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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A few, actually, not even counting real life experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CravingMountains
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.