Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

imagep · Oct 3, 2014

ocean515 said:
The youngest baby boomers aren't even 60 yet. The oldest Baby Boomers are just now reaching 65. Given the significant loss in asset values for many baby boomers, (home prices, etc.) they are putting off retirement because they don't have the potential retirement income they were hoping for.

Perhaps you need to revisit your conclusions.

The oldest baby boomers would have been born around 1946. 2014-1946 = 68

Some of them started drawing ss 5 years ago, the lfpr started declining at a fast rate 5 years ago.

You don't see any correlation?

Helix · Oct 3, 2014

lifeisshort said:
If Romney won we would have real economic improvement like when Reagan won.

save that bull**** for the tourists. see above post.

imagep · Oct 3, 2014

lifeisshort said:
If Romney won we would have real economic improvement like when Reagan won.

The unemployment rate has actually fallen faster under Obama than it did under Reagan.

DA60 · Oct 3, 2014

imagep said:
Two events.

The Great Bush Recession peaked

The first baby boomers started drawing social security.

I was thinking more that Obama took office.

But if the LFPR (labor force participation rate) is dropping primarily because of baby boomers retiring, then what happened between last October and this last August, when the LFPR stayed the same?

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Did the baby boomers stop retiring?

Obviously not.

This, imo, proves that the LFPR is dropping down for other reasons then just retirees.

And again, how many of these retirees are doing so out of choice and how many out of necessity (I.e. they cannot find work)?

vesper · Oct 3, 2014

polgara said:
Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

Plus, on October 1, the Dow dropped 238.19! Not a good streak in process! And my granddaughter and her fiance just bought a house here! It was a good deal, but.... well, you know what I mean. *worrying about the future*

Yep just about everyone I talk to is concerned about the future. Cost of just about everything going up. Ending QE will likely bump up interest rates that have been close to zero for several years and that is going to take a toll on those who have become addicted to free money. Some are saying that will most likely occur sometime in March. You know all through this economic crisis, there was never a lack of want ads for positions throughout these years of high unemployment. There has always been job creation but recently not so good ones or a lack of trained persons to fill certain positions. One thing is for certain, the market will react favorable to the news which means I'll make money for now anyway.

imagep · Oct 3, 2014

DA60 said:
I was thinking more that Obama took office.

But if the LFPR (labor force participation rate) is dropping primarily because of baby boomers retiring, then what happened between last October and this last August, when the LFPR stayed the same?

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Did the baby boomers stop retiring?

Obviously not.

This, imo, proves that the LFPR is dropping down for other reasons then just retirees.

And again, how many of these retirees are doing so out of choice and how many out of necessity (I.e. they cannot find work)?

The economy started improving.

dogtowner · Oct 3, 2014

While by now everyone should know the answer, for those curious why the US unemployment rate just slid once more to a meager 5.9%, the lowest print since the summer of 2008, the answer is the same one we have shown every month since 2010: the collapse in the labor force participation rate, which in September slid from an already three decade low 62.8% to 62.7% - the lowest in over 36 years, matching the February 1978 lows. And while according to the Household Survey, 232,000 people found jobs, what is more disturbing is that the people not in the labor force, rose to a new record high, increasing by 315,000 to 92.6 million!

(From a mobile site)

Kushinator · Oct 3, 2014

DA60 said:
How many times do I have to say it...

If you do not understand his comment, why don't you politely ask for clarification?

Kushinator · Oct 3, 2014

DA60 said:
I was thinking more that Obama took office.

But if the LFPR (labor force participation rate) is dropping primarily because of baby boomers retiring, then what happened between last October and this last August, when the LFPR stayed the same?

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Did the baby boomers stop retiring?

Obviously not.

This, imo, proves that the LFPR is dropping down for other reasons then just retirees.

And again, how many of these retirees are doing so out of choice and how many out of necessity (I.e. they cannot find work)?

If you read the study i posted earlier, it shows that a little more than half of the participation rate decline is attributable to age.

Of course, it isn't zerohedge, which means you can take it at face value:

LFPR report

shrubnose · Oct 3, 2014

rcart76 said:
It was out of white guilt?

Click to expand...

:unsure13:

Or all of the illegal aliens voted for the Democratic Party.

You can be sure that they'll have some wacky excuse.

DA60 · Oct 3, 2014

mbig said:
It's pretty good no matter how you look at it.
Demographically, of course, 'participation' will probably erode/lag until 2030.

U.S. Job Growth Rebounds in September
Jobless Rate Falls to 5.9%; Suggests Labor Market Improving Faster Than Previously Thought
U.S. Job Growth Rebounds in September - WSJ
By JOSHUA MITCHELL/BEN LEUBSDORF
Oct. 3, 2014 - 8:32 a.m. ET

[..............................................]

Really?

So ALL the new employment is in the 16-19 and over 55 age ranges AND the 20-54 age range (where the major 'bread winners' are) have 82,000 LESS people employed AND the average hourly wage dropped.

And that is 'pretty good' to you?

Noted.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...september-payrolls-jump-5.html#post1063825787

BringIt · Oct 3, 2014

pinqy said:
No, I'm serious. You do realize that the current participation rate is higher than anytime before 1978.

:bs Typical progressive interpretation of the facts.

Data extracted on: October 3, 2014 (11:13:22 AM)

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

Here's the data as far back as the data goes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

latest_numbers_LNS11300000_1948_2014_all_period_M09_data.gif

Now here's the chart of the same data showing 1978 to present.

latest_numbers_LNS11300000_1978_2014_all_period_M09_data.gif

Now here's the data from the same chart under Obama's watch...

latest_numbers_LNS11300000_2008_2014_all_period_M09_data.gif

:spin:
According to Obama's trend... Soon, you will be able to brag the current participation rate is higher than anytime before 1954.:lamo
:spin:

Kushinator · Oct 3, 2014

BringIt said:
:bs

Are you afraid of becoming better informed?

Taylor · Oct 3, 2014

imagep said:
I've never seen that proven or illustrated.

So are you suggesting that we don't have the highest percentage of retired citizens that we have ever had?

I'm saying we can't chalk it all up to retiring baby boomers.

Kushinator · Oct 3, 2014

Taylor said:
I'm saying we can't chalk it all up to retiring baby boomers.

Of course not! We can chalk half of it up to retiring baby boomers!

DA60 · Oct 3, 2014

Kushinator said:
If you read the study i posted earlier, it shows that a little more than half of the participation rate decline is attributable to age.

Of course, it isn't zerohedge, which means you can take it at face value:

LFPR report

1) the report is from the White House...which means it is highly biased and I would not waste one minute reading it.

But 2) if it shows that roughly 1/2 of the LFPR drop is NOT due to age...then that is EXACTLY what I have been saying for years.

Hey, for once a Kushinator economic post was not a complete waste of my time...cool.

I hope (though DOUBT) that this will continue.

Good day.

imagep · Oct 3, 2014

dogtowner said:
...the collapse in the labor force participation rate...

The lfpr is still higher than it was at any time before 1978. I don't exactly call that a collapse. Half of the decline from the peak happend prior to Obama being elected, and it's pretty much stablized during the past 10 mths or so.

beefheart · Oct 3, 2014

Helix said:
well, you have to take into account that had Romney won, this thread would be the exact opposite.

Of course, they are soaked in hypocrisy.

Kushinator · Oct 3, 2014

DA60 said:
1) the report is from the White House...which means it is highly biased and I would not waste one minute reading it.

coming from the member who spams zerohedge ad nauseum.

imagep · Oct 3, 2014

BringIt said:
...According to Obama's trend... Soon, you will be able to brag the current participation rate is higher than anytime before 1954.

According to any downward trend we will eventually be at that point. One day, there will be almost no need for human labor.

George Jetson worked a three hour work day. One day a week. Yet his family never seemed to lack for anything - they even had a maid.

I would love to have his situation.

imagep · Oct 3, 2014

Taylor said:
I'm saying we can't chalk it all up to retiring baby boomers.

Sure.

We can just blame Obama for all of it. That's more politically expedient and doesn't require thinking.

ocean515 · Oct 3, 2014

Kushinator said:
Your statement was clearly incorrect. More than half of the participation rate decline can be attributable to age. Why not try and learn something for a change instead of spouting off baseless drive-by talking points?

I appreciate your interpretation and opinion. I am confident with my personal experience and knowledge on the subject, so your thoughts are rather meaningless to me. Thanks anyway.

eace

Kushinator · Oct 3, 2014

ocean515 said:
I appreciate your interpretation and opinion. I am confident with my personal experience and knowledge on the subject, so your thoughts are rather meaningless to me. Thanks anyway. eace

It is not a matter of interpretation.

You will not find a single credible study that supports your opinion.

Speaking of meaningless thoughts... why do you continue to participate in this discussion without contributing anything of value?

Taylor · Oct 3, 2014

Kushinator said:
Your statement was clearly incorrect. More than half of the participation rate decline can be attributable to age. Why not try and learn something for a change instead of spouting off baseless drive-by talking points?

He claimed that many baby boomers were delaying retirement. How can this possibly be shown to be incorrect based on a claim that half of the decline in overall participation rate can be attributable to age? That's just nonsense. What you've posted tells us nothing about whether or not baby boomers are delaying retirement.

Taylor · Oct 3, 2014

imagep said:
Sure.

We can just blame Obama for all of it. That's more politically expedient and doesn't require thinking.

Because it's got to be one or the other, right? :roll:

Jobless Rate in US Falls to 5.9% in September, Payrolls Jump

Villiage Idiot

Villiage Idiot

Villiage Idiot

Active member

I'm not-low all the time

I'm not-low all the time

Member

I'm not-low all the time

I'm not-low all the time

Villiage Idiot

Ice Cream for Crow?

I'm not-low all the time

Villiage Idiot

Villiage Idiot

I'm not-low all the time