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.
As anyone can see, the vast majority are people 55 and older not looking for a job. Did Obama invent the baby boom? When the OP can explain how a drop in the labor force, which has been going on for a very long time, is caused by Obama, we can take this thread seriously. Until then, we see it for what it is, just another Obama-blame thread.
stop swallowing the kool aid.. the economy's been on the decline for 20 years and no one president really has the sole power to change much about it... the fractional reserve time bomb has been ticking for a long time.... at this point the only thing that can be done is to bail it out continuously and hope it makes it through his term, or to let the entire thing impode, which will happen at some point eventually whether it's through depression or major inflation....
His obamacare isn't even that good.. it's basically catastrophic coverage only with sky high deductibles.. nothing to write home about and not worth paying for...
It's also not just cheap labor from china causing this, but automation and computer technology greatly increasing production output... machines can produce 4X as much product as 10 years ago because of more precise engineering specs due to improved microprocessors. Combine that with more people competing for fewer jobs and the lower wage picture becomes more clear... jobs today simply don't exist that can pay a living wage for a family like in the past... the boomers had it lucky in that regard.
Everybody over 16 is counted in the calculation unless they are institutionalized, in the military, or in a long term care facility.
Labor Force = Number of Employed + Number of Unemployed
[SIZE=2]Labor Force Participation Rate =Labor Force / Total Non-institutionalized Civilian Population[/SIZE]
Or not actively seeking work, retired, students, etc.
The civilian noninstitutional population consists of persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities and homes for the aged) and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.
The civilian labor force consists of all persons classified as employed or unemployed as described above.
The labor force participation rate represents the proportion of the civilian noninstitutional population that is in the labor force.
In other words, LFPR = (employed + unemployed)/civilian non institutionalized population
Now a displaced or discouraged worker won't be counted as part of the labor force since they aren't looking for work, but they are included in the denominator and the same goes for retirees.
A denominator is the part of a fraction that is below the line and that functions as the divisor of the numerator.
The numerator is the part of a fraction that is above the line and signifies the number to be divided by the denominator.
As anyone can see, the vast majority are people 55 and older not looking for a job. Did Obama invent the baby boom? When the OP can explain how a drop in the labor force, which has been going on for a very long time, is caused by Obama, we can take this thread seriously. Until then, we see it for what it is, just another Obama-blame thread.
That pie chart appears very suspect to me. These figures may be "accurate" if you count early boomers and silent generation members who were able to retire as expected.
Still, there are many who are 55+, were laid off in the recession, and were not able to regain their prior salary. Many are probably discouraged and are not actively looking for work because they think better work is not available for them. Right or wrong, that's what they're doing, and where would they be placed in this rather stiff survey?
What is truly alarming is the ratio of prime working adults (15-54) either not looking for or looking for work and coming up with nothing vs. the large amounts of silents and boomers who were able to retire as expected. If those ratios were to hold to true to the population at large, we're looking at potentially tens of millions of people who cannot reach their own productivity expectations. All the productivity they could have had in a normal economy is just a deadweight loss - it is what "should have been" but cannot be recovered.
in 1970 (my date of birth) the employment to population ratio of those aged 15-64 was 64, 2012 it was over 67 and rising. So actually its better today then when I was born!
That being said....the vast majority of years in between were higher (the low 70's).
So yeah a whole bunch of fear mongering and false OMG the sky is falling!
That's because in 1970, a large proportion of women (SAHM) were still staying at home raising baby boomers, and were not in paid employment. Since 1970 gender roles have continues evolving, plus the baby boomers have grown up, sending millions more women into the paid workforce.
Men on the other hand have been dropping out of the labor force, but have been outnumbered by women entering it.
NONE of those people are associates of Obama. That lie has been discredited MANY times. Your posting lies and misinformation is despicable. Worse, you have become blind to the truth.
Investigations by CNN, The New York Times and other news organizations concluded that Obama did not have a close relationship with Ayers. The same is true for the rest of your list.
Baa haa haa ... New York Times had covers with pictures of Obama with a "HALO" around his head, some in the background so it looked like he had a halo... how many times? They thought "all" Americans were stupid and we would all jump on the Obama is god bandwagon.
and you think CNN and "The New York Times" isn't liberal right?
If the numbers are so good, why are so many Americans living in poverty? Spinning numbers doesn't change the fact that 49 million live in poverty in America.
"Forty-nine million people, or 16 percent of the population, lived in food insecure households in 2012, the latest year for which figures are available. This is up from 11.1 percent in 2007."PressTV - Poverty, hunger, and homelessness plaguing the US
If the recession is over and unemployment is down, why are hunger and poverty up under this current administration?
(If you're unsure and you just want to spout off, feel free to blame Bush.)
1) We continue to import poverty from other countries
2) The underclass continues to pop out more and more kids they can't possibly adequately support with the limited skills they have
3) The low-wage sector of the economy is growing faster than the living-wage sector.
As for homelessness, the so-called safety net is negligible for childless able-bodied adults.
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.
