Page 6 of 20 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 197

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

  1. #51
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,292

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Unrepresented View Post
    Funny, I didn't think right wing apologists were officially being given full credit for "debunking" anything yet. I just assumed that they were throwing a Hail Mary out there and hoping someone foolish enough would bite.

    What are we apologizing for exactly ?

    In the States where our Policies and principles are being applied there's Success !

    The only apologist here are the people who are STILL , after 6 years trying to make excuses for the continued economic misery.

  2. #52
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:57 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 apdst View Post
    Nope, that's not what happened. What caused the recession was the government forcing the banks to make those risky loans.
    Yet it wasn't commercial banks that were subject to the ACRA that made most of those loans. they were made by mortgage companies which were exempt from those laws, and it was the high failure rate of those mortgage companies that caused our near collapse. commercial banks didn't have any financial crises until the value of all mortgage holdings was drug down by the panic which happened after the failure of companies who were highly involved with mortgage backed securities (and those institutions weren't subject to the ACRA).

    The vast majority of the loans made by commercial banks were prime rate loans, and would have been made with or without the ACRA. think about it, why would any bank open a branch in a particular community? Wouldn't it only be because they felt that there was sufficient demand in that community to support a bank? If so, then wouldn't those banks have been able to easily find enough borrowers in those community to meet the ACRA guidlines?

    I realize that you are just repeating what you have heard far right extremest talking heads claim, but you should really research stuff before you repeat it. that claim is 99.9% bogus.
    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.

  3. #53
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:57 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 Lakeside View Post
    ...Let's extend the 47% to 75% and make Democrats very happy...
    If it was extended to 99% it should make conservatives happy. Aren't conservatives supposed to be the party of small government and low taxes?

    I really don't understand why conservatives claim that they want less taxation, then they complain about our low tax rates. this country existed for well over 100 years before we even had an income tax. Any time you tax something you end up with less of it right? So why in the HELL are you complaining that we need to tax people for working and being productive and having an earned income? Do you really want fewer people to work?

    The best way to eliminate poverty is to promote work. Taxing work doesn't promote it, it incentivizes it.

    And what would be the economic result of higher taxes on low income earners? You know, the people who do the least desirable jobs at bargain prices? Obviously more would go on welfare, more would chose just to not work, and less money would be spent. What's the result of businesses selling fewer goods and services? Isn't it business failure, or at least the failure to expand? you don't realize that this policy that you are suggesting is BAD for our economy? You want more unemployment and less wealth creation? Geesh!

    Now think about this, what would happen if we had a minimum income tax rate of 10% on all earned income, with no exemptions or deductions? Every high income earner has part of his income tax at what is now effectively the 0% rate. So your suggestion would result in EVERYONE paying more taxes, even people who you probably believe already pay more than their fair share.

    In the olden days, conservatives believed in pro-growth policies. Guys like you now advocate for anti-growth policies. Just sheer stupidity on ever level.

    You really need to rethink your position on this.
    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.

  4. #54
    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 pinqy View Post
    It depends on what you mean by "employable." Those not in the labor force face no LEGAL restrictions to work, but 37 million are 65 or older and of those under 65, 11 million are disabled. And another 11 million are age 16-24 and are enrolled in school.

    It's harder to count stay at home spouses, but overall 93.2% of those not in the labor force say they don't want to work.

    And while the Labor Force Participation is at a 36 year low...it's higher than any year before 1978.
    Okay, I assume I found where you got this from:

    Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted

    (would have been nice if you had a included a link in the first place, but whatever - at least you mentioned it, so thanks)

    Personally, I question the number and I would need to see the exact question AND the questions that led up to it to feel it was or was not accurate.

    But let's assume the number is true. That means that we 'know' that there are at least 5,016,000 people who are not in the work force but who want a job.
    And that is a minimum number because the 'Other persons marginally attached to the labor force' statistic is vague to say the least.

    To me, those 5,016,000 people should be considered 'unemployed', whether they are officially in the labor force or not. They wish to work, are available to work but cannot find a job they want and have given up looking out of frustration (among other reasons).

    So, adding those 5,016,000 people to the unemployed gives you a U-3 figure of 9.3%.
    Last edited by DA60; 09-06-14 at 05:03 PM.

  5. #55
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:57 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 DA60 View Post
    Link please to the stat that proves that 93.2% of those not in the work force SPECIFICALLY stated that they 'don't want to work'...as you stated?
    I may be wrong, but I thought that the labor force participation rate was based on the percentage of people age 16 and over who are not institutionalized, who are either working or actively seeking work. If that is correct, then it should be obvious that those who are not working or seeking work do not chose to work. now maybe some of them don't chose to work because they are discouraged or because they don't want to work for low wages, but regardless, they still chose not to work.

    If they did chose to work, they would either be working or seeking work.

    the only issue I see with a low labor force participation rate are the people who chose not to work because they prefer to suck off the tax payer. If we eliminated means tested benefits, then a low labor force participation rate would be no issue at all because those people would either start seeking work or they would just have to starve (I could care less either way - it's a choice).
    Last edited by imagep; 09-06-14 at 05:02 PM.
    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.

  6. #56
    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 imagep View Post
    I may be wrong, but I thought that the labor force participation rate was based on the percentage of people age 16 and over who are not institutionalized, who are either working or actively seeking work. If that is correct, then it should be obvious that those who are not working or seeking work do not chose to work. now maybe some of them don't chose to work because they are discouraged or because they don't want to work for low wages, but regardless, they still chose not to work.

    If they did chose to work, they would either be working or seeking work.
    Btw, I think I found the stat pinqy was referring to:

    Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted

  7. #57
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,446

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    A president who promotes business growth instead of personal welfare? A president who uses the bully pulpit to promote better education options like charter schools in urban cities? A president who can work with congress instead of just spew idealogue partisan nonsense? A President who pushes for adult training and skill workshops instead of pushing more foodstamps to get people out of work working again?


    That will be $250,000 please. No personal checks.

    Fantastic idea and worth much, much more I might add. Brilliant and humble too!

    You know what, I would settle for two things...

    A president who will work with congress..

    and

    Who will effectively address the squalor of America's cities, beginning with education...

    One view of the documentary "Waiting for Superman" convinced me there hasn't ever been a US politician who has ever taken the time to understand the problem. Your inner cities make our aboriginal reserves look like paradise
    ""You know, when we sell to other countries, even if they're allies -- you never know about an ally. An ally can turn."
    Donald Trump, 11/23/17

  8. #58
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

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

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    [...] The number of those not unemployed, but employable and not working seems to be going up. This is a crisis in my opinion.
    It's a Republican crisis because we have a Democrat president. So, pardon me while I yawn.

    The Labor Force Participation Rate is a bogus number anyway because it includes those under 18 who are likely to be part time workers and those over 64 who are likely to be retired. In the latter scenario, of course the rate is going to fall at this particular demographic point in time because there is a bulge of baby boomers who are retiring.

    But, rather than think independently and rationally, considering all the myriad factors involved, let's proceed with the crisis du jour.

    December 2013
    Labor force projections to 2022: the labor force participation rate continues to fall

    Because of the decreasing labor force participation rate of youths and the prime age group, the overall labor force participation rate is expected to decline. The participation rates of older workers are projected to increase, but remain significantly lower than those of the prime age group. A combination of a slower growth of the civilian noninstitutional population and falling participation rates will lower labor force growth to a projected 0.5 percent annually.

    The U.S. civilian labor force—the number of people working or looking for work—has gone through substantial changes in its size and demographic composition over the last half of the 20th century. During the 1970s and 1980s, the labor force grew vigorously as women’s labor force participation rates surged and the baby-boom generation entered the labor market. However, the dynamic demographic, economic, and social forces that once spurred the level, growth, and composition of the labor force have changed and are now damping labor force growth. The labor force participation rate of women, which peaked in 1999, has been on a declining trend. In addition, instead of entering the labor force, baby boomers are retiring in large numbers and exiting the workforce. Once again, the baby-boom generation has become a generator of change, this time in its retirement. Moreover, the jobless recovery of the 2001 recession, coupled with the severe economic impact of the 2007–2009 recession, caused disruptions in the labor market. In the first 12 years of the 21st century, the growth of the population has slowed and labor force participation rates generally have declined. As a result, labor force growth also has slowed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects that the next 10 years will bring about an aging labor force that is growing slowly, a declining overall labor force participation rate, and more diversity in the racial and ethnic composition of the labor force.

    [...] According to the Census Bureau’s 2012 population projections, the U.S. population is expected to continue to grow slowly, to grow older, and to become more racially and ethnically diverse.2 During the 2012–2022 period, the growth of the labor force is anticipated to be due entirely to population growth, as the overall labor force participation rate is expected to decrease from 63.7 percent in 2012 to 61.6 percent in 2022.

    Labor force projections to 2022: the labor force participation rate continues to fall : Monthly Labor Review : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
    For a more rounded dataset from which to form a more illuminated opinion, try something outside the right wing echo chamber sometime.

  9. #59
    I am the pretty one.
    TobyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,320

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

    FDR had the same problem that Obama has now. He started his administration with class war, anti-business rhetoric. It wasn't until midterms when the house and senate went republican that the economy started doing better. Then, of course, the war finally turned it around. There was a study some years back that argued Roosevelt's policies actually prolonged the depression longer than it should of been.

    With the economy its all about self fulfilling prophecy. If people think things are getting better, they will start spending more and business will invest more and hire more. As long as there's an anti-business, class warrior that divides people on every dimension the psychology of the country and business will remain the same. Unfortunately, we have another few years to get through.

  10. #60
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:57 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 DA60 View Post
    Probably a lot (I read a Fed report that suggested as many as half).

    However, how many of those are retiring entirely because they cannot find work and were thus forced to retire?
    I agree, however if they can figure out how to survive without working, then more power to them, it doesn't harm me a bit (except for possibly them drawing means tested benefits). If they really absolutely needed a job to survive, they would never have stopped looking for work, they would take a min wage job, or cut grass or sell scrap metal, or play an intrument for tips on a street corner or do something else useful.
    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.

Page 6 of 20 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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
  •