominator is, right?
Unemployment has been held low with workforce particpation rate not changing tons because a baby bust entered the market, replacing much of a baby boom. Add in when a lot of automation hit mfg, Y2K plus dotcom was adding , again a one off, tremendous amounts of employees. Y10K would be the next time they are needed. (People focus on net change, not sector change, regarding labor.)
We are now entering a period with baby bust following baby bust, so when robots take jobs now, either participation must drop, or unemployment must rise. Add in RFID is huge. Are you aware cashiers are one of the nations largest job classifications, at 3 MILLION employees. Try imaging the effects of 2.4 million pink slips, as only 1 register shops might retain the same quantity.
I'm not faulting you for missing this baby boom vs bust issue. It is truly a one time, radical shift in population. But it skewed the effects of automation, and now the piper must be paid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
The same person who was president when it increased to 66.5% six years later.
FTR, it was 63.9% when Reagan took office in January 1982 and it's never been higher than 67.3%.
Not bad for what the left called "voodoo economics".
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Unemployment was as high as 7.9% in 1947, 7.5% in 1958, 9% in 1975, 10.8% in 1982 and 10% in 2009.
It has also been as low as 4.4% in 2007, 3.8% in 2000 and 3.9% in 1969.
The connection between increased automation and reduced employment in manufacturing is real but numerous other factors are in play and history shows overall employment isn't dependent or even necessarily negatively impacted by advances in technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Yep, that 5% unemployment rate under W was just unbearable.
The thing with Reagan is he knew what to do and he did it.
He worked with people instead of against them and got a certain degree of cooperation as a result.
Six tenths of a percentage point (63.9% to 64.5%) isn't much of an increase from January 1981 to November 1984, but after the Carter malaise we were finally moving in the right direction with quarter to quarter increases in GDP approaching double-digits, much lower inflation rates, stronger consumer buying power and a misery index reduced by half.
Tell me again, what's better under Obamanomics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
You keep going on and on about labor participation rates, yet it's less than a percent lower than it was under Saint Ronnie when he won re-election in 1984.
Look, people, I'll try to put this as gently as I can.
Any mention of previous Labor Force Participation Rates is nothing more than a Red Herring.
I don't give a damn what Labor Force Participation Rates were in the past, I only care what they are now and what they will be in the Future. Why? It has to do with your Ponzi-Schemes like Social Security and Medicare.
When you first started Social Security, you had 42 suckers lining up every day to fund 1 person in the Ponzi Scheme. 10 years later, you had 16 morons entering the Ponzi-Scheme every day, and then 10 years after that you had 8 meat-heads signing up for the Ponzi-Scheme every day.
10 years after that and continuing for the about the next 30 years, you had only 3 bewildered incompetents join the Ponzi-Scehemi every day.
Now, at present, you have only 2.2 hostages signing up for the Ponzi-Scheme.
You cannot fund Social Security (or Medicare) with only 2.2 people paying the way for 1 person.
Right? Hello, Bueller? Bueller?
Joe Retiree collects $1,200 in benefits every month or $14,400 per year and he gets $13,000 in Medicare benefits every year.
Betty and Bruce are working their asses off each earning $45,000 year.
Let's see......
Betty pays $3,442.50 annually in FICA/HI taxes....
Bruce pays $3,442.50 annually in FICA/HI taxes...
together they pay $6,885.00 annually....
Betty is self-employed so she kicks in another $3,442.50...
Bruce punches a time clock so his employer puts up another $3,442.50....
In total, it is comes to $13,770 each year.... except Joe costs $27,400 annually.
Where in this Universe does $13,770 = $27,400?
You're $13,630 short.
Where is that $13,630 going to come from? Is it going to fall out of the sky? No, you'll need to increase your Labor Participation Rate or raise taxes or both, in order to get it.
Now, does everybody get it?
The reason we look at the Labor Force Participation Rate is not so that we can quibble like old ladies about the past, it is so that we can assess our potential ability to pay for social welfare programs that are based on Ponzi-Schemes, like Social Security, like Medicare and like any possible universal health care program. Year / Wage-Salary per Tax Return Filed / % Increase-Decrease in Wage-Salary
Flat-line baby. Your wages aren't DOA --- they're DOS (Dead On Scene).
There's nothing you can do about that, except wait for the rest of the world to catch up to you....and that will take another 30-50 years. Like it or not, you're in a Global Economy and there is no going back, so wages for workers who compete globally are no longer tied to a skill-set in a given local labor market, rather they're tied to the global market for the same skill-set.
What idiot would pay Fat Union Fred $30/hour to run a MAZAK machine and make 12 parts an hour when you can pay Vlad in Romania $2.50/hour to run a MAZAK machine and make 12 parts an hour?
B-b-b-b-b-b-but slave wages...Yeah? Well, I'm still waiting for one courageous soul to muster up the courage to explain how or why Batalog in the Philippines who makes $1.60/hour is going to buy something made by Fat Union Fred when he can buy the same thing from Vlad for a helluva lot cheaper.
Selling to Americans is a lose-lose-lose situation. If you cannot sell to all 6.6 Billion people on Earth, then you lose. Ask Zenith. Oh, I forgot, you can't, because Zenith got bought up by a foreign Korean corporation because Zenith couldn't sell to 6.6 Billion people.
Anyway, putting it all together...
It is your Labor Participation Rate, plus your Tax Rate, plus your Wage Levels that determine if you can afford Ponzi-Schemes like Social Security, or Medicare or some kind of UHC.
As things presently stand, you are all riding the Fail-Boat, and you will all learn that the hard way when Austerityâ„¢ bites a big chunk out of your ass, because you do not have enough people working, they are not earning enough money and they are not paying enough in taxes to pay for those programs, which will come to an inglorious end in the next 10 years.
Ken, why should I "like" the numbers when they are as phony as a three dollar bill? If the numbers were true and accurate, good news would be good news. Your insinuation that I don't like good economic news because of my partisan bias against Obama is absurd. Sure Ken, everyone that challenges this nonsense just wants the country's economy to implode just to make your Rock Star in the White House look bad. Brilliant Ken .... that's real freaking astute .... we would rather starve to death, lose our jobs and our homes and our livelihoods so long as Obama gets the blame? No Ken, such idiocy is reserved for the left wing loons who actually embrace self destruction in every policy and ideology they're drawn to. Rational thinking people don't think this way .... I personally wouldn't care if Big Bird was president, or Tickle-Me-Elmo ... if the economy started improving, but wanting a thing to be true doesn't make it true Ken, it only makes the believer an uninformed, unsuspecting victim of what is to be an inescapable and foregone conclusion should the current course be maintained.
When you live on the coast, Ken, it's extremely helpful to know ahead of time that a massive Hurricane is bearing down on you, which will allow you to prepare and take the necessary precautions and safeguards. Those who might be caught totally unaware are the most vulnerable to the worst outcome. The same is true in the world of economics, and those who are aware of an impending storm can prepare for it, which will mitigate the impact. That's why I don't "like" the numbers Ken, because such lies only set the stage for inaction which will result in greater suffering, and preclude any effective measures to turn things around for the better.
It's quite evil Ken ... can you imagine the National Weather Service seeing a massive Hurricane bearing down on South Carolina, while they report clear weather ahead to the people there? That's what these criminals are doing Ken ... so stop parroting the lies and open your eyes.
Your first mistake, Ken, is this misconception that presidents actually control economic activity, when nothing could be further from the truth. The Federal Reserve and it's monetary policies are the primary determiner for which direction the economy will go .. either growth or retraction, and that includes massive creation of funny money to support deficit spending and borrowing and expansion of the long term debt. You cannot borrow your way into economic stability when it was the borrowing that got you into the mess to begin with. Gasoline on the fire, ken ..... this is idiocy SQUARED.
Furthermore, Ken, government doesn't create economic growth ... whatever jobs government creates is just more drain on the general economy, and that is counterproductive. Government's role in this is to establish policies that are favorable to private sector growth and success, yet for the better part of the last 3 decades, it has done the exact opposite, which is why we are in such an economic pickle.
Do you have the foggiest sense of what 1.65 Trillion annual deficits mean economically (that was the 2011 figure)? I don't think you do. Considering that the total federal expenditure for 2011 was 3.75 Trillion, that deficit represents 44% rate of borrowing each year now just to meet annual spending. Couple that with no real increase in actual production ... i.e. manufacturing things and selling them to other countries Ken, and you cannot have a recovery occurring! The patient has a gaping wound Ken, and is bleeding out.
There is no economic growth in government hiring more TSA goons to inspect your underwear Ken .... no economic growth in deploying 30,000 surveillance drones and DHS purchasing 3 Billion rounds of hollow point ammo .... no benefit to McDonalds hiring more burger flippers ... no growth in hiring more healthcare workers to write you prescriptions for antidepressants and more IRS Agents to shake you down for more tax revenue, Ken. That's just putting perfume on the pig, and more of the same living off credit that created this disaster.
And the fun has just begun .... 2013 is not going to be better than 2012 ken, so long as people like you continue wetting your pants in excitement every time another great sounding lie is fed you .... by the end of 2013, 2012 will be looked upon as the "good old days", because the big elephant in the room which you don't notice is .... that as bad as things appear, they are actually much, much worse, because on top of the deficits and 16 Trillion in debt that are on the books ... there is another 16 Trillion that was not accounted for that was doled out to the bankers between 2008-2011 in off-book transfers. That little tidbit was revealed in the limited audit last year Ken .... that means that 2013 will be the year of inflation, as that comes back to roost. Taking this into consideration, along with QE-3 and the indefinite 40 Billion Monthly purchases of Mortgage Backed Securities that the Fed now intends .... and we're looking at an inflation rate projected by the non-liar economists of better than 4% PER MONTH ... and annual inflation of 40-70% for just 2013.
Do you have any idea what that means Ken? I tell you what it means ... it means that you'd better have a Merry Merry Christmas this year Ken .... cuz next year, Santa's Workshop will be in foreclosure. But the good news is, many people will not have to worry about buying a Christmas Tree next year, as they may be living in the woods.
And don't think for a second that this left wing lug nut in the White House has any answers, or the stuffed suit bribe takers in congress. This leftist mantra of "tax the rich"? Pure idiocy Ken. Do you realize that if the government took EVERY PENNY of every American's income over $250,000 ... it would only fund 38% of the annual budget as it stands now? EVERY PENNY KEN .... 100% tax rate on all income over $250,000 wouldn't even keep the lights on until June, so raising anyone's taxes is a TOTAL FARCE.
They are deliberately crashing the economy Ken ... because nobody at the levers of real power are this stupid and incompetent. They know exactly what they are doing ... and people like me are trying to tell people like you the truth. But you won't have any part of the truth. You lefties would rather be lied to, for some bizarre reason, which explains your unholy, disgusting worship of the Liar-In-Chief.
More stupid "conspiracy" nonsense.
Sorry, I don't buy ONE WORD of it - in fact after the first few bogus paragraphs I didn't even bother to read any more of it. It's just absurd. You folks REALLY do need some kind of "medication".
The revisions show they are still overly optimistic in reporting.
Employment Situation Summary
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for September was revised from +148,000
to +132,000, and the change for October was revised from +171,000 to +138,000.
The basic point is that the recession of 2008 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring healthcare spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Barack Obama needs to create a healthcare bubble to replace the housing bubble.
Do you really think the participation rate changed because people who don't exist are being counted in the civilian workforce as though they did?
That sounded a lot like something taken from some media site that was trying to convince leaners that all that stuff about people dropping out of the workforce was not true.
More stupid "conspiracy" nonsense.
Sorry, I don't buy ONE WORD of it - in fact after the first few bogus paragraphs I didn't even bother to read any more of it. It's just absurd. You folks REALLY do need some kind of "medication".
Ken
Hmmmmm. Another leaner admits that he doesn't accept one word of a post and that he stopped reading long before the end of the post. I wonder what would have happened if in the last three lines the post had changed 180 degrees. You wouldn't have known it, would you?
The revisions show they are still overly optimistic in reporting.
Employment Situation Summary
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for September was revised from +148,000
to +132,000, and the change for October was revised from +171,000 to +138,000.
Yeah, but the leaners didn't worry about the revised numbers since they were so happy and taken in by the original made up numbers.
It stayed low because a lack of workplace replenishments b/w generations meant there were virtually the same qty of jobs for fewer people. No different than unemployment rates, which drop when labor supply drops.
The participation rate is simply working/available, so if the denominator drops faster than the numerator (proportinately), the rate rises. You do know what a denominator is, right?
Perhaps a better question is why would you think the demoninator of a percentage would be anything except 100?
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.
