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.
Then, counter to its behavior in previous economic downturns, in which it would soon return to its prerecession level, the labor force participation rate continued to decline following the 2001 recession, after which it held steady at about 66.0 percent from 2004 to 2008. Subsequently, during the 2007–2009 recession, the overall labor force participation rate fell by 0.6 percentage point, from 66.0 percent during 2007–2008 to 65.4 percent in 2009. Then, in 2010, the rate came in at 64.7 percent, a further decrease of 0.7 percentage point. By 2012, the participation rate had fallen another 1.0 percentage point, to 63.7 percent. Of note is the fact that the drop in the labor force participation rate was just 0.6 percentage point during the 2007–2009 economic downturn whereas, between 2009 and 2012, since the end of the recession, the rate declined by another 1.7 percentage points. A major factor responsible for this downward pressure on the overall labor force participation rate is the aging of the baby-boom generation.
Here is an study by an economist from the Philadelphia Fed.
Almost all of the decline (80 percent) in the participation rate since the first quarter of 2012 is accounted for by the increase in nonparticipation due to retirement.
This implies that the decline in the unemployment rate since 2012 is not due to more discouraged workers dropping out of the labor force.
Liberal economists will spin economic numbers one way, conservative economists will spin it the other way.
Let's focus on the real point here: Are working aged Americans better off? Here's the reality: Every working age demographic -- so ages 16 to 55 -- have:
Seen a decrease in LFPR.
Have not seen an upward trend in their LFPR since Obama took office.
The median household income plummeted at the beginning of the recession and has not recovered to pre-recession levels (see below). So the average American worker who still has work is making less money.
A massive shift of income up to the top 1% and 10% has occurred and shows no signs of changing anytime soon. It's clear enough where the money is going and it's not going to the average American worker.
Then, counter to its behavior in previous economic downturns, in which it would soon return to its prerecession level, the labor force participation rate continued to decline following the 2001 recession, after which it held steady at about 66.0 percent from 2004 to 2008. Subsequently, during the 2007–2009 recession, the overall labor force participation rate fell by 0.6 percentage point, from 66.0 percent during 2007–2008 to 65.4 percent in 2009. Then, in 2010, the rate came in at 64.7 percent, a further decrease of 0.7 percentage point. By 2012, the participation rate had fallen another 1.0 percentage point, to 63.7 percent. Of note is the fact that the drop in the labor force participation rate was just 0.6 percentage point during the 2007–2009 economic downturn whereas, between 2009 and 2012, since the end of the recession, the rate declined by another 1.7 percentage points. A major factor responsible for this downward pressure on the overall labor force participation rate is the aging of the baby-boom generation.
Here is an study by an economist from the Philadelphia Fed.
Almost all of the decline (80 percent) in the participation rate since the first quarter of 2012 is accounted for by the increase in nonparticipation due to retirement.
This implies that the decline in the unemployment rate since 2012 is not due to more discouraged workers dropping out of the labor force.
Not only that, but lots of folks don't even wait until they qualify for SS before they retire. The LFPR peaks somewhere between ages 45 and 50 (I can't recall the exact peak) and then gradually begins falling. Usually what happens in these cases is one spouse (typically the wife, but not always) retires early while the other continues to work for a few more years.
The whole claim that older folks are "working 'till they drop" is an outright LIE.
If older folks were "working 'till they drop" the LFPR for older folks would remain at the peak that's hit when folks are at their prime working years.
As usual Rightwing nutjobs just make stuff up that has no resemblence to reality whatsoever.
Liberal economists will spin economic numbers one way, conservative economists will spin it the other way.
Let's focus on the real point here: Are working aged Americans better off? Here's the reality: Every working age demographic -- so ages 16 to 55 -- have:
Seen a decrease in LFPR.
Have not seen an upward trend in their LFPR since Obama took office.
The median household income plummeted at the beginning of the recession and has not recovered to pre-recession levels (see below). So the average American worker who still has work is making less money.
A massive shift of income up to the top 1% and 10% has occurred and shows no signs of changing anytime soon. It's clear enough where the money is going and it's not going to the average American worker.
Only an idiot would expect that the median household income would be back to pre-recession levels while the UE is still higher than pre-recession levels.
The fact remains however that median household income is rising again - as would be expected as the UE rate continues to fall. The economy is "recovering" - NOT "recovered" - which is why interest rates remain low.
The income shift you mention has been ongoing since before the current administration and is a long term trend that some argue began in the 1980's.
The LFPR is NOT a good economic indicator because both demographic trends and cultural trends have a huge impact on it. The fall in the LFPR was predicted decades ago because of pretty obvious demographic changes that were coming. The current LFPR is HIGHER today than it was during the 50's and 60's when America's economy was the envy of the world. Jimmy Carter had a higher LFPR than any President up that time. Are you arguing that Carter had a strong economy? His LFPR was way higher than Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford. Were those lousy Presidents and Carter a great President?
Wingnuts focus on the LFPR because it's become pretty much the ONLY "economic" statistic that's not showing improvement. It's the virtually the ONLY argument you folks have left to claim the economy is not improving. Unfortunately for you folks, it's a LOUSY argument - for the reasons I've mentioned above (that the LFPR is not a particulary good measure of economic health because a couple of other major things have a huge impact on it - notably social and demographic trends).
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 10-04-2014 at 03:12 PM..
If you had been paying attention to the facts, you'd know that's not happening. The LFPR for older people is INCREASING, while the rate for younger people is DECREASING.
More takers. Fewer contributors. And it's not the old folks doing the taking.
Many folks don't even WAIT until age 65. The LFPR begins dropping after about age 45.
The LFPR for older people IS increasing - but it's still a MINORITY of older folks who continue to work. The vast majority of older folks STILL retire - and many of them don't even wait until they qualify for SS. And there are a LOT more of them than there used to be. Seniors are the fastest growing age demographic in the country - and even if their LFPR is higher than it used to be, it's still lower than the LFPR for the nation as a whole - which means they are LOWERING the LFPR for the nation as a whole - that's just basic math. If the fastest growing segment has a LFPR lower than the AVERAGE LFPR, they will bring that AVERAGE LFPR DOWN.....
Which is exactly why the LFPR should be increasing instead of declining. When an increasing group's LFPR similarly increases, the LFPR should be increasing, not declining.
Not unless that faster growing group has a LFPT HIGHER than the AVERAGE for the nation as a whole.
You need to go back to grade school math.
If the fastest growing group has a LFPR higher than the average LFPR then they will pull the LFPR up.
If the fastest growing group has a LFPT lower than the average LFPR then they will pull the LFPR down.
It doesn't matter what direction the LFPR of that fastest growing group is moving - it only matters that groups' LFPR is higher or lower than the AVERAGE LFPR. As long as the LFPR of that group remains lower than the average LFPR it pulls the average down. The only thing the direction of the movement of the LFPR of that group impacts is the SPEED at which the average LFPR changes - NOT the DIRECTION.
[] ZERO TAXES [] ZERO REGULATIONS [] ZERO RECORD KEEPING [] NO LIMITED LIABILITY
...
=> Would you think that companies would repatriate to the USA to enjoy ZERO taxes?
=> Would fixed personnel budgets hire more labor when there was no tax nor legal burden for hiring them?
=> Would untaxed workers have more to spend?
=> Would imports lose their price advantage?
=> Would American people enjoy prosperity?
I think "yes" is the answer to the questions.
...
And to end the "energy crisis", another politically incorrect solution:
[] ZERO SUBSIDIES [] ZERO TAXES [] ZERO REGULATIONS [] ZERO RECORD KEEPING [] NO LIMITED LIABILITY
{} Government no longer can own, control or interfere with infrastructure and utilities. Government must divest itself of all properties and activities not directly linked to (a) securing endowed rights or (b) governing those who consent. Properties can be donated to nonprofit non-governmental entities, auctioned to the highest bidders, privatized, or otherwise transferred.
=> Would Americans naturally choose the least expensive, most frugal, cost saving and best performing form of transportation, housing, and so on?
I think so.
Free choice is superior to no choice, as dictated by bureaucrats and politicians.
Informed free choice is always better than what others think is best "for your own good."
**"No limited liability" = investors / owners / officers aren't immune from prosecution for deliberate injuries done in pursuit of gain.
Last edited by jetgraphics; 10-04-2014 at 04:07 PM..
"Real Unemployment" was 15.1 in February 2009, so its still dropped 3.3% since he took office.
Irrelevant. This is 2014. A 3.3% drop in six years (almost 7) is nothing. He's "pissing in the wind."
He promised much more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
TheParticipation rate isnt at a record low, and even if it was, it has been dropping since 1999, not really something you can attack President Obama for since it has spanned 3 Presidents.
Evidence? Right now, over 50% of the work force is unemployed. It's a disgrace no matter "history." He promised much more than he has produced. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
Also average hourly pay is based on the idividual, someone making $0 isnt averaged in , so when they start a new job at say $9 an hour, they actually bring the average down even though they entered the work force and make more than they did.
Your just facts are both lies and misconceptions on your part.
The fact that a sudden drop in LFPR exactly coincides with the 2007 collapse tells me that it was the recession that caused it. Go ahead, blame Mr Bush. I blame him in large part.
The fact that the LFPR hasn't regained the roughly 3.3% that it lost since Obama took office tells me that Barry hasn't really fixed anything.
The fact that the elderly are continuing to stay in the labor force at record levels in recent years kinda counters the whole "it's a bunch of baby boomers retiring" BS. Every over 55 age demographic has seen their LFPR trending upwards. The older you are, the greater the increase for your age demographic. Every age demographic under 55 has lost LFPR with the 16 to 19 year old demographic having lost nearly half of it's LFPR. Those are the people who are the bulk of the lost 3.3% LFPR.
So yeah, old people kinda are working till their dead. And the younger you are, the more likely you can't find a job. Clearly, things are severely broken.
The LFPR always goes down when there is a recession.
When the recession is over it's generally gone back up - but due to demographics the LFPR peaked between 1997 and 2001 - and after the 2001 recession it never did come back to that prior peak because by then there were ALREADY enough people in that age group of 45+ (where they slowly begin leaving the workforce) to keep the economic rebound from bringing the LFPR back to it's previous high. So, instead of rising as usual, it essentially remained flat. Then in 2007 when the recession hit, it fell again - and once again those changes in the age demographic that stopped it from rising back after the 2000 recession kept it from rising again - and this time even MORE babyboomers were hitting retirement age so not only did it remain flat, it continued to fall (although slower than it did during the actual recession).
Ken
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.
