- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,105
- Reaction score
- 33,447
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
How much of this is explained by baby boomers deciding to retire?
Baby Boomers turned 65 in 2011.
How much of this is explained by baby boomers deciding to retire?
Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low | CNS News
The number of those not unemployed, but employable and not working seems to be going up. This is a crisis in my opinion.
If we could just get those Baby Boomers to keep working on into their nineties and stop retiring, the ungrateful ****s.
There are about 65 million Boomers.
The country is unusually top-heavy in that the generation following the Boomers was smaller than the Boomers generation.
Iirc, most generations have had more babies than the generation before them did.
Baby boomers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe age wave theory suggests an economic slowdown when the boomers start retiring during 2007–2009.[SUP][21][/SUP] Projections for the aging U.S. workforce suggest that by 2020, 25% of employees will be at least 55 years old.[SUP][22][/SUP]
Help out the good folks playing along at home...
Is there anyway that we can rule out demographics as a cause for this statistical trend so that we can place the blame entirely on Obama?
But the population didn't grow at the same rate every year.Considering the population is growing every year, that is not saying anything good.
But the population didn't grow at the same rate every year.
Some years it grew much faster than others.
The flip side is that this means that there will be years when the rate of people retiring will be greater than other years.
Or so it seems.
ymmv
The greed of the Greatest Generation huh American?Due to the greed of the Greatest Generation we're paying more in SS taxes and retiring later.
The greed of the Greatest Generation huh American?
You mean the ones like my Mother who paid into SS for well over 40 years?
You've got a lot of nerve to smear the Greatest Generation who fought and died
for people like you so you can sit here and smear them as being greedy.
We'll see how you feel when you get to their age, since they were all so greedy and dirt poor during the GOP Depression .
You won't have to worry about collecting SS if Ryan doesn't get this House in order,Yeah, like my parents too.
They voted themselves benefit increases that the system didn't cover, so our payroll taxes went up. Yeah that generation.
Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) contribute to foreclosures and the financial crisis? And, is the CRA being reformed?
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 was passed by Congress to ensure that banks meet the credit needs of their local communities and to encourage investment in the immediate communities served by depository institutions. Banks are rated periodically on their efforts to achieve these goals.
The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) provides an interagency CRA rating database on its website.
In addition, each bank has available for public review a file giving its CRA rating and additional information that it is required to prepare.
The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. In fact, the Board's analysis (102 KB PDF) found that nearly 60 percent of higher-priced loans went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, which are not the focus of CRA activity. Additionally, about 20 percent of the higher-priced loans that were extended in low- or moderate-income areas, or to low- or moderate-income borrowers, were loans originated by lenders not covered by the CRA. Our analysis found that only six percent of all higher-priced loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA. Further, our review of loan performance found that rates of serious mortgage delinquency are high in all neighborhood groups, not just in lower-income areas.
The Fed, in collaboration with the other financial regulatory agencies, is currently considering what can be done to make CRA a more effective regulatory incentive and how CRA can be revised to address the new community needs that have emerged in the wake of the foreclosure crisis. As part of this regulatory initiative, the agencies held CRA hearings and invited written comments on how to improve CRA in June 2010. In December 2010, the agencies published amendments to the rule to encourage financial institutions to participate in activities aimed at revitalizing areas designated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for funds under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
FRB: Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) contribute to foreclosures and the financial crisis? And, is the CRA being reformed?
I understand, and while I'll still multi-quote, I will, for this post, restrict it to your factual errors and not discussion of concepts.I don't usually do long, multi-quote posts...life is way too short, no offense (that goes for everyone). They usually just go on and on and on as both parties often answer every bloody quote.
Untrue. The criteria is "Did not search for work in previous year." That's it. Nothing about ever having looked or "giving up." There are many reasons besides "giving up" for someone to leave the labor force and it is factually inaccurate to characterize all those who did not look in the previous year as having given up. And it is certainly incorrect to apply it to those who have never held a job.a) those that 'Did not search for work in previous year' (I wish the bloody BLS would label the lines) I count because they want to work but gave up looking.
No, they are not called discouraged. Discouraged has a specific definition and it is factually incorrect to apply that to all who want a job. Additionally, those Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now, have not looked in previous year, includes many people who are not available for work. It is not published how many or any reasons why they haven't looked in the previous year. So it is factually incorrect to apply any characterization to them.I could care less what the BLS calls them, I call them unemployed. And I don't care how long they have been not searching - if they have no job, want a job and are available to work on reasonably short notice, then they are unemployed to me. Whether they have looked 'actively' or not is completely irrelevant to me on this. They are called 'discouraged' for a reason.
Again....discouraged has a specific meaning and definition and it is factually incorrect to apply it to all marginally attached. Discouragement is one of the "secondary reasons" you're talking about.So, they [marginally attached] don't have a job, they want a job and were available to take a job when asked. The secondary reasons are just that, secondary.
The fact some of them have ill health or a disability does not mean they are not available to work...it just adds a secondary reason for their discouragement.
The definition you cite says nothing about "wants to work" nor does it say anything about availability, which you include in yours.Additionally to my above post,
'un·em·ployed (nm-ploid, -m-)
adj.
1. Out of work, especially involuntarily; jobless.'
unemployed - definition of unemployed by The Free Dictionary
Thus, by definition, any person who is out of work, but wants to work, is unemployed.
There’s some unavoidable fuzziness about both "generally available to work" and "want a job."...
This is simple; if you have no job, want a job and are generally available to work (regardless of your other complications or when you last 'actively' looked for work) - then you are an unemployed member of the work force in my opinion.
...
There’s some unavoidable fuzziness about both "generally available to work" and "want a job."
My former boss retired two years ago, but could still be tempted to come back to working if offered a high-six-figure salary. Does he want to work or not? He certainly is "available" if you pay him enough. But you could imagine the ambiguity of what may be considered "simple."
There is no "true" unemployment rate, just various indicators that measure different things. Fortunately, these indicators pretty much move in tandem, so we’re not usually confused about whether the labor market is getting better or worse. But which measure you want to look at depends on what questions you’re asking.
What is false, however, is the claim that unemployment is 92 million. That's just if you count everyone over 16 and less than 65, that doesn't have a job, regardless of whether they want a job or not.
Correct. Which is why, when the concept was being developed in the 1930's, the basic idea was the best way to know if someone wanted a job was to look at what he was doing about it. That's the "Activity" concept still used and which has been adopted by most other countries.There’s some unavoidable fuzziness about both "generally available to work" and "want a job."
My former boss retired two years ago, but could still be tempted to come back to working if offered a high-six-figure salary. Does he want to work or not? He certainly is "available" if you pay him enough. But you could imagine the ambiguity of what may be considered "simple."
While I probably could say it better myself....I'm too lazyThere is no "true" unemployment rate, just various indicators that measure different things. Fortunately, these indicators pretty much move in tandem, so we’re not usually confused about whether the labor market is getting better or worse. But which measure you want to look at depends on what questions you’re asking.
65 and older is included as well. Many countries do have an upper age cap, but not the U.S. About 40% of those not in the labor force are retired.What is false, however, is the claim that unemployment is 92 million. That's just if you count everyone over 16 and less than 65, that doesn't have a job, regardless of whether they want a job or not. Those 62 year olds you recently retired, retired for a reason. They don't want to work any longer.
...
65 and older is included as well. Many countries do have an upper age cap, but not the U.S. About 40% of those not in the labor force are retired.
Conservatives often like to call the retired and those who are students and stay at home parents: "slackers".
Ever notice that conservatives never seem to come up with any suggestions on how to lure retired people back into the labor market? Or any other fix for that matter. Maybe they believe that we should just have mass executions of everyone who isn't working - I dunno.
And they never seem to identify what the problem is with this issue. Like why having more stay at home moms or more wealthy retired people is a problem. I guess those people could all start looking for jobs, but unless we have the jobs, and the demand to support those jobs, it wouldn't really effect our economy at all. We simply don't have a labor shortage.
This is simple; if you have no job, want a job and are generally available to work (regardless of your other complications or when you last 'actively' looked for work) - then you are an unemployed member of the work force in my opinion.
The BLS (and you I assume) don't agree...fine, you don't agree. With respect, I don't much care if you two don't agree.
There is a falacy in thinking that Republicans need a "suggestion" when it comes to ... well any of these domestic problems. Think about it, Democrats are for more government involvement, so of course there are going to be the ones to come up with all sort of suggestions so the government can (or try to) solve the problem. Republicans don't believe that every solution must begin with government, but with the private sector. So the next time you wonder "what is the Republican plan" understand that they may not have one, because they know that getting involved would only make things worse (see 90% of government programs ever...). And when they do have a suggestion, it generally means they are giving away responsibilities. Take the VA issue for example, many Republicans just wanted to hand out vouchers and allow the veterans to get help from private facilities.
It really all boils down to just how much you believe government can accomplish, or more importantly, how efficiently it can.
An administration that declares a 6.1% unemployment rate in this economy is either ignorant or disingenuous. Which is it?
You make some good points. I may be quite willing to mow your lawn for $30 but not for $10. If taking a job only slightly increases (or reduces) my income (often by increasing my expenses) then why would I do so?
The BLS reports all those numbers and has six alternate definitions of "unemployment rate" to cover multiple scenarios. Are you saying the "official" rate that is now designated as U-3 ought to be U-5 or U-6? That would be fine, but as someone else pointed out, you'll have to go back in time and redefine "unemployment" from at least the early Clinton administration, which is as I recall the last time the definitions were changed. Or, you could pull U-5 and/or U-6 from all those years and present that in a graph for a more comprehensive look at true "unemployment."
The definition you cite says nothing about "wants to work" nor does it say anything about availability, which you include in yours.
By the dictionary definition, children, prisoners, people in institutions, are all unemployed. Only those working are not unemployed by the dictionary definition...which would put the unemployment rate at around 54%.
Yeah, leave it to a member of the Ayn Rand Institute to blame the government.....
I see yours and raise you mine (and my Forbes article is by an actual published contributor to Forbes, not something written on their website....)
http://www.business.cch.com/bankingfinance/focus/news/Subprime_WP_rev.pdf
Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes
Thomas, Hennessey and Holtz-Eakin: What Caused the Financial Crisis? - WSJ
Three Causes of the Subprime Mortgage Crisis - ForensisGroup.com
I can also give you a first hand witness account of this as I did a considerable amount of business planning for a boiler-room mortgage originator with big credit lines (and tons of unreasonable incentive) provided by Lehman and Countrywide.
1) The only official unemployment rate is the U-3...you surely know as well as I do that almost no one in either the mass media or amongst the ignorant masses pays any attention to anything but the U-3.
2) Why do you need to go back and change past U-3's?
When they changed the CPI calculation process over the years, they did not go back and change previous years/decades CPI levels (to my knowledge).
Besides, it ain't hard to change the previous numbers if you did decide to do so. You just take those that I think should be included (as I mentioned above) and add that number to both the work force and the unemployed numbers and redo the calculation. It would take all of 45 seconds per year. Big deal.
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.
View 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