Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 197

Thread: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

  1. #141
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,584

    Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    The argument would probably be that you were lowering the property value of those around you, or something.
    Which would be a good argument in the case of the yard signs, except for the fact that they exempted political signs and church signs. I would suggest that not being allowed to use signage (banners) on my own commercial property actually reduces the value of my property though.
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    ...I'm not interested in debating someone who is trolling for an argument....
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I see a big problem with the idea that whatever the majority wants is OK.

  2. #142
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,138

    Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I've read three or four books on the bubble and burst and it's just clear that this was mostly deregulation gone amok. The data is there, the accounts of insiders confirm it. But all that really isn't needed. The bottom line is the lenders at that time were begging people to take out loans - the commercials ran non-stop in my region - low doc, no doc, bad credit, "Take out a home equity loan - go to Paris!!!" etc. The stock prices for the big lenders were hitting all time highs. Bonuses hitting all time highs for the CEOs, all the way down to individual selling loans who were all paid huge bonuses to get a warm body sign on the dotted line. Multiple people have testified about widespread fraud on the part of lenders to fake income numbers to get loans approved. Etc.

    To believe the lenders were "forced" to do anything defies belief. They were making record profits, record bonuses, and people are honestly claiming the government "forced" them to rake money in by the bucketful? It's crazy talk.

    Second and even more damning is there was a WORLDWIDE debt and housing bubble. The "it was all the democrats' fault" people will have to explain how CRA reached most of Europe, and allowed debt and housing bubbles bigger than our own. The bottom line is a global bubble requires a global cause and that global cause was a worldwide flood of easy money, make largely possible by the ballooning of derivatives from roughly a standing start to $600T in notional amounts outstanding.

    Attachment 67172559

    Barry Ritholtz does a good job debunking the right wing talking points here:

    Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture
    As I pointed out, I had a box seat to this event, and your understanding of what you read is spot on...

    The boiler-room mortgage operation that I worked with could earn $16,000 by originating a $150,000 mortgage. They had an open line of credit that allowed for them to make their credit decisions (of course, within very broad criteria set by the funding source... like doe the guy have a house and a pulse?)....

    Oh, and the "professionals" in this organization, on the other end of the line, selling you the mortgage? MBA's? mortgage brokers?, bankers? Hell no, former bartenders, car salesmen, copier salesmen.... they went through a one week course.... the good ones were making $100-300K/ year peddling something they knew very little about....

    The economics made absolutely no sense at the time; and subsequent events proved they did, indeed, make no sense.
    Last edited by upsideguy; 09-09-14 at 02:11 AM.

  3. #143
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,138

    Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

    Quote Originally Posted by CalGun View Post
    Nice how you forgot the EBT section 8 free phone scum.
    In English, please?

  4. #144
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,138

    Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    An administration that declares a 6.1% unemployment rate in this economy is either ignorant or disingenuous. Which is it?
    .... actually, INSTITUTIONAL.... unemployment has been measured and reported on in the same manner since 1978.


    http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf
    How the Government Measures Unemployment
    http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

  5. #145
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Gilbert, Arizona
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    403

    Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

    It's probably been brought up already but the Baby Boom began in 1946 and lasted until 1964. Assuming they'd go to work at 16, the earliest of them would be hitting the job force in 1962 which is just shy of when you see the steady inclination begin. Those same people going to work in 1962 at age 16 would now be around 68 years old. People usually look into retirement when they're 55-65 which would have been in 2001-2011. This coincides when the participation rate begins to drop.

    tl;dr version: your graph seems to show the baby boomers entering and exiting the workforce. We've kind of seen that coming...

  6. #146
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Mittner View Post
    It's probably been brought up already but the Baby Boom began in 1946 and lasted until 1964. Assuming they'd go to work at 16, the earliest of them would be hitting the job force in 1962 which is just shy of when you see the steady inclination begin. Those same people going to work in 1962 at age 16 would now be around 68 years old. People usually look into retirement when they're 55-65 which would have been in 2001-2011. This coincides when the participation rate begins to drop.

    tl;dr version: your graph seems to show the baby boomers entering and exiting the workforce. We've kind of seen that coming...
    I am quite sure there is definitely something to that.

    But I think the reason for the huge jump in the LFPR (labor force participation rate) from the mid-60's until the late 80's also has a lot to with women entering the work force.



    Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


    Also, I read in a Fed report (though I cannot provide a link to it) that estimated that the drop in the LFPR was at most 1/2 caused by retirements.

    Plus, even those baby boomers that are retiring, how many of them are only doing so because they cannot find work?

    Finally, if you look at the LFPR in the last ten months, it is flat (it was the same now as it is was back in October, 2013) after it had been plunging pretty hard for 5 years. Considering baby boomers are still reaching retirement age, why would the LFPR suddenly stop falling?


    I am not saying your point is not valid - I definitely think it is - I just think there is more to it then just the baby boomers retiring.
    Last edited by DA60; 09-09-14 at 03:55 AM.

  7. #147
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Gilbert, Arizona
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    403

    Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    I am not saying your point is not valid - I definitely think it is - I just think there is more to it then just the baby boomers retiring.
    Yeah, no doubt women had an impact on the increase and older folks having trouble finding work could impact the decline.

    I would note, though, that getting old just really sucks. People tend to slow down a bit. Their thinking won't be as sharp as it once was. That'll make it difficult for them to compete with 30 and 40 year olds who are working their way up through the business echelons. And the older a person gets, the more their job opportunities will be limited to the same industries that attract inexperienced teenagers and 20-somethings; food services, retail. And that brings in a whole other realm of competition--especially in a struggling economy.

    We all glamorize the fact that our science has us living longer, but that doesn't necessarily mean we're competitive in the workplace for any longer.

    But I digress...

    Another aspect that would contribute to numbers dropping would be how college has become the norm, and instead of having jobs to pay for school, most kids are getting stuck with enormous school loans. My half-brother is in that category. He's in college now and I don't think he works. In fact he didn't get a job at 16 either. I kind of consider him a lazy bum in that regard (I got a job the day I turned 16) but if he didn't need it, good for him.

  8. #148
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    The BLS is using the same definitions they've used for decades now. It's true that U-3 isn't a complete picture of the unemployment situation, but then that's why BLS publishes all the other data people are using here to discredit U-3, and U-4 through U-6. The information is out there, and Obama is using the same yardstick used by Bush and Clinton at least. Now he has to use a different yardstick that gives worse numbers because why exactly? Did you demand that Bush use U-6 instead of U-3?
    I don't trust an administration that comes out with miracles every August just in time for election day. Summer hires are not permanent employment, but that doesn't stop Obama putting out a false narrative like he does for most all his politics. He's playing politics every single day, he can't be trusted.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  9. #149
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,376

    Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    .... actually, INSTITUTIONAL.... unemployment has been measured and reported on in the same manner since 1978.


    http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/10/art3full.pdf
    How the Government Measures Unemployment
    How the Government Measures Unemployment
    Ummm, what are you calling "institutional unemployment" and where are you getting 1978 from? Was that a typo for 1948?
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  10. #150
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,376

    Re: Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I don't trust an administration that comes out with miracles every August just in time for election day. Summer hires are not permanent employment, but that doesn't stop Obama putting out a false narrative like he does for most all his politics. He's playing politics every single day, he can't be trusted.
    The administration has nothing to do with it. No one in the administration has any access to the raw data. An early copy of the report is sent to the Chief Economic Adviser the night before release, but that's it.

    As for summer hires...seasonal adjustment is applied to the official numbers to mute the effects of regularly occurring increases and decreases.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •