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.
I am not sure it is anymore cooked than it would be by any person. If anything I think the U-6 is because people who are in the monthly surveys may not realize that they are underemployed. I mean being unemployed is easy, do you not have a job and have you sent in an application, attended a job fair, went on a job interview, talked to an employer in the last month? That is easy to determine. But some people may not realize what being underemployed is.
What I find funny is I have been unemployed for a year and no one has called me to participate in some survey on employment. Nothing from the UI office either.
What I find funny is I have been unemployed for a year and no one has called me to participate in some survey on employment. Nothing from the UI office either.
I think they just use the same sample so if you got the calls one year ago when you had your job, I think they would have kept calling you. Just like how Nielson normally keeps the same houses in their TV ratings.
The 1st category (age 16-54) covers 38 years.
The 2nd category (55+) covers 23 years (based on average life expectancy of 78) - and not only that, but since most people over 65 are ALREADY RETIRED, the 55+ category is really only about 10 years worth or demographics rather than 23 years worth.
So is it ANY surprise that the 1st category (which is nearly TWICE as LONG - or more accurately nearly FOUR TIMES as LONG) is so much larger than the 2nd?
OF COURSE the 1st category is going to be wayyyyyy bigger than the 2nd category.
The key figure to seeing the impact of babyboomer retirement is NOT the percentage of people over 55 no longer in the workforce compared to the number of people in other age groups no longer in the workforce, it's the INCREASE in the number of people over 55 (or more specifically over 65) today compared to the number of people over 55 (or - again - more specificaly over 65) in the past. There is a higher percentage of seniors today than at ANY time in US history, and that number will ONLY GO UP over the next couple of decades because not only are more people than ever reaching their retirement years, those IN their retirement years are living longer. That's WHY there's been so much concerned talk about SS over the last decade or so - this has been coming for a long time. It's nothing new.
Between 2000 and 2010 the total US population grew 9.7%, but the population over 65 grew by 15.1 (over 50% higher) while the percentage of people 85 and older grew by 29.5% (more than THREE TIMES the rate of the general population) - and that trend is excellorating as more and more baby boomers reach retirement age. The PERCENTAGE of the population in their retirement years is INCREASING while the PERCENTAGE of population in their working years is DECREASING. That's simple demographics.
Don't you think that if the overall population increased by less than 10% and the population over 65 increased by more than 15% and the population over 85 increased by nearly 30% it's going to affect the Labor Force Participation Rate?
GEEZE!
How many times does that have to be explained?
The subject was simply LPR. Not all the other threads, that do affect the economy. You implied BBs are the biggest impact on LPR. When there is only a 26% reduction in 55+, vs the larger 74% reduction in other categories. No other figures are needed to show that the largest reduction in LPR isn't coming from boomers. That simply doesn't hold water.
I think they just use the same sample so if you got the calls one year ago when you had your job, I think they would have kept calling you. Just like how Nielson normally keeps the same houses in their TV ratings.
Gallup doesn't call me for approval rating polls either. That doesn't mean Gallup cooks the polls.
It's "narrow minded logic" to think that the "guy in charge AT THE TIME" is actually RESPONSIBLE for actually DOING SOMETHING when he sees a problem looming during his watch?
Give me a break.
Typical "Party or (no) personal responsibility" nonsense.
Apparently your argument is that for the 8 years of the Bush Administration there was NO President.
Hmmmm.....
Well, I got to admit, maybe you are on to something.
Ken
You are disingenuous.
I say that both Clinton and Bush hurt the economy.
Democrats claim that Clinton was great with the economy while on the other hand claiming that policies he put into place hurt the economy.
I place blame on both of them. You put blame on one of them. You are not intellectually honest.
Clinton championed policies that hurt the economy per Democrats, yet he is hailed as an economic messiah by those same people.
P.S. Speaking of Bush not fixing Clinton's mistakes even though he tried with Fannie and Freddie but the Dems in congress refused to go along at the time...I am sure you blame Obama and not Bush for the current mess....you have no intellectual honesty.
Because Romney was an evil, dog-abusing, woman-hating, 1%-er that hates poor people. That's our uninformed voters, for you.
So pray tell, how doesn't Obama fit into that same description? He and his other half are very well off, went to only the best schools (I'm not saying he studied, just that he went) and as the capper, which is worse, taking your dog for a WOK or having it on the roof in a crate?
That is narrow minded logic that serves a political purpose.
Bill Clinton put in place policies that damaged the economy and was damaging the economy in his final years in office. Bush even warned the Democrat controlled congress about Fannie and Freddie.
Both parties put us into this economic mess...anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.
Bill Clinton is as much to blame as Bush.
THANK YOU!!!!!
Until such a time as people start looking at these "leaders" as applying for a job not just whether they "like them" and quit voting party lines we'll never ever fix things.
Would Obama be a fun guy to have at your kegger? Sure! Would I want him running my finances or doing my books? Hell no.
10,000 turn 65 every day. So what ?
Seniors aren't retiring. We have a record number of older Americans still working.
And you know what ?
More turn 18 each day then 65. Why isn't that just as important in the news ?
Too many just take the news at face value.
Critical thinking would have them doing a bit more and coming to their own conclusion whether this number is good or bad.
As more drop out of the labor force the UE number will go down.
That's what everyone wants..a nice low UE number.
I say that both Clinton and Bush hurt the economy.
Democrats claim that Clinton was great with the economy while on the other hand claiming that policies he put into place hurt the economy.
I place blame on both of them. You put blame on one of them. You are not intellectually honest.
Clinton championed policies that hurt the economy per Democrats, yet he is hailed as an economic messiah by those same people.
P.S. Speaking of Bush not fixing Clinton's mistakes even though he tried with Fannie and Freddie but the Dems in congress refused to go along at the time...I am sure you blame Obama and not Bush for the current mess....you have no intellectual honesty.
Clinton's biggest mistake economically was repealing the banking regulations. Bush, he tried to use his Texas logic (which perhaps worked because of Clinton's national policies) on a national scale. However Bush had three recessions to wade through (dot.com bust from the end of Clinton, the 2003/4 recession and the beginning of the Great Recession) and the two wars. Bush's logic was in theory good but it wasn't good when you added in the entire situation, it wasn't. It's a good policy during growth but not when you have to rebuild which we needed to (though not in the way we need it now.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj
So pray tell, how doesn't Obama fit into that same description? He and his other half are very well off, went to only the best schools (I'm not saying he studied, just that he went) and as the capper, which is worse, taking your dog for a WOK or having it on the roof in a crate?
We can't complain about Obama because that's racist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj
THANK YOU!!!!!
Until such a time as people start looking at these "leaders" as applying for a job not just whether they "like them" and quit voting party lines we'll never ever fix things.
Would Obama be a fun guy to have at your kegger? Sure! Would I want him running my finances or doing my books? Hell no.
I agree but the problem are the whips who would place sanctions on you, a Congressional rep who voted against partylines. Not saying this practice is right, but it exists.
The subject was simply LPR. Not all the other threads, that do affect the economy. You implied BBs are the biggest impact on LPR. When there is only a 26% reduction in 55+, vs the larger 74% reduction in other categories. No other figures are needed to show that the largest reduction in LPR isn't coming from boomers. That simply doesn't hold water.
Bull.
You may wish to paint that picture, but the fact is the 55+ group represents a far smaller share of the working-age population than the 16-54 age group does - that's just a fact so it's no surprise that the 16-54 age has the lions share of the folks who've left the labor force. That's the way any sensible person would EXPECT it to be and in no way, shape, or form undermines the fact that Babyboomers are entering their retirement years. The average retirement age in the US is 61.
The fact is, the segment of the population over age 65 is growing 50% faster than the population as whole - and that is BOUND to impact the LPR. There is nothing new about that, it's not a surprise, and economists have seen it coming for DECADES (and now it's HERE).
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 08-06-2013 at 11:25 AM..
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.
