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 12-14-2013, 06:24 PM
 
8,487 posts, read 5,713,983 times
Reputation: 1113

Advertisements

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.
...
The decline in the participation rate since the first quarter of 2012 is entirely accounted for by increases in nonparticipation due to retirement.
As I stated earlier, it also says this, which seems to conflict with what you are asserting. Choosing to word something in a specific way can be misleading when it comes to the actual math or data.

"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. "

Also mentioning an increase only occurring after 2010 does not mean that is where all the decline came from. Simply means an increase. Then they choose to mention disability increases. Again that is not the same as real numbers. The CPS micro data will have to be looked at to see if the numbers add up or if they are partially there like other reports.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-14-2013, 06:44 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,202 posts, read 13,367,225 times
Reputation: 14076
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr View Post
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?
Haha....check this out....

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
Seems pretty clear to me that by the time people reach 55 there is a significant drop in participation rates.






Is that not the most pathetic thing you've ever seen in your life?

The Red Line is 25-54 years, and the Blue Line is 55+.

That graph clearly demonstrates that since 1990, the Labor Force Participation Rate for 55+ has increased ~10%, while the 25-54 has decreased only ~4%.

The second embarrassing thing is that he used Seasonally Adjusted data (that's what LNS is).

So people understand the difference between Seasonally Adjusted and Unadjusted Data, I made up a few graphs.

Suppose we were to track US troops Killed in Action over a period of 30....days, weeks, months...it doesn't matter, and make a graph out of it......



That looks ugly.....what the death of US troops? Nobody gives a damn about US troops, they only care how the graph looks, and the graph looks ugly because of all the jagged lines from the data points.

We need to smooth those data points out so that we have a nice pretty line that appears pleasing to the eye.....I used EDA for this (in case those who know Statistics were wondering).....










...ahhhh, that looks pretty.

Our pretty Blue Line that is smoothed out quite a bit is our Seasonally Adjusted numbers.

So, for the evening newscast: "The government reported today, that a Seasonally Adjusted 8 US troops were Killed in Action in Obamastan."

And then the Obamabots would run and spin that.

But, according to the Unadjusted Data, there 18 US troops Killed in Action.

So, which is it....did 8 US troops die, or was it 18?

It was 18, even though the government reported 8.

That is exactly how your Weekly Unemployment Claims and Monthly Employment Situation are reported. So, for example, in August, you were all told that there were 200,000-odd Seasonally adjusted job gains.

That's wrong on two accounts, the first being a non-propaganda method of reporting would accurately state "employment gains" and the second is that actually 604,000 Americans lost their job.

And even that doesn't give a complete picture.

What really happened in August was that 188,000 Americans were hired into Full-Time Jobs, while 784,000 Americans lost their Part-Time Job.

And still.....you don't have the complete picture.


Why?

Slack Work. Americans work Part-Time for any number of reasons, including slack work, so they are sent home early, or told to report in late, or given the day off, because there is no more work.

508,000 Part-Time Slack Workers lost their job in August....or not?

Some of them did. Their facility/store was closed permanently. Others were laid off indefinitely or for a set period, and then others were lucky enough to have their industry pick up business, so they're working Full-Time again.

So, did 188,000 Americans get hired into Full-Time jobs in August? No...many of them changed status from Part-Time due to Slack Work to Full-Time.

Seasonally Adjusted cuts both ways.....for November, the government reported 200,000-odd people gained employment when in reality, the number was 631,000 new hires.

Really? Sort of.

+77,000 Full-Time Jobs
554,000 Part-Time Jobs
--------
631,000 people gained employment....or not.

85,000 Part-Time Slack Workers lost their jobs....or did they?

How many of those 77,000 Full-Time Jobs are really Part-Time Slack Workers working Full-Time now for production reasons?

I'm just saying, you have to look way beyond the numbers, and the Obamabots refuse to do that.


PEW Research....yeah, I know who they are.

They failed for the exact same reason that the BLS failed. And the reason they and so many others failed is due to the fact that they refused to take an inter-disciplinary approach to the issue, and instead rested their claims on a false assumption.

And what is the false assumption?

That Boomers would have the exact same attitudes towards retirement, that all previous Generations had.

Using an inter-disciplinary approach, either BLS or PEW would have consulted with Sociologists, who would have told them that the attitudes of Boomers toward retirement was vastly different than all previous Generations, and that Boomers would stay in the work-force much longer than the previous Generations.

What did Boomers do that previous Generations did not or could not do?

Change jobs.

Many Boomers were able to migrate into a job that they liked doing, even though they may not have liked the wages/benefits. And that ain't even the half of it. Boomers can work from home, they're more psychically able at older ages, and so many other things that all point to staying in the work-force longer.

And the coup de grace is that every survey/study ever done by Sociologists on the Boomers has shown their attitudes to be that they intend to work until they feel that they cannot accomplish anything else.

The fact that Boomers are not leaving the work-force is a shock only to those who made the false assumption that Boomers would be running toward the door as soon as they hit retirement age.

Anyway, so much for that.

Not Seasonally Adjusting...

Mircea

Last edited by Mircea; 12-14-2013 at 07:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2013, 07:38 PM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,412 posts, read 3,767,782 times
Reputation: 1354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Haha....check this out....




Is that not the most pathetic thing you've ever seen in your life?

The Red Line is 25-54 years, and the Blue Line is 55+.

That graph clearly demonstrates that since 1990, the Labor Force Participation Rate for 55+ has increased ~10%, while the 25-54 has decreased only ~4%.

.....

Mircea
People don't stay in the 25-54 category forever. Since 1990 those aged 32 or older in 1990 are now over 55. Those over 55 participate at a significantly lower rate then those younger than 55, as the chart demonstrated. That combined with the fact that those older than 55 now make up a significantly greater percentage of the overall population is why that portion of the population is adding to the decline of the LFPR.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2013, 08:42 PM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,412 posts, read 3,767,782 times
Reputation: 1354
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr View Post
As I stated earlier, it also says this, which seems to conflict with what you are asserting. Choosing to word something in a specific way can be misleading when it comes to the actual math or data.

"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. "

Also mentioning an increase only occurring after 2010 does not mean that is where all the decline came from. Simply means an increase. Then they choose to mention disability increases. Again that is not the same as real numbers. The CPS micro data will have to be looked at to see if the numbers add up or if they are partially there like other reports.
As of June 2013 the LFPR stood at 63.5, therefore the non participating percentage was 36.5%. If retirement and disability together add up to between 21% and 23% then that leaves between 13.5 and 15.5 for other. Therefore the rest which "have left the labor force for other reasons" are less than the retirement percentage as the chart in Figure 2 demonstrates. The following two charts, in figures 3 and 4, show that those leaving the work force for retirement reasons has been accelerating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2013, 03:28 AM
 
8,487 posts, read 5,713,983 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
As of June 2013 the LFPR stood at 63.5, therefore the non participating percentage was 36.5%. If retirement and disability together add up to between 21% and 23% then that leaves between 13.5 and 15.5 for other. Therefore the rest which "have left the labor force for other reasons" are less than the retirement percentage as the chart in Figure 2 demonstrates. The following two charts, in figures 3 and 4, show that those leaving the work force for retirement reasons has been accelerating.
Percentages don't mean anything without the bigger long term picture. It all has to be taken in context.

Disability is one more thing to throw in to further gray the trends.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2013, 08:38 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,032 posts, read 22,037,571 times
Reputation: 6576
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr View Post
Percentages don't mean anything without the bigger long term picture. It all has to be taken in context.

Disability is one more thing to throw in to further gray the trends.
LOL
Let's see, for years now you folks have been harping over and over again about how the LFPR (which is a PERCENTAGE) has been falling. Now, suddenly - because it's becoming very clear that babyboomer demographics is a huge part of that falling LFPR - "percentages don't mean anything without the bigger long picture"?????


The "bigger long term picture" is that as a whole, America is AGING - with a bigger and bigger portion of the population being senior citizens. THAT has all kinds of implications, among them a falling LFPR.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2013, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 70,286,997 times
Reputation: 27525
With the acceleration of retiring and newly disabled we should be in the 5% range in no time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2013, 09:19 AM
 
8,487 posts, read 5,713,983 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
LOL
Let's see, for years now you folks have been harping over and over again about how the LFPR (which is a PERCENTAGE) has been falling. Now, suddenly - because it's becoming very clear that babyboomer demographics is a huge part of that falling LFPR - "percentages don't mean anything without the bigger long picture"?????


The "bigger long term picture" is that as a whole, America is AGING - with a bigger and bigger portion of the population being senior citizens. THAT has all kinds of implications, among them a falling LFPR.

Ken
No idea to whom you are referring, but numbers need to be always taken in context, which is what I said. Percentages are relative. Yes BB's play a part and yes more Americans are aging, however there is more to the story.

BTW you sure smack your head alot. LOL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2013, 09:21 AM
 
8,487 posts, read 5,713,983 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
With the acceleration of retiring and newly disabled we should be in the 5% range in no time.
If they throw granny off of the bus they can get a 2fer. LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2013, 09:37 AM
 
Location: Texas
23,960 posts, read 10,140,342 times
Reputation: 5364
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
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%
I feel you Smitty. I understand simple math and dont have agenda driven blinders on. Funny how the population growth has been positive for quite some time yet only recently the labor participation rate has gone done.
Must be nice to be part of the oligarchy so one can hand pick who does and doesn't count. It's good to be king.
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