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.
David Stockman was talking about another method of unemployment estimation. He was saying it was 42%. Had something to do with working hours. What he says is most of them are basically part time or worked for some little time in the last few months. So real unemployment should be higher. Couldn't find the article
The labor force participation rate numbers for the key 25-54 demographic, and the total employed within that demo, are at rates we probably haven't seen in our lifetimes. Meanwhile, more people aged 55-64 are working nowadays, than ever.
So, again, the flawed goobermint numbers don't flesh out the true employment picture of the country.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,561 posts, read 81,131,933 times
Reputation: 57761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Barbara
Yes, but that's not an accurate number, no matter where it is alleged to have come from. These things are most often taken from averages of data applying to the baby boomer cohort as a whole. But no one born in 1964 will turn 65 this year. The people turning 65 this year were all born in 1950. Demographics tell us that in fact about 250,000 people currently reach the age of 65 each month. That would be something on the order of 8,200 per day. But of course, people do not automatically retire upon reaching the age of 65. Many people continue to work, and many who have retired have also taken on a new and different job, thus remaining in the labor force. But the effect on LFPR is the same no matter what the intricacies of the micro-level details might be. Without a serious influx from new immigration, the increasing numbers baby-boomer retirements will drive the LFPR further and further down for at least a decade to come.
Which is offset by those that retire before 65. My brother, for example, retired at 55, several people where I work have retired this year at 60-62. I know people in tech jobs that retired in their 40s, who are not even boomers, but are out of the job market living off of their investments and big stock options.
The labor force participation rate numbers for the key 25-54 demographic, and the total employed within that demo, are at rates we probably haven't seen in our lifetimes.
Probably depends on how old you are. Meanwhile, there are no "key" demographics, and LFPR is NOT an economic indicator to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardRoarke
Meanwhile, more people aged 55-64 are working nowadays, than ever.
That's because of Bush. So many people sent back to Square-1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardRoarke
So, again, the flawed goobermint numbers don't flesh out the true employment picture of the country.
There is no "true" picture not based on government numbers. There is no other source that does anything even remotely comparable.
Which is offset by those that retire before 65. My brother, for example, retired at 55, several people where I work have retired this year at 60-62. I know people in tech jobs that retired in their 40s, who are not even boomers, but are out of the job market living off of their investments and big stock options.
Don't give up your day job. You can talk about the big pictures of things or about the back-fence gossip of personal anecdotes. The two don't mix very well.
If anyone really thinks the unemployment rate is that low then you are a dupe. Good and even not so good jobs are still hard to find.
Five years into an economic "recovery" and we an ever lower number of people in the population looking for work? Some recovery. Also, the number of jobs for April and May was revised downward which seems to be a common occurrence with the government stats.
There is also a trend towards more stay-at-home moms where they can afford it and another Gen-X trend to downsize everything including work and to just scrounge by and also older folks in dead-end situations (no work skills in demand and too old / sick) to apply and receive SS disabilit, again part of the scrounge by lifestyle. All this is part of a lower WFPR. I expect these trends to continue even in a stronger or much stronger job market.
Some manager's (possibly poor) decisions on what salary to offer new hires at your company probably isn't the best barometer of the unemployment rate for IT workers.
My last company before I quit working most devs were hired at 90k-120k depending on experience, and this was in Florida which is hardly some San Jose type hotbed of IT. Of course that is anecdotal so really no more useful than what you offered, but just another view from same industry.
The barometer of unemployment for IT workers is coming from how this employee is more versed in these things then others. That lead to us thinking that management lowballing folks is the poor decision. The latter isn't the determination of the former, but the other way around.
If anyone really thinks the unemployment rate is that low then you are a dupe. Good and even not so good jobs are still hard to find.
Five years into an economic "recovery" and we an ever lower number of people in the population looking for work? Some recovery. Also, the number of jobs for April and May was revised downward which seems to be a common occurrence with the government stats.
Duped? The US is thriving. Live with it. I don't understand why people love gloom and doom so much? Really odd stuff. Hate to tell you, but things are pretty darn good right now. The media doesn't like good, because it doesn't sell advertising and of course that means less money, so you keep falling for hyped up negative media stories. I will enjoy a stock market that has BOOMED and jobs galore. We are truly in GREAT TIMES! Not looking forward to the downturn that always happens, but I love our nice slow steady growth. Go USA and the global economy. We are holding our own well.
Yes, Major, according to the Social Security Administration, about 10,000 people a day (boomers) are retiring. I suspect that has a significant effect on the number of people in the workforce.
Is that higher or lower than a few years ago, also how many are on the 60,000 sample? Without that, the 10,000 people retiring/ day is useless information.
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.
