• 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!

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

DA60 said:
I just found this on the BLS website:

Civilian labor force participation rates by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

Unless I am reading this wrong, it says that the Labor Force Participation Rate for those over 65 went from 13.2% to 18.5% between 2002 and 2012.

What do you say now?
Click to expand...

I also just found this chart on the BLS.

And this chart DOES lend credence to the assertion that roughly half of the decrease in the LFPR is due to retiring seniors.

I was definitely mistaken saying it was not.

Civilian noninstitutional population by age, sex, race, and ethnicity


Man...look at all the old people...their numbers are growing like mad.

We need Carousel for over 75's... ;)
 
FaceofBachmann said:
And the rightwing answer to this: more tax cuts for the rich, more deregulation, more anti-union legislation -- all the things the resulted in the collapse.

There's a word for that.
Click to expand...
And the left wing answer always seems to take more, and spend more.

If this is what you see as success, if people dropping out of the workforce and getting on the government dole is such a good thing, hell, everyone should just quit, then we'd have full employment.
 
j-mac said:
And the left wing answer always seems to take more, and spend more.

If this is what you see as success, if people dropping out of the workforce and getting on the government dole is such a good thing, hell, everyone should just quit, then we'd have full employment.
Click to expand...

Looks like you've left Laffer and just settled for the usual talking points. It wasn't a very effective stunt in any case.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Bush didn't drive anyone into a recession - idiot consumers did - our congress did - and our banks did....
Click to expand...

That's a perfectly fair and true statement. Presidents are just people, and **** happens. I'd say that the system caused the Great Recession, not any one individual - there is plenty of blame to go around.

However, that said, I would like to think that somewhere within our government is a team of economic advisors, who would have been sounding warning bells long before we got to the crises state. Some individuals in the private sector were certainly doing that, but apparently no one was listening. So to at least a limited extent, it may be fair to say that Bush was "asleep at the wheel", as the bubble inflated and bursts.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Bush didn't drive anyone into a recession - idiot consumers did - our congress did - and our banks did.

Bush did a lot of messed up things but he had absolutely noting to do with the financial collapse. This whole "too big to fail" nonsense did, and Clinton's community reinvestment act didn't help either....

I suppose it's easy to blame Bush now isn't it? but it is harder to understand Congress, backroom dealings and basically votes on the bidding block...

I could write a 2000 page book on this financial collapse..

What the hell do you think happens when bigger banks start buying smaller banks and then use those assets to invest in garbage? what do you think when the government forces these big banks to lend to people who are unqualified for a mortgage?

Yeah take a look at Detroit or Gary Indiana.

But this is what you get when you have greedy idiots making false promises to inept politicians in an attempt to legitimize their "banks" - Rockwell tried this **** 60 years prior and it lead to the Great Depression.

But here we are believing that these politicians are the best minds in the world when in reality they're probably dumber than your typical US citizen.
Click to expand...

Oh God, the Community Reinvestment Act. You're actually dredging that talking point up! Why not blame ACORN while you're at it.

Can't you at least come up with some sexier, weirder talking points to explain Bush complete and utter economic failure. Can it involve gerbils and black helicopters?
 
DA60 said:
...

I was definitely mistaken saying it was not....
Click to expand...

You are a fine space alien robot man for admitting that. Don't hear "I was mistaken" very often around here. Kudos.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
...If this is what you see as success, if people dropping out of the workforce and getting on the government dole is such a good thing, hell, everyone should just quit, then we'd have full employment.
Click to expand...

Well, that's one way to lower unemployment.

But there is something in-between that should be economically maximizing, and politically viable.

I'd support shifting means tested welfare spending to infrastructure spending. The short term macroeconomic result would be the same as what we have now, but with better social results, and better long term results due to the value of the newly created infrastructure. We'd probably have to phase this spending shift in over a number of years.

It's usually not those on the moderate left who oppose this idea though, it's almost always those on the right, who will claim that creating infrastructure jobs is still welfare, and that doing so won't help the deficit issue. Sometimes I believe that those on the far right actually desire to see the poor and middle class harmed.

There used to be a time when conservatives valued public education and infrastructure, but these days it seems more and more like they would prefer an under educated workforce resulting in lower and lower wages, and crumbling public infrastructure. Conservatives no longer seem to value what they used to, and that's why I no longer vote for conservatives.
 
FaceofBachmann said:
Oh God, the Community Reinvestment Act. You're actually dredging that talking point up! Why not blame ACORN while you're at it.

Can't you at least come up with some sexier, weirder talking points to explain Bush complete and utter economic failure. Can it involve gerbils and black helicopters?
Click to expand...

please quit encouraging him. re-read this threat:
... I could write a 2000 page book on this financial collapse.. ...
Click to expand...
the inanity of a single post is tolerable. let's not motivate him to try for 2000
 
The CRA was terrible.....
 
FaceofBachmann said:
Oh God, the Community Reinvestment Act. You're actually dredging that talking point up! Why not blame ACORN while you're at it.

Can't you at least come up with some sexier, weirder talking points to explain Bush complete and utter economic failure. Can it involve gerbils and black helicopters?
Click to expand...



You haven't ONCE, been able to debunk anyone's claims about the CRA influence on the Subprime mortgage crisis or ACORN for that matter.

You offer up a opinion mixed with left wing talking points as a response to documented facts and sourced data.

Its just lazy
 
Fenton said:
You haven't ONCE, been able to debunk anyone's claims about the CRA influence on the Subprime mortgage crisis or ACORN for that matter.

You offer up a opinion mixed with left wing talking points as a response to documented facts and sourced data.

Its just lazy
Click to expand...

what's lazy is failing to read/recall the many, MANY threads wherein the CRA influence on the notso great recession has been debunked. i am attributing your post to a convenient memory lapse
 
Mr.Nick said:
The CRA was terrible.....
Click to expand...



They have no idea what they're taking about.

Honestly, they dredge up left op eds written by hacks from left wing sites and then claim that the issue is settled and that we've been " debunked ".

When I challenged him to counter my post on a point by point bases he runs away after parroting the same nonsense he's been posting since he showed up.

He's a admitted Socialist. You can't set your standards for a intelligent debate very high.
 
Fenton said:
They have no idea what they're taking about.

Honestly, they dredge up left op eds written by hacks from left wing sites and then claim that the issue is settled and that we've been " debunked ".

When I challenged him to counter my post on a point by point bases he runs away after parroting the same nonsense he's been posting since he showed up.

He's a admitted Socialist. You can't set your standards for a intelligent debate very high.
Click to expand...

No communist can put forth a valid dissent, and most democrats/liberals/progressives just regurgitate what they have read on other sites - reason for that being is that they hate non-progressives and would rather trust the propaganda rather than fiscal progressive or conservative ideas..

The was I see it is that the progressives are the PC cops and the non progressives (conservatives, real republicans, tea party and libertarians) are the accountants of this nation.

Hell, look at the typical progressive they have no problem being called a "social justice" warrior - that within itself shows they care more about social issues rather than economic issues or economic solvency.

Are libertarians or republicans fair? no not really, we rely on self sufficiency not government regulations and/or a nanny state which progressives believe are the solution to all their problems.
 
DA60 said:
What do you say now?
Click to expand...

That boomers make up a large portion of the labor market. Which is expected, given that they are roughly 1/4 of the total U.S. population. It would do us all a favor if you would educate yourself a bit more about this particular demographic.

You lack the ability to critique the White House study on worker participation, so you misuse discrete data by making unsubstantiated claims. The current population of those ages 55 and over is 85.18 million. The number of workers ages 55 and over is 33.97 million.

Meaning, roughly 60% of those ages 55 and over are not in the labor force. Since 2002, there have been an additional 14 million people ages 55 and over in the labor force, even though the population for this demographic has increased by 25 million.

For the next 15 years, their will be an average of 10,000 boomers retiring every day. That's 3.65 million per year, or roughly 14 million since 2011. Interestingly enough, there have been an additional 3 million people ages 55 and over enter the labor force in that same time frame.

We already know you lack the courage to admit when you are wrong.
 
Fenton said:
Wait, that CAN'T be right !

Janet Yellen did a study and everything that said there was a acute mass retiring happening right before our eyes.

And we know she's objective.....

Good find DA !
Click to expand...

Are your mathematical abilities limited to simple arithmetic? If so, there shouldn't be much confusion about the post above.
 
Kushinator said:
That boomers make up a large portion of the labor market. Which is expected, given that they are roughly 1/4 of the total U.S. population. It would do us all a favor if you would educate yourself a bit more about this particular demographic.

You lack the ability to critique the White House study on worker participation, so you misuse discrete data by making unsubstantiated claims. The current population of those ages 55 and over is 85.18 million. The number of workers ages 55 and over is 33.97 million.

Meaning, roughly 60% of those ages 55 and over are not in the labor force. Since 2002, there have been an additional 14 million people ages 55 and over in the labor force, even though the population for this demographic has increased by 25 million.

For the next 15 years, their will be an average of 10,000 boomers retiring every day. That's 3.65 million per year, or roughly 11 million since 2011. Interestingly enough, there have been an additional 3 million people ages 55 and over enter the labor force in that same time frame.

We already know you lack the courage to admit when you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Looking at the monthly SS enrollment reports, they don't reflect a 10k/day retirement rate. It looks like SS retriement rolls have expanded by 660k in 9 months, which would put a net retirement rate at about 2,500/day.

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, August 2014
 
Samhain said:
Looking at the monthly SS enrollment reports, they don't reflect a 10k/day retirement rate. It looks like SS retriement rolls have expanded by 660k in 9 months, which would put a net retirement rate at about 2,500/day.

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, August 2014
Click to expand...

Not everyone who retires is eligible for S.S.. This should be apparent, given the average retirement age in the U.S. is 62 years.
 
Kushinator said:
Are your mathematical abilities limited to simple arithmetic? If so, there shouldn't be much confusion about the post above.
Click to expand...

Actually No Kush.

My Mathematical education ended in Calculus. I enjoyed it and t wasn't too demanding. Actually it was kind of fun.

Why ? Because I dare question the lefts claim that the Labor participation rate is a inconsequential statistic ?
 
Fenton said:
Why ? Because I dare question the lefts claim that the Labor participation rate is a inconsequential statistic ?
Click to expand...

I put forth a credible study that shows 1.6% of the LFPR drop-off is due to aging. One of the least objective posters on this forum provides a simple metric pertaining to participation of those over 55 (and 65) and you have the nerve to say:

Fenton said:
Wait, that CAN'T be right! Janet Yellen did a study and everything that said there was a acute mass retiring happening right before our eyes.
Click to expand...

without the slightest consideration for demographic dynamics.

Can you provide a link to substantiate your oxymoron?
 
FaceofBachmann said:
Thanks for proving my point. You really don't want a robust middle class or to end extreme poverty. You just used the counterfactual distraction that tax increases on the rich are a "scheme" and won't work, when of course, redistribution of income works on its face. It's why you're against it, isn't it? Not because it wouldn't work, but because it does.

We tried tax cuts for the rich under Bush, remember. What happened? The biggest Recession in decades. As predicted by liberals.
Click to expand...
Is there some reason you cant answer a direct question? I get that it is a favorite tactic of the left to attack the questioner, erect strawmen and mischaracterize your opponents argument (and to your credit you did all three here quite well) But cant you just answer the questions posed honestly? Give it a shot. What have you got to lose?
 
FaceofBachmann said:
Thanks for proving my point. You really don't want a robust middle class or to end extreme poverty. You just used the counterfactual distraction that tax increases on the rich are a "scheme" and won't work, when of course, redistribution of income works on its face. It's why you're against it, isn't it? Not because it wouldn't work, but because it does.

We tried tax cuts for the rich under Bush, remember. What happened? The biggest Recession in decades. As predicted by liberals.
Click to expand...

And we tried tax cuts for the rich (capital gains and estate tax) under Clinton. What happened? The biggest economic expansion in US history.

Perhaps you need to reexamine your premises.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
And we tried tax cuts for the rich (capital gains and estate tax) under Clinton. What happened? The biggest economic expansion in US history.
Click to expand...

You do realize that we had two recessions in the ten year period after that tax cut don't you? I really don't see how that constitutes the "largest economic expansion".

Excess pooling of wealth in the hands of the few is a significant contributor to bubbles, and bubbles burst.
 
Last edited:
imagep said:
You do realize that we had two recessions in the ten year period after that tax cut don't you? I really don't see how that constitutes the "largest economic expansion".

Excess pooling of wealth in the hands of the few is a significant contributor to bubbles, and bubbles burst.
Click to expand...

I was making a point that correlation =/= causation. Oversimplifying economics is generally a mistake. There is no such thing as a sound argument that goes "Raise taxes and then [all *blank*] happens".

I mean, right there, you're going to try to slip in the claim that Clinton's tax cuts were somewhat responsible for two recessions? Well, can't we say the same about Clinton's tax raises by the same token?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom