• 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!

2015 Was a Great Year for Jobs

joG said:
- You are right. There is a large set of problems that occur, when societies shrink.

- Imagine what you want, but I have read a good number of studies for different countries, for different economic situations, for different levels of development, for varying levels of income and distribution and comparative studies by as different organizations as Harvard, OECD, World Bank, EU or you name it. And yes, there are situations in which it is better to increase spending. But those are really not the general case in OECD type economies.
Click to expand...

You're being coy. You can either actually identify some of these sources or take it that you've limited yourself entirely to what could generally be called "von misean" voodoo economics, particularly popular with libertarians. This economic theory is based entirely on an ideology. They have no actual real-world, either historical or current, examples that would support their claims. It's more of a religious belief than an economic discipline.
 
Last edited:
Funny. My job remained exactly the same in 2015. Not even a raise to be had.
A selfish statement I know. I *AM* glad to have a job though.
 
Ntharotep said:
Funny. My job remained exactly the same in 2015. Not even a raise to be had.
A selfish statement I know. I *AM* glad to have a job though.
Click to expand...

Did you ask for a raise?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
We started the year with a labor participation rate of 62.9 and ended with 62.6, the lowest in something like 40 years, so no.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf

Treading water. In what is supposed to be a recovery. And we are due for another major recession in the near future.

The claim that the job situation is anywhere near good is almost always corporate class propaganda. Unfortunately most Americans are not educated enough to figure this out.
Click to expand...

...and why don't you tell our listening audience why the labor participation rate matters, or, more importantly, how its an indicator of economic health.

Clue #1: start by understanding what the number is. Once you do, you will have a hard time with the assignment above.

Moreover, I am happy to tell you why a declining labor participation rate is actually an indicator of economic strength.
 
upsideguy said:
...and why don't you tell our listening audience why the labor participation rate matters, or, more importantly, how its an indicator of economic health.

Clue #1: start by understanding what the number is. Once you do, you will have a hard time with the assignment above.

Moreover, I am happy to tell you why a declining labor participation rate is actually an indicator of economic strength.
Click to expand...

No, NOT a good thing.

In a nutshell, the baby boomers have aged and are now finally retiring en masse. After bulging into the workplace in the 1970s, women are no longer the force in the labor market they once were. Younger people are opting to educate themselves rather than work. And a less-than-friendly tone toward immigrants is shrinking the supply for some high-skilled jobs.

All told, it's likely to be a drag on the U.S. economy for years to come.

The U.S. economy has created 11.5 million new jobs during the last 57 consecutive months of domestic labor force expansion. And there were nearly 5.4 million open jobs at the end of May – more than twice as many vacancies as there were six years ago.

And yet Americans are actually trickling out of work at an alarming rate. The country's labor force participation rate – which measures the share of Americans at least 16 years old who are either employed or actively looking for work – dipped last month to a 38-year low, clocking in at an underwhelming 62.6 percent.
Click to expand...

Unemployment Is Low But More Workers Are Leaving the Workforce - US News

These are no longer stay at home moms being able to be homemakers. These are folks who can't find a job worth having and are more and more likely to be participating in the underground economy with a kicker from one or two aid programs.
 
clownboy said:
No, NOT a good thing.



Unemployment Is Low But More Workers Are Leaving the Workforce - US News

These are no longer stay at home moms being able to be homemakers. These are folks who can't find a job worth having and are more and more likely to be participating in the underground economy with a kicker from one or two aid programs.
Click to expand...

No where in your article does it say what you just said. the Not in Work Force Number is substantially comprised of the students (including high school students), the retired, stay at home moms and the disabled.

From your article:

"In a nutshell, the baby boomers have aged and are now finally retiring en masse. After bulging into the workplace in the 1970s, women are no longer the force in the labor market they once were. Younger people are opting to educate themselves rather than work. And a less-than-friendly tone toward immigrants is shrinking the supply for some high-skilled jobs."

We have people leaving the workforce because they can... they can afford to retire, stay at home, go back to school, not have to work parttime while in school, etc. A lower labor participation rate can be indicative of prosperity. My guess is that once you win the Powerball next week, you will opt out of participating in labor as well, because you can.

The problem with the not-in-work force is that it means a tighter labor market... which means higher wages to get people to work.

Some additional reading on the subject:

Baby Boomers Are a Big Part of Labor Participation Rate Decline - US News
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/upshot/the-rise-of-men-who-dont-work-and-what-they-do-instead.html
https://businessincanada.com/2014/0...ing-up-dropping-out-greying-aging-population/
The chart Obama-haters love most—and the truth behind it - Quartz
 
Last edited:
This is what separates a good president like obama from a bad president like bush.
 
upsideguy said:
No where in your article does it say what you just said. the Not in Work Force Number is substantially comprised of the students (including high school students), the retired, stay at home moms and the disabled.

From your article:

"In a nutshell, the baby boomers have aged and are now finally retiring en masse. After bulging into the workplace in the 1970s, women are no longer the force in the labor market they once were. Younger people are opting to educate themselves rather than work. And a less-than-friendly tone toward immigrants is shrinking the supply for some high-skilled jobs."

We have people leaving the workforce because they can... they can afford to retire, stay at home, go back to school, not have to work parttime while in school, etc. A lower labor participation rate can be indicative of prosperity. My guess is that once you win the Powerball next week, you will opt out of participating in labor as well, because you can.

The problem with the not-in-work force is that it means a tighter labor market... which means higher wages to get people to work.

Some additional reading on the subject:

Baby Boomers Are a Big Part of Labor Participation Rate Decline - US News
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/upshot/the-rise-of-men-who-dont-work-and-what-they-do-instead.html
https://businessincanada.com/2014/0...ing-up-dropping-out-greying-aging-population/
The chart Obama-haters love most—and the truth behind it - Quartz
Click to expand...

Yes, a lower labor participation rate can be indicative of prosperity. It is not in this case however. The Boomers are joining the Alpo generation, but not because they are prosperous, but because they can't find a job that supports them at their age and education level. Remember, we Boomers are infamous for being the generation that never saved a dime. A sort of forced retirement.

Not to mention, the jobs flooding the market aren't one income support jobs. They're the sort of jobs that we used to have two or three of to make ends meet. The current generations aren't falling for that. Rather than participate in that ****, they party a few more years on their parents' and the government's dime, taking loans they'll never be able to repay. Hoping the stars align before they graduate and have to start repaying those loans.

AND, a common situation in suburbia, once the kids get out of school, the mom that couldn't afford to be a stay at home mom doesn't have to bust her hump at that part time job. Instead she can live off the one salary (Spouse) and cut a few corners.
 
upsideguy said:
..

Moreover, I am happy to tell you why a declining labor participation rate is actually an indicator of economic strength.
Click to expand...

Ya Ya.... you will say that people are not working because they dont have to, then I say that they dont have to only because they are making do with less which means that the american dream is dead and that the economy is in a tailspin, and then you will do your best to carry on with some BS or another.

I know the drill.

Anyone who wants some education on the subject should go here:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2015/01/fsm_balance_sheet_report.pdf

Which concludes:

Previous Pew research has shown that family finances are a critical component of future economic mobility, not
just for individuals but also for their children. However many families, even those with relatively high incomes, are
walking a financial tightrope, and have little, if any, cushion to absorb an unexpected financial emergency. What’s
more, this is not a new phenomenon. While the most recent recession shined a spotlight on the fragility of
family balance sheets, the downturn alone did not cause households’ financial insecurity; many of the indicators
explored here have been stable for the past 30 years.
No single solution exists for stabilizing family balance sheets. Putting families on solid financial footing and
the road to upward economic mobility will require a selection of thoughtful and strategic policy interventions.
As policymakers strive to increase opportunity for all Americans, policies and programs that support asset
accumulation will be key. These efforts will also require careful design and rigorous evaluation to ensure that they
are effective in helping families improve all elements of their balance sheets.
Click to expand...
 
clownboy said:
Yes, a lower labor participation rate can be indicative of prosperity. It is not in this case however. The Boomers are joining the Alpo generation, but not because they are prosperous, but because they can't find a job that supports them at their age and education level. Remember, we Boomers are infamous for being the generation that never saved a dime. A sort of forced retirement.

Not to mention, the jobs flooding the market aren't one income support jobs. They're the sort of jobs that we used to have two or three of to make ends meet. The current generations aren't falling for that. Rather than participate in that ****, they party a few more years on their parents' and the government's dime, taking loans they'll never be able to repay. Hoping the stars align before they graduate and have to start repaying those loans.

AND, a common situation in suburbia, once the kids get out of school, the mom that couldn't afford to be a stay at home mom doesn't have to bust her hump at that part time job. Instead she can live off the one salary (Spouse) and cut a few corners.
Click to expand...

Let's see some support for these assertions.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Ya Ya.... you will say that people are not working because they dont have to, then I say that they dont have to only because they are making do with less which means that the american dream is dead and that the economy is in a tailspin, and then you will do your best to carry on with some BS or another.

I know the drill.

Anyone who wants some education on the subject should go here:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2015/01/fsm_balance_sheet_report.pdf

Which concludes:
Click to expand...

That's what I'm talking about.... material on which a real debate can be had. Well done!

Good stuff! At least its an argument that many people are not in position to retire. That said, people were certainly not in position to retire in 2008 when the market was in the tank. As the market came roaring back, there was some pent up retirement demand, so more retired. The open question now is whether those that have retired can retire (did they want to, or were they discouraged to retirement).... a good subject to continue the debate. I will research (as I always do) and offer rebuttal.
 
upsideguy said:
That's what I'm talking about.... material on which a real debate can be had. Well done!

Good stuff! At least its an argument that many people are not in position to retire. That said, people were certainly not in position to retire in 2008 when the market was in the tank. As the market came roaring back, there was some pent up retirement demand, so more retired. The open question now is whether those that have retired can retire (did they want to, or were they discouraged to retirement).... a good subject to continue the debate. I will research (as I always do) and offer rebuttal.
Click to expand...

I have my fun side, but I am serious when it comes to ideas, with my efforts to understand what is going on, with conferring with others in that effort.

HAPPY READING!

By the way, most of being educated is knowing where to look and who to listen too.

There are A LOT of stupid people running around.

Take care,

Hawkeye
 
digitusmedius said:
You're being coy. You can either actually identify some of these sources or take it that you've limited yourself entirely to what could generally be called "von misean" voodoo economics, particularly popular with libertarians. This economic theory is based entirely on an ideology. They have no actual real-world, either historical or current, examples that would support their claims. It's more of a religious belief than an economic discipline.
Click to expand...

No. When I was studying the stuff, I had to do papers on all sorts of different fashions, trends and quirks of economic theory and the empirical impact on society, when I was in quantitative research. What you find after some time and experience is that you need to know more than what they say in the local newspaper and that even articles in the better internationally important media need to be compared and analysed rather than believed.
 
As per usual, people look at the headlines and do not bother to dig deeper.

IMO, 2015 was not an especially good year for jobs.

Sure, over 55's and under 25's got lots more 'jobs'...obviously not the best paying jobs.

But by far the most important demographic - the 25-54's - made out fair at best.

They represent roughly 60% of the total number of employed...yet the number of employed in this group grew by less then 82,000 per month (all these numbers are for the household survey, not seasonally adjusted). Nothing 'great' about that. But it gets worse.
The two highest paid age groups are 35-44 and 45-54.
The 35-44 grew by less then 1.5% at less then 37,000 per month.
But the 45-54 - the single highest paid demographic - went up by only 5,000 for the entire year (though the employment to population ratio for that group went up - which is positive...but it is still far lower then before the Great Recession, which is negative).

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

Imo, this notion that 2015 was 'great for jobs' is not so. It was great for the oldest and youngest age groups - probably lower paying jobs. But it was hardly 'great' for the most important age groups. I would call it fair at best.

And considering the hundreds of billions in government deficits/Fed QE's and ZIRP thrown at the economy over that time period...I would call it a rather lousy year (all things considered) for jobs.
 
Last edited:
A job count is not the final say in the matter. How many are now working at lower paying jobs than they had several years ago? Obama did great at creating lower paying part time jobs.
 
"Do you want fries with that?" - former VP of Operations
 
joG said:
No. When I was studying the stuff, I had to do papers on all sorts of different fashions, trends and quirks of economic theory and the empirical impact on society, when I was in quantitative research. What you find after some time and experience is that you need to know more than what they say in the local newspaper and that even articles in the better internationally important media need to be compared and analysed rather than believed.
Click to expand...

All of that aside, it's clear that your ideas have no relationship to any economic or fiscal reality in US history, at least, and seem primarily derived from the beyond silliness put out by the so-called "Austrian School" (or sometimes referred to as "Austerian"). It's got libertarian (which is to say, nonsense) plastered all over it.
 
Deuce said:
Did you ask for a raise?
Click to expand...

That was all very preempted with "There will be no raises. Business is low."
As I said though, happy to have a job.
And happy not to be Steve Jobs. It wasn't a good year for him...still dead and all...
 
DA60 said:
the 25-54's … the number of employed in this group grew by less then 82,000 per month (all these numbers are for the household survey, not seasonally adjusted).
Click to expand...

Misleading, as usual, in that you ignore demographics. The 25-54 cohort expanded by only 284K in 2015, compared to an increase in employment of 983K, three-and-a-half times that number. It's smaller than it was nine years ago.

population_25_to_54_2000_2015.jpg

The so-called "active population," which includes both employed and unemployed, for that age cohort is smaller now than it was fifteen years ago.

emp_and_unemp_2000_2015.jpg

The population is aging, and more people are choosing not to work for a variety of reasons.

>>The 35-44 grew by less then 1.5% at less then 37,000 per month.

And that population remained essentially flat at 41.5 million. (It shrank by about .1%.)

>>the 45-54 - the single highest paid demographic - went up by only 5,000

Shrank by .4% to 41.4 million. It's down almost two percent over the past four years.

>>the employment to population ratio for that group went up

Because employment went UP and population went DOWN.

>>still far lower then before the Great Recession, which is negative

… and (surprise) misleading, because yer comparing to a bubble high.

Moderate Right said:
Obama did great at creating lower paying part time jobs.
Click to expand...

Full-time employment, in thousands

Dec 2009 — 110,559
Dec 2015 — 122,603, up 11%

Part-time for economic reasons

Dec 2009 — 8996
Dec 2015 — 6022, down 34%

Mean hourly wage

May 2009 — $20.90
Dec 2015 — $22.71, up 8.7%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom