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.
I wasn't clear enough. Per the article that I linked to - Full Time "ratio" jobs have decreased and not kept up with the rise in population.
Let me explain this. The population is growing. The population of working age Americans are growing.
The ratio of working age Americans that have a full time job...has decreased for 6 straight months now. We also just lost many full time jobs this June (Obamacare scare?).
Does that clarify it?
This is bad, because part time jobs tend to have less benefits than full time jobs. 31% of compensation is benefits...so this is a big deal to have less workers (ratio-wise) with full time jobs.
Do you agree that it is bad to have 6 straight months of declining ratio of people with full time jobs?
Typically 5 straight months of this ratio declining leads into a recession.
Yes, we have now had 6 straight months of the ratio of people in the working age population with full time jobs decline.
It's no surprise that the ratio of FTE's to population is falling. Part of it IS the fact that there is still a labor glut because the UE rate remains elevated so companies can really put screws to workers because there's still a lot of folks available for each job. However, that UE rate is falling - not rapidly admittedly, but falling none-the-less and it's likely that by the end of next year that rate will be down around 6.5% - at which point it will be low enough that companies are going to have to start treating their employees better or risk losing them to competing firms. That will force companies to give employees more hours.
Secondly, this falling FTE (and the low Labor Participation Rate that accompanies it) is NOT so much a function of any particular economic policies as it is the fact that the Babyboomers are starting to reach retirement age - and many just leave the workforce while others just go to working part-time. This is NOT a surprise, we've known this demographic event was coming for a longggggggg time now, that's why there's been so much concern about funding Social Security and Medicare as the Babyboomers retire - there's simply going to be more retirees for each worker than there use to be - which BY DEFINITION means a lower FTE/total population ratio and a generally lower Labor Participation Rate (which is pretty much the same thing as the FTE ratio you are talking about).
As I said, it's nothing new, it's been talked about and written about for well over a decade now, you are simply starting to see the effects of changing demographics. The Babyboomer generation has had a HUGE effect on the Labor Participation Rate - swelling it above historical norms as they ENTERED the workforce in the 60's and 70's, and shrinking it again as they LEAVE the workforce now and in the decades to come (same is true of the ratio you refer to - which in effect is a representation of the LPR).
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 07-06-2013 at 05:01 PM..
However, when you look at the details you notice the following:
-Full Time jobs shrank again, making it 6 straight months of shrinking full time jobs.
-The increase is coming from part time jobs...many of which were gained by people who already had part time jobs or just lost a full time job, so the unemployment numbers didn't budge. of total compensation in America.
We need a new metric to replace both the U3 and U6. FTEs..take the data , extend it for hours worked, divide by (40 hours * weekdays that month-excluding federal holidays). Measure the growth or decline of that, and report it monthly as the primary, most accurate measure of employment.
The issue with Maddow is she is a liberal cheerleader the same way Fox News anchors are conservative cheerleaders. Personally we need more centrist news that is fair and harsh on BOTH sides rather than trying to find middle ground like CNN (though still liberal)
We need media sources that recognize that there are more than two sides to an issue and more than two political parties.
It's no surprise that the ratio of FTE's to population is falling. Part of it IS the fact that there is still a labor glut because the UE rate remains elevated so companies can really put screws to workers because there's still a lot of folks available for each job. However, that UE rate is falling - not rapidly admittedly, but falling none-the-less and it's likely that by the end of next year that rate will be down around 6.5% - at which point it will be low enough that companies are going to have to start treating their employees better or risk losing them to competing firms.
Ken
Only if the U6 falls proportinately, and as long as the f/t percentage of all jobs stays flat or rises.
It's no surprise that the ratio of FTE's to population is falling. Part of it IS the fact that there is still a labor glut because the UE rate remains elevated so companies can really put screws to workers because there's still a lot of folks available for each job. However, that UE rate is falling - not rapidly admittedly, but falling none-the-less and it's likely that by the end of next year that rate will be down around 6.5% - at which point it will be low enough that companies are going to have to start treating their employees better or risk losing them to competing firms. That will force companies to give employees more hours.
I hope your rosy prediction is correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Secondly, this falling FTE (and the low Labor Participation Rate that accompanies it) is NOT so much a function of any particular economic policies as it is the fact that the Babyboomers are starting to reach retirement age - and many just leave the workforce while others just go to working part-time. This is NOT a surprise, we've known this demographic event was coming for a longggggggg time now, that's why there's been so much concern about funding Social Security and Medicare as the Babyboomers retire - there's simply going to be more retirees for each worker than there use to be - which BY DEFINITION means a lower FTE/total population ratio and a generally lower Labor Participation Rate (which is pretty much the same thing as the FTE ratio you are talking about).
As I said, it's nothing new, it's been talked about and written about for well over a decade now, you are simply starting to see the effects of changing demographics. The Babyboomer generation has had a HUGE effect on the Labor Participation Rate - swelling it above historical norms as they ENTERED the workforce in the 60's and 70's, and shrinking it again as they LEAVE the workforce now and in the decades to come (same is true of the ratio you refer to - which in effect is a representation of the LPR).
Ken
Hmmm...
Did you see where I pointed out that:
1) The Employment Rate of 25 to 54 Year Olds is at its lowest rate since 1984.
2) 45% of recent college grads don't have a job that requires a college degree.
3) The Full Time Job ratio of 25 to 54 Year Olds has fallen.
4) More people turn 25 every day than 65 in the USA. America has a growing working age population.
I think it is a White House Talking Point to say that the Baby Boomers retiring are responsible for Prime Working Age people not being able to hold an appropriate full time job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
Non government employment has increased: So has the population -- as I showed, labor participation has dropped since the recovery started. To an all time low since 1979.
Government work has not and even in the best climate it would take a while for the cops, firefighters, and teachers to find civilian employment: Most of this loss is at the state and local levels, they, unlike the federal government can't run massive deficits while creating $3,000,000,000.00 a day in new money to keep us afloat.
Average earnings are up: Average Household Earnings are down. And the 1% have gained 121% of the pay increases the past 4 years.
Hours worked have gone up: You may have a point here, except it only counts those who work. Average hours worked per American has gone down -- as the employment participation has dipped.
Professionals are doing just fine: Of course they are. People with rare skills are in demand.
People in the financial sector, not so much: Nice of you to make a point for me, but I don't think this is a big deal.
350,000, first time filers.... weekly! 195,000 jobs created last month.
You do the math, and it has been like that since Obama took office, only worse.
That's 195,000 new jobs created; the 350,000 first time filers number is trending downward and does not necessarily represent job eliminations. Government employment continues to trend downward.
The economy gained, on average, 182,000 jobs every month over the past year.
That's 195,000 new jobs created; the 350,000 first time filers number is trending downward and does not necessarily represent job eliminations. Government employment continues to trend downward.
The economy gained, on average, 182,000 jobs every month over the past year.
average of 350,000 weekly, that is 1.4 million monthly.
so you are saying that there are really 1.5 million jobs created monthly for a 195,000, net.
That has never been reported, by the gate keepers.
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.
