Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-12-2014, 11:38 AM
 
Location: San Diego
5,319 posts, read 8,969,143 times
Reputation: 3396

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Except the trend is actually for people to work longer, not retire.

The young are leaving the labor force, the old are flocking to it
And yet we have these reports as well:

The Great Jobs Mystery: Why Are So Many Men Dropping Out of the Workforce? - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic

Quote:
There has been a long debate over whether the recession is pulling down participation stronger than demographics. A February 2012 study found that the aging workforce accounted for 75% of the decline.
From the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics:

Monthly Labor Review - January 2012

From p.49 (Labor Force Participation Rate):

Quote:
Demographic and structural changes. The aging of the U.S population is a prime example of a demographic change that will affect the labor force participation rate and, hence, the labor force itself. As the baby-boom generation has aged and moved from the prime age group, with high participation rates, to the older age groups, with significantly lower labor force participation rates, the overall labor force participation rate has declined. This trend is expected to continue and even accelerate in the 2010–2020 timeframe.
Quote:
The increasing shares of workers in the 55-years–and-older age group is a structural force that will continue over the 2010–2020 period, dramatically lowering both the overall participation rate and the growth of the labor force.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-12-2014, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Where they serve real ale.
7,242 posts, read 7,892,802 times
Reputation: 3497
This is just a fact. The boomers are getting old and retiring THAT is the main reason the labor participation rate is at record lows. That the RWNJs keep trying to pretend it is due to some other reason just show that, as usual, they are completely disconnected from reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 12:37 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,120 posts, read 10,672,022 times
Reputation: 9771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself View Post
This is just a fact. The boomers are getting old and retiring THAT is the main reason the labor participation rate is at record lows. That the RWNJs keep trying to pretend it is due to some other reason just show that, as usual, they are completely disconnected from reality.
Approximately 25% of the workforce is made up of baby boomers. Yet, your contention - and that of others who are trying to spin this toward the baby boomers - is that a minority of the work force reaching retirement age results in a net workforce participation loss? Give that some thought for a second. Especially considering that baby boomers are now staying in the workforce longer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 12:42 PM
 
5,365 posts, read 6,320,367 times
Reputation: 3360
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoD Guy View Post
Better how? I say that's stupid talk. Prove me wrong. Facts, boy.
Each month better? By now we should ALL be employed then. Show me the links, boy.
Like this one

U6 Unemployment Rate | Portal Seven

It is still high, but considerably better than where Bush put us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 12:46 PM
 
5,365 posts, read 6,320,367 times
Reputation: 3360
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
The GOP has sent quite a few job creating bills to the Senate, where Reid has tabled them.



We can't blame Obama for throwing away money on stimulus plans that didn't stimulate anything? What world are you living in?
Never took an economics course, have you? Those stimulus plans that Obama and Bush interjected into our economy prevented our unemployment rate from skyrocketing even higher. I personally think they were bad only in the sense that those stimulus injections kept the heart beating for several sick sectors of our economy that needed to die and be rebirthed again as something different. We will probably have to deal with that in the long term.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 12:49 PM
 
5,365 posts, read 6,320,367 times
Reputation: 3360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself View Post
This is just a fact. The boomers are getting old and retiring THAT is the main reason the labor participation rate is at record lows. That the RWNJs keep trying to pretend it is due to some other reason just show that, as usual, they are completely disconnected from reality.
The young falling out of the labor force is also fueling the collapse of our labor participation rate. Can't forget now that it is actually Generation Y that is the largest generation the nation has ever had. With over 90 million people, they affect our labor force participation more than any other generation of people.

Civilian labor force participation rates by age, sex, race, and ethnicity
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,120 posts, read 10,672,022 times
Reputation: 9771
Quote:
Originally Posted by CravingMountains View Post
Never took an economics course, have you?
A few, actually, not even counting real life experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CravingMountains View Post
Those stimulus plans that Obama and Bush interjected into our economy prevented our unemployment rate from skyrocketing even higher.
According to who and based on what data? If you listen to the White House's pet economists, they use "projections" in order to judge the effects of the stimulus packages. In other words, they make a semi-educated guess about what might have happened, compare that to what actually happened, and conclude that the stimulus averted catastrophic results. Never mind the fact that those catastrophic results a) may have been averted by any of a dozen other factors and b) may have been a necessary part of market stabilization which by being averted resulted in longer term economic problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CravingMountains View Post
I personally think they were bad only in the sense that those stimulus injections kept the heart beating for several sick sectors of our economy that needed to die and be rebirthed again as something different. We will probably have to deal with that in the long term.
If this is the only problem you see with the stimulus injections, you need to look deeper. However, at least you are somewhat admitting that the stimulus packages had a downside. It's a step in the right direction, anyhow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 01:28 PM
 
5,365 posts, read 6,320,367 times
Reputation: 3360
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Because that "deregulation" happened under Clinton.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall let the banks do what they did in the 20's which lead to the Great Depression.
History repeats..it always does.
And you think Bush did nothing to further the damage of that repeal? It was Bush's job as president to see this massive bubble and to put regulations in place before it imploded. He didn't. He believed the government interfering in markets was bad. I honestly do not believe Clinton would not have done the same thing.

Bush's wars didn't help by shooting up our deficit. Bush also grew government jobs at a very fast pace. Gotta love how Obama gets all the heat for the deficit when it was already to the sky because of those two factors.

And Bush's tax changes proved fully and truly that tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs. Bush's presidency and the first term of Obama's presidency had the lowest taxes in almost a century. It was also one of, if not the, slowest decade of private sector job growth our country has ever seen. Those tax cuts also contributed to our sky high deficit. And for what? The private sector jobs sure didn't come with them.

More stuff to read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/bu...pagewanted=all
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,434,384 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself View Post
This is just a fact. The boomers are getting old and retiring THAT is the main reason the labor participation rate is at record lows. That the RWNJs keep trying to pretend it is due to some other reason just show that, as usual, they are completely disconnected from reality.
sorry but the math doesnt support your spew


number of americans turning 65 daily: 10,000
number of americans turning 18 daily: 13,500
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2014, 01:43 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,434,384 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by CravingMountains View Post
And you think Bush did nothing to further the damage of that repeal? It was Bush's job as president to see this massive bubble and to put regulations in place before it imploded. He didn't. He believed the government interfering in markets was bad. I honestly do not believe Clinton would not have done the same thing.

Bush's wars didn't help by shooting up our deficit. Bush also grew government jobs at a very fast pace. Gotta love how Obama gets all the heat for the deficit when it was already to the sky because of those two factors.

And Bush's tax changes proved fully and truly that tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs. Bush's presidency and the first term of Obama's presidency had the lowest taxes in almost a century. It was also one of, if not the, slowest decade of private sector job growth our country has ever seen. Those tax cuts also contributed to our sky high deficit. And for what? The private sector jobs sure didn't come with them.

More stuff to read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/bu...pagewanted=all
but most of the tax cuts were for the poor and middleclass

ALL of the tax credit adjustments of the 'bush' tax cuts : (ie child care credit, child credit, retirment account credit, eductaion credit, health care credit) ALL phase out on incomes over 180k
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:38 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top