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.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,549 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6032
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
I am not blaming Obama for it. You are losing when you start to put words in the other's mouth.
I have on other threads said that we are not in a recovery and that Obama is full of it when he talks of the recovery.
Since Obama declared a recovery:
1) Employment Participation has fallen
2) Employment Participation for 25 to 54 year olds has fallen (this excludes people in college)
3) The poverty rate has risen to its worst rate in over 50 years
4) Median household income has fallen (1% has risen quite nicely though)
5) Government QE stimulus has increased (to keep interest rates low, mortgage rates low, national debt more serviceable)
6) Food stamps are at all time highs
7) 45% of recent college grads have a job that doesn't require a college degree
Don't you have to be gullible to believe Obama that we are in year 4 of a recovery while increasing stimulus over that time period and yet all the numbers worsen.
Recovery is an economic term, not a social one, so regardless of your social opinion, we are indeed in a recovery
1. participation rate over all has been falling since the 1990's
2. 25-54 has been falling for 13 years, My comment was about the overall participation rate, so yes it does indeed include college students who decide to go to school instead of work, and that usually includes people in the age range you mentioned as well. Half my Business Stats class this spring was over 30 y/o.
3. Poverty rate is determined by the people in it. New people are not being plunged into poverty, people in poverty are having children, so the number grows and people who were on the line are now under it after the government recalculation.
4. median House hold income fell because less people are working. This stat is an argument within an argument. It is like saying a person with a broken leg cant drive, while true, its redundant and irrelevant.
5. Not sure what your point is.
6. Food Stamps are always at an all time high, since food stamps have been introduced, there have only been 3 years where the number of people on them has been reduced.
7. This is an irrelevant argument. You dont need a college degree to run a small business, but most people who run them have one. You go to college to get an upperhand,not because every job requires one.
Im going to help you out on this last one, next time use an analysis of Under employment. And when i say analysis, i mean one from a CIC or Economic Council approved university( Ex.Duke, Johns Hopkins,Northwestern, Harvard, Stanford).
I am not blaming Obama for it. You are losing when you start to put words in the other's mouth.
I have on other threads said that we are not in a recovery and that Obama is full of it when he talks of the recovery.
Since Obama declared a recovery:
1) Employment Participation has fallen
2) Employment Participation for 25 to 54 year olds has fallen (this excludes people in college)
...
Why do you keep ignoring the FACT that employment participation has been falling for many years and would have done so whether we had a recession or not?
The posting that I responded to was based on the BLS Labor Force Participation Rate. It has been declining because of an aging population. The decline in the BLS Labor Force Participation Rate has been predicted for decades.
You can link to another number or calculation that you think is better, but it doesn't alter the fact the the BLS Labor Force Participation Rate is not a good indicator of a healthy economy. If it was then it wouldn't have been raising for several decades. The primary force in the rise and the decline are changing demographics.
The article I posted is also based on BLS. The BB story doesn't add up from their own official numbers. Their numbers also point to the trend of 55+ working longer. Not less. Reducing BLS LPR improves unemployment numbers, however.
You seem to be repeating what those little spin blurbs you posted said. Changing demographics is indeed responsible. Those percentages I quoted most definitely showed changes.
dem·o·graph·ics
noun (used with a plural verb) the statistical data of a population, especially those showing average age, income, education, etc.
Participation in the 25-54 range has been dropping since 2000. President Obama wasnt even in the U.S. Senate when this decline started, yet you are blaming him for it.
During George Bush's time in office, the Participation rate fell from 84. 2 to 82.8 but some how that doesnt matter to you now does it ?
Ds and Rs don't matter. Just what occurred.
The manufacturing decline had already started in a big way From 2000 to 2010. (-33%) However, the ground work had already started very large scale under Clinton. The derivative game was what allowed all the profiting from off shoring. They also made changes to unemployment numbers during this time. The govt sent the jobs overseas. This was simply to fatten all the investment funds, of which govt is largest holder. WorseThantheGreat Depression: WhattheExpertsAreMissing ...
Why do you keep ignoring the FACT that employment participation has been falling for many years and would have done so whether we had a recession or not?
What is a fact is that the numbers have fallen. That is not the same as the actual events happening. It is also important to understand that small declines in LPR improve unemployment numbers.
These are just numbers, many are soft and they aren't transparent either. Don't confuse actual perception of events with numbers in a DB. As to predicting the future or making claims based on fictional unfoldment of events, I would say that is a bit over the top claim to make.
So again I state, unless you are going to force those over 55 to participate at the rates they did when they were younger then there will be a declining trend line in the labor force participation rate. Its a natural demographic change based on an older population bubble (ie the baby boomers reaching retirement age).
Actually, it's preferable to the every so cooked and tweaked Unemployment Rate. And look again:
Notice how it absolutely plummets in 2008? That's this thing I like to call the 2008 housing collapse and subsequent recession. If the LPR was actually useless then we shouldn't see anything at all indicating that there was any sort of recession.
Actually, you're probably right. There must have been a massive acceleration of retiring older people that just happened to occur right in 2008. Hey, maybe the whole crisis and recession was just imaginary to begin with!
First off the same numbers that go into the U1 through U6 unemployment rates are included in the LFPR. So if you think they are cooked and tweaked then there is no way that the LFPR is not.
Here is a longer view the Labor Force Participation rate. Notice that there were no sustained declines between 1965 and 1990. Was the economy always strong between 1965 and 1990? No it was not.
The reason it was rising was because a demographic change; women entering the the workforce. Most of the decline since the 2000's is because of another demographic change, which is the baby boomers are reaching retirement age.
I'm not denying the recession or its impact on the workforce. I'm just pointing out that the LFPR is not a good tool to measure it, because its primarily driven by demographic changes. We are in the midst of a huge demographic change, which has its own burdens for the economy.
So again I state, unless you are going to force those over 55 to participate at the rates they did when they were younger then there will be a declining trend line in the labor force participation rate. Its a natural demographic change based on an older population bubble (ie the baby boomers reaching retirement age).
Not sure of your point. People have always been retiring. Yes there are more BB's. However, the trends also show people retiring later. The largest chunk of LPR decline has not come from the BB's.
#2 The Employment Participation for 25 to 54 year olds his bouncing around its worst rate since 1984.
How does #1 and #2 make prime working age people less likely to get a job. You would think those people would be snatching up jobs from retirees, but many companies are cutting positions when someone retires.
People don't drop out of the Labor Force Participation Rate just because they turn 65. Therefore the denominator portion of the rate is growing larger. You only drop out for death, jail, incarceration or joining the military.
The participation rates at 25 is much higher than the participation rates at 54.
Notice the increase in the participation rate for 55 and older. I don't think the fact that it has been increasing since the nineties is an indication that the economy has been healthy since the nineties.
Bottom line the LFPR is just not a good indicator on employment health of the economy. Its dominated by demographic shifts.
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.
