U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 12-13-2013, 08:41 AM
Status: "Finally Done With C-D BYE BYE" (set 14 days ago)
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,947 posts, read 21,479,043 times
Reputation: 15430

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
again someone tries to use the boomer excuse

uhmmm...the boomer have zero to do with this

do you really want the numbers????? can you handle them????........they dont help your agenda.....


the fact remains:
number of people turning 65 on a DAILY BASIS....10,000
number of people turning 18 on a DAILY BASIS....13,000



so the argument that 10,000 boomers(65+) retire everyday is NULLIFIED by the fact that over 13,000 turn 18 every day
That's ok <bold> they'll be able to get those $15hr burger/fries jobs that are soon to be here. One must not forget the (thousands/millions of) new immigrants that are going to keep joining us as well.
They're going to want jobs and be willing to work for wayyy less than U.S. citizens (already proven).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-13-2013, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
25,408 posts, read 14,500,015 times
Reputation: 9214
The LPR Is low because people who are fired exit the workforce unless they need to four unemployment insurance or they are actually looking for work. That is as cut and dry as you can get because there are college students who are in the workforce and retirees in the workforce.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2013, 11:04 AM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,405 posts, read 3,732,752 times
Reputation: 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Thank you for proving you have no idea what you're talking about.
Lets see. I wrote the LFPR has risen for multiple decades.

Quote:

The definition of "Employed" should be obvious, even to you.

The definition of "Unemployed" is based on a three-prong test:
Despite your snide comments, I did already understand how the survey is performed
Quote:
.......[Deleted information I already knew]......
UE Benefits are not now, and were never part of the equation.
Where did I write that UE Benefits were part of the equation?
Quote:

Labor Force = Employed + Unemployed

155,046,000 = 144,775,000 + 10,271,000

You just got schooled.
I'm not sure what you think you schooled me in, but I already knew how the Civilian Labor Force was calculated.
Quote:
The LFPR increased, due to the fact that women started entering the work-force in the mid-1970s.

Women were not part of the work-force prior to the mid-1970s. Women were home-makers and house-wives. A girl was graduated from high school at 17-18 years, took a job in clerical or some other work deemed "for women only", then got married and quit their jobs to raise the family. Women sometimes when back to work after the children left the nest.

That's how it worked.

Since the overwhelming vast majority of women answered "No" to...

Are you available to work?
Do you want to work?
Have you looked for work in the last 12 months?


....they were never part of the Labor Force.

When women started answering "Yes" to all 3 questions, they became part of the Labor Force.
Again, more information that I already knew.
Quote:

WilliamSmyth:
"The LFPR started a downward trend during the George W Bush's administration because Baby boomers started reaching the age when they start to stop working."

Wrong....

Labor Force = Employed + Unemployed
Its unclear to me what you think I'm wrong about. Do you deny that those retiring reduce the LFPR.

BTW: The LFPR calcualtion is: Employed + Unemployed / Employed + Unemployed + Not in Labor Force.

When you retire and stop working you move from Employed and Unemployed to Not in the Labor Force.
Quote:
WilliamSmyth:
"The downward trend was predicted, prior to Obama entering office, to last for multiple decades."

Wrong....and I challenge to cite a source to back up your ridiculous claim.
Here is a report from 1993. It covers predictions to 2005. It notes that by 2005 we should start to see the declines because of the Baby-Boomers approaching retirement.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1993/11/art3full.pdf

"During the latter part of the projection period, labor force participation rates are expected to fall by 0.7 percentage point, as the oldest of the baby-boom generation approaches retirement."

Quote:
WilliamSmyth:
"There is no upper age limit for being included in the calculations."
Wrong....

Labor Force = Employed + Unemployed
I don't know how you could claim my statement is wrong. Since apparently you believe there is an upper age limit, what do you think the age limit is?
Quote:

WilliamSmyth:
"While it is true that recently those over 55 have continued to work at rates higher than prior generations, their participation rates are well below what they were when they were younger than 55. Bottom line, there is still a large drop off in participation as people age even if the measured drop isn't as large as it used to be."

Wrong....

Labor Force = Employed + Unemployed
Seems pretty clear to me that by the time people reach 55 there is a significant drop in participation rates.




Quote:
....
WilliamSmyth:

"The LFPR is based on the same survey and data that are used to calculate the UE numbers. "

Wrong....

Labor Force = Employed + Unemployed

Again I don't know how you can claim the statement to be wrong.

Household data, seasonally adjusted Nov 2013
Unemployed =
10,907
Employed =
144,386
Not in Labor Force =
91,273

U3 unemployment =
10,907 / 144,386 + 10,907 = 7%
LFPR =
144,386 + 10,907 / 144,386 + 10,907 + 91,273 = 63%

Quote:

WilliamSmyth:
Quote:
"Retiring Boomers are removed from the numerator portion, but remain in the denominator portion of the LFPR, which is why as the retire they will lower the LFPR. At least until they die or are institutionalized."


That pretty much ends the argument.

The numbers do not support your claims.

2012 November
Employed: 143,549,000
Full-Time: 115,515,000
Part-Time: 28,034,000
Not in Labor Force: 89,221,000

2013 November

Employed: 144,775,000
Full-Time: 116,875,000
Part-Time: 27,900,000
Not in Labor Force: 91,521,000

Difference

Employed: +1,206,000
Full-Time: +1,360,000
Part-Time: -134,000
Not in Labor Force: +2,300,000

Average: Note that November to November is 13 months
"Jobs created" per month = 92,769
"Full-Time Jobs created" per month = 104,615
"Part-Time Jobs Lost" per month = 10,307
People leaving the work-force per month = 176,923

I leave you with this reminder....

New York Times August 8, 2003

Employment grew by 126,000 jobs in October, the best showing in nine months, and job growth in August and September was stronger than the government initially estimated, the Labor Department reported yesterday. It was the greatest job growth over three months since late 2000. Still, the recent job gains remain modest by many measures. They are not large enough to keep up with the growth of the labor force over the long term and are far smaller than the average gain over the last 50 years when the economy was growing as rapidly as it has been recently. The economy must add about 150,000 jobs or more each month to keep up with population growth and bring down the jobless rate over a long period of time.


San Fransisco Chronicle, April 3, 2004

Total jobs outside the farm sector soared by 308,000, the Labor Department reported Friday, the biggest monthly gain since March 2000, when the air was just beginning to rush out of the Internet bubble. Still, some experts cautioned that one month of roaring payroll growth doesn’t mean that the labor market has been restored to full health. "It’s a bit too early to celebrate," said Wells Fargo economist Sung Won Sohn. "If you look at the average for the last eight months, it’s been only 95, 000 jobs per month. That’s far below the 150,000 to 200,000 we need to absorb the new entrants to the labor force."

Washington Post, September 4, 2004 Employers added 144,000 jobs to their non-farm payrolls in August on a seasonally adjusted basis, an improvement after two months in which job growth essentially stalled, but barely enough to keep pace with population growth. The nation needs to add about 150,000 jobs a month to keep pace with population growth, according to economists.


Los Angeles Times September 4, 2004

U.S. employers added a net 144,000 jobs to their payrolls in August and the nation’s unemployment rate dropped a notch to 5.4%. Employers need to add 125,000 to 150,000 net new jobs every month just to keep up with population growth, economists estimate. It would take even more growth to substantially reduce the unemployment rate, which climbed from 3.8% in April 2000 to a post-recession peak of 6.3% in June 2003.

The Boston Globe
January 8, 2005

US employers boosted payrolls by 157,000 jobs in December, keeping the economy on a path of moderate expansion and completing the first year of job growth since 2000. The month’s job gains were slightly less than analysts expected, and just enough to keep up with the natural growth of the labor force and prevent unemployment from rising.

Game...set...match....

Mircea
http://www.phil.frb.org/research-and...ation-rate.pdf
Between the first quarter of 2000 and the second quarter of 2013, the participation rate declined 3.9 percentage points. Roughly 65 percent of the decline is accounted for by retirement and disability. The increase in nonparticipation due to retirement has occurred only after 2010, while nonparticipation due to disability has been steadily increasing over the last 13 years, except for the last few years.

I don't know what game you think you have won:

"but at the end of a prize fight, you look at the guy who's dancing around, and that's who won."
Josh Lyman "West Wing"

Last edited by WilliamSmyth; 12-13-2013 at 11:12 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2013, 11:16 AM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,405 posts, read 3,732,752 times
Reputation: 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
again someone tries to use the boomer excuse

uhmmm...the boomer have zero to do with this

do you really want the numbers????? can you handle them????........they dont help your agenda.....


the fact remains:
number of people turning 65 on a DAILY BASIS....10,000
number of people turning 18 on a DAILY BASIS....13,000



so the argument that 10,000 boomers(65+) retire everyday is NULLIFIED by the fact that over 13,000 turn 18 every day
Do the calculations using the numbers you just provided, you will see that the LFPR goes down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2013, 07:32 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
18,946 posts, read 21,936,951 times
Reputation: 6537
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
again someone tries to use the boomer excuse

uhmmm...the boomer have zero to do with this

do you really want the numbers????? can you handle them????........they dont help your agenda.....


the fact remains:
number of people turning 65 on a DAILY BASIS....10,000
number of people turning 18 on a DAILY BASIS....13,000



so the argument that 10,000 boomers(65+) retire everyday is NULLIFIED by the fact that over 13,000 turn 18 every day
Your post is a prime example of why employers say they cannot find people competent in mathematics here in the US and must therefor import such workers. If you want to know WHY employers say that - just look in the mirror.

For what must be the one thousandth time: the absolute numbers don't matter - what matters is HOW MUCH the PERCENTAGES CHANGE.

10,000 people turning 65 each day changes the percentage of older (ie retired) folks a WHOLE LOT MORE than 13,000 people turning 18 changes the percentage of working-age folks for the simple reason that there's a LOT more people between the ages of 18 and 65 than there are 65+. Not only are more people turning 65 than ever before, older people are living LONGER than ever before - the result is that as a percentage of the population, older Americans are becoming a larger and larger group. What part of: "...Currently, just 13% of Americans are ages 65 and older. By 2030, when all members of the Baby Boom generation have reached that age, fully 18% of the nation will be at least that age..." do you NOT understand? Do you REALLY believe that a country with 18% of the population being of retirement age will have the same LFPR as a country with 13% of the population being of retirement age?
Really?
REALLY?
Geeze!
Logic like yours really makes me afraid for America. No wonder we can't compete in math and science anymore.

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-num...oomers-retire/

Ken

Last edited by LordBalfor; 12-13-2013 at 07:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2013, 01:33 AM
 
Location: Texas
23,821 posts, read 10,009,900 times
Reputation: 5326
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Your post is a prime example of why employers say they cannot find people competent in mathematics here in the US and must therefor import such workers. If you want to know WHY employers say that - just look in the mirror.

For what must be the one thousandth time: the absolute numbers don't matter - what matters is HOW MUCH the PERCENTAGES CHANGE.

10,000 people turning 65 each day changes the percentage of older (ie retired) folks a WHOLE LOT MORE than 13,000 people turning 18 changes the percentage of working-age folks for the simple reason that there's a LOT more people between the ages of 18 and 65 than there are 65+. Not only are more people turning 65 than ever before, older people are living LONGER than ever before - the result is that as a percentage of the population, older Americans are becoming a larger and larger group. What part of: "...Currently, just 13% of Americans are ages 65 and older. By 2030, when all members of the Baby Boom generation have reached that age, fully 18% of the nation will be at least that age..." do you NOT understand? Do you REALLY believe that a country with 18% of the population being of retirement age will have the same LFPR as a country with 13% of the population being of retirement age?
Really?
REALLY?
Geeze!
Logic like yours really makes me afraid for America. No wonder we can't compete in math and science anymore.

Baby Boomers Retire | Pew Research Center

Ken
You didn't explain anything you just babbled and made up something. No explanation on why the positive population growth, which we've always had, only came into play now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2013, 05:43 AM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,405 posts, read 3,732,752 times
Reputation: 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
You didn't explain anything you just babbled and made up something. No explanation on why the positive population growth, which we've always had, only came into play now.
Here is a sample of what would happen using the 10k and 13k numbers over the next 30 days of Dec. 2013.
This example assumes no other changes, just those coming of age and those retiring. It also assumes the 13k figure holds for 16 year olds, which is the age the BLS uses. It assumes those entering are actually looking for work or are employed (if they are not then the decline would be more pronounced).

Starting point end of Nov 2013

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

Civilian Labor Force = 155294
Total Civilian noninstitutional Labor Force = 246567
Labor Force Participation Rate = 155294 / 246567 = 63.0%

After 30 Days

Civilian Labor Force = 155294 + 390 -300 = 155384
Total Civilian noninstitutional Labor Force = 246567 + 390 = 246957
Labor Force Participation Rate = 155384 / 246957 = 62.9%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2013, 06:09 AM
 
8,487 posts, read 5,682,844 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Your post is a prime example of why employers say they cannot find people competent in mathematics here in the US and must therefor import such workers. If you want to know WHY employers say that - just look in the mirror.

For what must be the one thousandth time: the absolute numbers don't matter - what matters is HOW MUCH the PERCENTAGES CHANGE.

10,000 people turning 65 each day changes the percentage of older (ie retired) folks a WHOLE LOT MORE than 13,000 people turning 18 changes the percentage of working-age folks for the simple reason that there's a LOT more people between the ages of 18 and 65 than there are 65+. Not only are more people turning 65 than ever before, older people are living LONGER than ever before - the result is that as a percentage of the population, older Americans are becoming a larger and larger group. What part of: "...Currently, just 13% of Americans are ages 65 and older. By 2030, when all members of the Baby Boom generation have reached that age, fully 18% of the nation will be at least that age..." do you NOT understand? Do you REALLY believe that a country with 18% of the population being of retirement age will have the same LFPR as a country with 13% of the population being of retirement age?
Really?
REALLY?
Geeze!
Logic like yours really makes me afraid for America. No wonder we can't compete in math and science anymore.

Baby Boomers Retire | Pew Research Center

Ken
Numbers do matter. They are what lead to percentages. All the numbers matter when one is analyzing. However, lets' look at your statement.

The largest reduction has been in 16-54 year old (74%), only (26%) reduction in those 55+. So while BB retiring have an effect they clearly are not where the biggest changes are occurring.


BTW have you actually looked into the history of Pew?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2013, 06:16 AM
 
Location: Boston, MA
10,902 posts, read 7,716,079 times
Reputation: 5272
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer View Post
Great news, thanks Obama!



Then how would you know if it is false? Magic?
What did Obama do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2013, 06:17 AM
 
8,487 posts, read 5,682,844 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post


http://www.phil.frb.org/research-and...ation-rate.pdf
Between the first quarter of 2000 and the second quarter of 2013, the participation rate declined 3.9 percentage points. Roughly 65 percent of the decline is accounted for by retirement and disability. The increase in nonparticipation due to retirement has occurred only after 2010, while nonparticipation due to disability has been steadily increasing over the last 13 years, except for the last few years.

You may find this of interest.
Making 9 Million Jobless Vanish: How The Government ...

In addition to the bold part you quoted, I only just downloaded this report and glanced at it, but it also says this.

"As of the first half of 2013, roughly 5 percent to 6 percent of individuals in the working-age population are out of the labor force because of disability, 16 percent to 17 percent are out of the labor force because of retirement, and the rest have left the labor force for other reasons. "

Last edited by CDusr; 12-14-2013 at 06:43 AM..
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

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