Liberals: The era of Reaganomics is finally over

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by OICU812

I think the other poster's point was that more baby boomers in the 65+ crowd are not equal to other generations, in that much fewer of them are leaving the work force. you cannot blame unemployment on a vast baby boomer exodus from the work force, because that is not what's happening.

You are assuming that just as many baby boomer are retiring as in the past, when the reality is that they are not leaving the work force.

You are doing the same thing he is doing which is comparing percentages and not pure numbers.

Baby boomers( 1943-1964) make up 23%(74 million) of the population and the silent generation(1925-1942) directly preceding them only make up about 4%(12.4 million).

if 50% of silent generation members continue to work that is 6.2 million, but that means only 6.2 million retired as well.

If 60% of Baby boomers decide to continue working past retirement age, that means 44.4 million continue to work, but 29.6 million would have retired.


so even though only 40%(29.6 million) of Baby boomers in this scenario decided to retire as apposed to the Silent Generation with 50%(6.2 million), that 40% is far more people because of the size of the populations of the groups themselves.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

I'm sorry, I do not understand your first sentence. Will you please re-write it so that I can make some sense of it?

The person i responded to made a broad,overreaching, and incorrectly phrased statement. on its face, his comment

Baby Boomers are working more than ever

would mean that Baby boomers, as a group, are working more than they ever have before, meaning they are entering the work force more so than leaving. (a.k.a. increasing each year)

What the poster really meant, based on their links, is simply that baby boomers are not leaving the work force at the same pace as previous generations. (a.k.a declining at a lower rates)

Now, looking back, i probably could have been nicer about it and gave the person the benefit of the doubt.However, your rant makes it look like you did worse than me and only responded to one comment instead of reading through the thread which would have given you an answer to your own mini rant negating your need to post it.

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by monkeywrenching

I am glad none of my retirement money is in the bank. also glad it is not in electronic currency either.

Enjoy keeping all your eggs in one basket?

And what if you're wrong? Just wasted all that compounded internet and investments.

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Unfortunately, they are correct.

According to the Federal Government's Bureau of Labor Statistics, the "Labor Force Participation Rate" (The percentage of the population age 16 or over, who is employed or looking for work) has fallen to levels not seen since the Jimmy Carter years - the time when the "Misery Index" was invented to describe how bad things were.

The "Unemployment Rate" is the percentage of people who are unemployed but still looking for work. In other words, the percentage who are unemployed but still in the labor force.

If the Unemployment rate falls, it can mean that more people are getting jobs... OR that more people have given up looking for jobs altogether.

If the number of people in the labor force declines, that means they are unemployed but NOT looking for work any more.

More people have been driven out of the labor force, giving up looking for work, than any any time in more than 30 years, undoing everything Reagan managed to do.

Part of Obama's legacy. And not a "small" part


.

Really?

Wages not growing with profits



Productivity increases greatly but that doesn't translate into a meaningful increase in wages




It's good to be an executive in America....




Obviously when you use supply side economics, the "suppliers" use technology and off-shoring to increase profits and productivity for shareholders and management.