• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'[W:88]

Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

US Conservative said:
Folks, we can't keep this up, the numbers released by the Obama administration after 5 years of failed policies and smoke and mirrors are damning. 92 million outside the workforce. The jobs added are crap. This is what the democrat party gets us. Take a look at these trends.

People Not In Labor Force Soar To Record 91.8 Million; Participation Rate Plunges To 1978 Levels | Zero Hedge
LFP%20Participation_0.jpg

Not%20in%20Labor%20Force%20Dec_0.jpg
Click to expand...

This has been predicted for decades as the Boomers leave the markets.

For example...lets look at the age group 16 to 24 and 25 to 54. That's pretty much "working age".

In the age group 16 to 24
1992-66%
2012-54%
The biggest drop has been ages 16 to 19 from 51%('92) to 34%('12)

In 25 to 54...the bulk of "working age" individuals.

83.6% ('92) to 81.4% ('12).

Definitely a drop but not anything mind blowing.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

iliveonramen said:
This has been predicted for decades as the Boomers leave the markets.

For example...lets look at the age group 16 to 24 and 25 to 54. That's pretty much "working age".

In the age group 16 to 24
1992-66%
2012-54%
The biggest drop has been ages 16 to 19 from 51%('92) to 34%('12)

In 25 to 54...the bulk of "working age" individuals.

83.6% ('92) to 81.4% ('12).

Definitely a drop but not anything mind blowing.
Click to expand...

How does the BLS calculate the actual number of people leaving the workforce?
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

iliveonramen said:
This has been predicted for decades as the Boomers leave the markets.

For example...lets look at the age group 16 to 24 and 25 to 54. That's pretty much "working age".

In the age group 16 to 24
1992-66%
2012-54%
The biggest drop has been ages 16 to 19 from 51%('92) to 34%('12)

In 25 to 54...the bulk of "working age" individuals.

83.6% ('92) to 81.4% ('12).

Definitely a drop but not anything mind blowing.
Click to expand...

% of participation of above 55 has risen from 31% to 40% since 1990. It appears to have peaked at 40% around 2007.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

scatt said:
Did they take this and back it into reality? They predict 300k a month, did they compare that with reality? Can they take the released numbers since 2011 and see if it holds true?
Click to expand...

Well it could not possibly be 10,000 a day because that would mean every Baby Boomer survived to retirement age. Plus some continue working. I am trying to find numbers on it, but from what I have read before, it accounts for about 30% of the decline in the labor force participation rate.
 
Last edited:
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

I really don't think the mediocre job growth the last few years has much to do with anything that has gone on in Washington other than the dysfunction in congress and resulting economic uncertainty that has placed a small drag on growth.

Part of the problem is worldwide. The United States actually has one of the lower unemployment rates in the developed world: List of countries by unemployment rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can't imagine any economic policies, left right or center, that would have had us back to full employment when you consider that few other comparable nations have been able to accomplish this since the 2008 to 2009 recession. Taxes are historically quite low. The Feds have infused tons of money into the economy via Quantitative Easing, corporate profits are quite high as well as investment. However, hiring remains mediocre.

In terms of economic policy, I think the problem actually lies at the states. If you look at unemployment by state, there is huge variation:
Unemployment Rates for States

Part of this is attributable to energy booms in states like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Texas. However, there is obviously more to it than that, and its not just a blue state / red state divide either. Hawaii, Vermont, and Minnesota are all solidly blue states, yet are in the top 10 for low unemployment despite not having any type of energy booms in those states. 5 of the top 10 states with the highest unemployment rates are red states. So I don't think being a republican ran state necessarily leads to better economic growth, nor does being a blue state mean a state is anti-business. However, when you look at the poor performance in recent years by states like California, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Oregon, that has to be at least partially attributed to bad policy at the state level. Point being there is conservatism that is good for economic growth - Utah for example, and there is conservatism that is bad for economic growth - Kentucky or Nevada. Similarly, there is liberalism that is good for economic growth - Minnesota for example, and there is liberalism that is bad for economic growth - California. Setting aside states with energy booms like Texas and North Dakota, I think what good performing states have in common is not that they are all red or blue states, but rather that they are states that are pragmatic in their governance (Utah on the right, Minnesota on the left). The worst economic polices at the state and national level are those that are overly ideological and lack moderation and pragmatism. Point being our polarization and radicalization at all levels of government is our biggest impediment to economic growth in my opinion.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

Samhain said:
% of participation of above 55 has risen from 31% to 40% since 1990. It appears to have peaked at 40% around 2007.
Click to expand...

Sure but the % of total population that is made up by the age groups have changed.
I'm using 2002 and 2012 data (we're using Labor force participation numbers from 92)

In 2002 43% of the population were in the age group 25-54
In 2012 that number is 40%

Even if you're having higher participation rates among older Americans it doesn't nearly match the participation rate of americans at the younger group.

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf

Figure 4 illustrates this.

We have an aging population. When the population ages you don't have as high a % in the workforce. I agree...economic factors make the numbers worse than they'd be in a good economy but these drops of Labor Force Participation rates has a lot to do with demographic factors.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

radioman said:
Okay.
If the job situation is so bad, why don't GOPers support extended unemployment benefits?
Click to expand...

That's a miss-characterization.

GOP isn't against extending unemployment benefits, just that it has to be paid for by spending cuts in other areas, and this is when the Democrats claim that the GOP is against extending unemployment benefits.

The Ohio Republican maintains the position he expressed last month that Republicans would “clearly consider” an extension of federal help for the long-term unemployed “as long as it’s paid for and as long as there are other efforts that will help get our economy moving once again,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said Friday.
Click to expand...
Boehner open to extending unemployment benefits | TheHill

Obama, in his (n)ever present statesmanship and (n)ever present leadership, Obama hits House GOP on unemployment benefits - Reid J. Epstein - POLITICO.com picking a fight over it.

President Barack Obama has the fight he wants.

Minutes after winning a key Senate vote on the three-month extension of unemployment insurance, Obama teed up the forthcoming battle with House Republicans.
Click to expand...
Obama hits House GOP on unemployment benefits - Reid J. Epstein - POLITICO.com

Of course, given the complicit, Biased Lame Stream Media (BLSM), the 'news' reports then report that the GOP is against extending unemployment benefits. Factually inaccurate.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

iliveonramen said:
% you're referencing is for individuals 16 and over
Click to expand...

The US Census provides the data the BLS uses to calculate the Labor Force Particiaption rate. They also extrapolate data to arrive at a calculation to estimate the number of people leaving the workforce, i.e. retiring baby boomers.

The Census admits there are fewer people retiring at age 65 and older as a percent of that group than historical models used to calculate due to econmics, better health, etc.

Since the current unemployment rates have been so significantly influenced by factoring in people leaving the workforce, how confident can one be that these numbers are accurate?
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

SouthernDemocrat said:
I really don't think the mediocre job growth the last few years has much to do with anything that has gone on in Washington other than the dysfunction in congress and resulting economic uncertainty that has placed a small drag on growth.
Click to expand...

There is think you are missing something.

New federal regulations cost the economy $112 billion in 2013, according to a newly released tally of government figures from the American Action Forum.

Led by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy and health care agencies, the federal government added 157.9 million hours of paperwork for U.S. workers.

American Action Forum, a right-of-center Washington think tank, found in an analysis of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and Federal Register data released Wednesday that regulators have published $494 billion in net costs in final rules from 2009 through 2013.

Two major proposed rules, relating to emissions standards and efficiency standards for motors, drove the regulatory costs for 2013. Yet, according to AAF, overall regulatory activity was down from previous years in President Obama's tenure. The administration published 77 new major regulations, versus 100, in 2010. Any regulation that results in an annual effect on the economy greater than $100 million is considered major.

The largest new burden in terms of paperwork came from an "obscure" rule relating to affirmative action and nondiscrimination for contractors. It would add 9.9 million hours of paperwork.

AAF also measured the cost of regulations on individual companies by examining their 10-K reports. Among the biggest losers were Bank of America, with $1.7 billion in annual compliance costs, Duke Energy with $5.7 billion, and Pfizer with $1.6 billion.

Regulatory costs are only going to increase in 2014, predicts AAF. Depending on the White House's sensitivity to the politics around regulations and how quickly rules are moved, they could total $143 billion, the think tank estimates.
Click to expand...
Study: $112 billion in new regulations in 2013 | WashingtonExaminer.com

Just think, that money could have been not been spent on unproductive efforts regulatory compliance efforts (overhead), but instead expanding businesses, starting new businesses, hiring workers, stimulating demand.

SouthernDemocrat said:
Part of the problem is worldwide. The United States actually has one of the lower unemployment rates in the developed world: List of countries by unemployment rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can't imagine any economic policies, left right or center, that would have had us back to full employment when you consider that few other comparable nations have been able to accomplish this since the 2008 to 2009 recession. Taxes are historically quite low. The Feds have infused tons of money into the economy via Quantitative Easing, corporate profits are quite high as well as investment. However, hiring remains mediocre.

In terms of economic policy, I think the problem actually lies at the states. If you look at unemployment by state, there is huge variation:
Unemployment Rates for States

Part of this is attributable to energy booms in states like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Texas. However, there is obviously more to it than that, and its not just a blue state / red state divide either. Hawaii, Vermont, and Minnesota are all solidly blue states, yet are in the top 10 for low unemployment despite not having any type of energy booms in those states. 5 of the top 10 states with the highest unemployment rates are red states. So I don't think being a republican ran state necessarily leads to better economic growth, nor does being a blue state mean a state is anti-business. However, when you look at the poor performance in recent years by states like California, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Oregon, that has to be at least partially attributed to bad policy at the state level. Point being there is conservatism that is good for economic growth - Utah for example, and there is conservatism that is bad for economic growth - Kentucky or Nevada. Similarly, there is liberalism that is good for economic growth - Minnesota for example, and there is liberalism that is bad for economic growth - California. Setting aside states with energy booms like Texas and North Dakota, I think what good performing states have in common is not that they are all red or blue states, but rather that they are states that are pragmatic in their governance (Utah on the right, Minnesota on the left). The worst economic polices at the state and national level are those that are overly ideological and lack moderation and pragmatism. Point being our polarization and radicalization at all levels of government is our biggest impediment to economic growth in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Face it. The recovery that we have is not BECAUSE of Obama and his economic and regulatory policies, it is IN SPITE of the Obama and his economic and regulatory policies. We are lucky that we have a recovery at all.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

ocean515 said:
The US Census provides the data the BLS uses to calculate the Labor Force Particiaption rate. They also extrapolate data to arrive at a calculation to estimate the number of people leaving the workforce, i.e. retiring baby boomers.

The Census admits there are fewer people retiring at age 65 and older as a percent of that group than historical models used to calculate due to econmics, better health, etc.
Click to expand...

Sure...but even if 40% of people in that age group work compared to 35% a decade ago any gains in participation rates for that age group still doesn't compensate for the overall population shift to older ages.
Since the current unemployment rates have been so significantly influenced by factoring in people leaving the workforce, how confident can one be that these numbers are accurate?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where you're going with this. Why exactly are you doubting the numbers?
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

iliveonramen said:
Sure...but even if 40% of people in that age group work compared to 35% a decade ago any gains in participation rates for that age group still doesn't compensate for the overall population shift to older ages.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Why exactly are you doubting the numbers?
Click to expand...

Removing people from the workforce lowers the overall participation total, which without a single job being created, would lower the unemployment rate.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

ToastyOats said:
Huh. Didn't know that Obama was president since 1990.

Who knew?
Click to expand...

That was when the Cold War was won and the number of jobs in the liberated part of the world exploded adding to their continuing growth in China and a number of further low or once low income countries. The numbers in the US seem to mirror this.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

ocean515 said:
Removing people from the workforce lowers the overall participation total, which without a single job being created, would lower the unemployment rate.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why that is an issue. Should the unemployment rate include individuals not looking for a job? Should it include people that are at retirement or people too young for a job or individuals going to school full time?
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

iliveonramen said:
I'm not sure why that is an issue. Should the unemployment rate include individuals not looking for a job? Should it include people that are at retirement or people too young for a job or individuals going to school full time?
Click to expand...

The number of people leaving the workforce is at best, a subjective number. It's an estimate, based on assumptions that may or maynot be true. If one has an interest in showing a dropping unemployment rate, all one has to do is remove more people from the workforce, and the results can be obtained. Hence, I ask the question, how is the calculation made?
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

iliveonramen said:
I'm not sure why that is an issue. Should the unemployment rate include individuals not looking for a job? Should it include people that are at retirement or people too young for a job or individuals going to school full time?
Click to expand...

The people being removed from the workforce size, for the large part, are people who want to work but can't find work. If someone wants a job, but can't find one for a long period of time, they should still be counted as unemployed.

If you want to count all the people who want a job, or have a part time job but want full time work, and exclude retired, attending school and under 16, then U6 is your rate.

If you want to exclude those folks, then U3 works just fine. However, at this point, a rising U3 rate signifies an improving job market, not a falling rate.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

ocean515 said:
The number of people leaving the workforce is at best, a subjective number. It's an estimate, based on assumptions that may or maynot be true. If one has an interest in showing a dropping unemployment rate, all one has to do is remove more people from the workforce, and the results can be obtained. Hence, I ask the question, how is the calculation made?
Click to expand...

Well if you don't trust the numbers there's not much to discuss! What source do you get numbers from if you can't trust the census bureau and BLS? Other sources that display payroll information or new unemployment/continuing unemployment claims support the decrease in unemployed Americans
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

iliveonramen said:
Well if you don't trust the numbers there's not much to discuss! What source do you get numbers from if you can't trust the census bureau and BLS? Other sources that display payroll information or new unemployment/continuing unemployment claims support the decrease in unemployed Americans
Click to expand...

I asked the question because subjective numbers, and political appointees, are usually a poor mix when so much is made of the end result.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

iliveonramen said:
Well if you don't trust the numbers there's not much to discuss! What source do you get numbers from if you can't trust the census bureau and BLS? Other sources that display payroll information or new unemployment/continuing unemployment claims support the decrease in unemployed Americans
Click to expand...


Is it, or is it not true that the calculation used by BLS to measure "full time" went from 40 hrs. to 30 hrs. per week under this administration?
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

j-mac said:
Is it, or is it not true that the calculation used by BLS to measure "full time" went from 40 hrs. to 30 hrs. per week under this administration?
Click to expand...

I don't believe that to be true. BLS.gov's page of definitions has "full time" defined as 35 hours per week, and I'm pretty sure its been that way for quite some time.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#fullpart
Full- or part-time status
Full time is 35 hours or more per week; part time is 1 to 34 hours per week.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

Samhain said:
The people being removed from the workforce size, for the large part, are people who want to work but can't find work. If someone wants a job, but can't find one for a long period of time, they should still be counted as unemployed.
Click to expand...

U-4 includes discourage workers. Discouraged workers are individuals that specifically state they are not looking for a job because of market conditions. This number was 7.2% in December
U-6 includes persons "marginally attached to the labor force".
If you want to count all the people who want a job, or have a part time job but want full time work, and exclude retired, attending school and under 16, then U6 is your rate.
Click to expand...
No the U6 number is used because it's remarkably higher than the U-3 number . A lot of people are used to hearing the u-3 number used so in good times they associate a 4% unemployment rate as normal. When they hear 14% U-6 used by some folks as the "real unemployment number" then they think "wow! It's much higher than normal". Even during the 90's U-6 hovered around 9%.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

Samhain said:
I don't believe that to be true. BLS.gov's page of definitions has "full time" defined as 35 hours per week, and I'm pretty sure its been that way for quite some time.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#fullpart
Click to expand...

My mistake, it was O-care, not the BLS that redefined 'full time'....

"They have taken aim at the definition of “full time” in the health care law, which is set at 30 hours per week. Their legislation, the Forty Hours is Full Time Act, would change the threshold to 40 hours. Their concern, they say, is that employers may be increasingly motivated to avoid the mandate by cutting workers’ hours. In a letter to the Budget committee, they wrote that defining “full time” as 40 hours a week “will help protect millions of employees from having their hours curtailed” and their earnings reduced."

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/trying-to-redefine-full-time-work/?_r=0
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

j-mac said:
Is it, or is it not true that the calculation used by BLS to measure "full time" went from 40 hrs. to 30 hrs. per week under this administration?
Click to expand...

Actually full time cutoff is 35 hours a week. That's been the case...well for as long as I've been born.
 
Re: Sessions: 'For Every One Job Added, Nearly 5 People Left the Workforce'

iliveonramen said:
Actually full time cutoff is 35 hours a week. That's been the case...well for as long as I've been born.
Click to expand...


^^^^^

10-4, check the post right above yours....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom