• 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

He claimed that many baby boomers were delaying retirement. How can this possibly be shown to be incorrect based on a claim that half of the decline in overall participation rate can be attributable to age? That's just nonsense. What you've posted tells us nothing about whether or not baby boomers are delaying retirement.

You have something against reading?

Because older individuals participate in the labor force at lower rates than younger workers, the aging of the population exerts downward pressure on the overall labor force participation rate. While older workers today are participating in the labor force at higher rates than older workers of previous generations, there is still a very large drop-off in participation when workers enter their early 60s.

The fact that participation rates conditional on age were declining for many groups in the run-up to 2008, including for prime-age men from the 1950s and for prime-age women from the late 1990s, may also have contributed to the decline in participation. This would have been expected to result in a decline in the participation rate above and beyond the pure aging effect even in the absence of a recession. Note, these effects were partly offset by other pre-existing trends, like a rise in the participation rate for older workers.

You have no excuse for your ignorance.
 
How many times do I have to say it...post a link or do not waste my time.

Yeah, but then you'll just say BLS is biased.

Series Report tool

Population LNS10000000
Not in Labor Force LNS15000000
Labor force participation rate LNS11300000
Not in labor force wants job now LNS15026639


And, as surely you should know, your chart means NOTHING without the definitions and parameters of what each line means and who is and who is not included.
I'm not sure why you need definitions...they're well known terms.
Population: everyone in the U.S. age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution.
Labor Force: Employed plus Unemployed
Not in the Labor Force: Neither employed nor unemployed.
Not in the Labor Force wants a job now: Not in the labor force, wants a job now.

So the red line is the percent of the population who is neither working nor looking for work and doesn't want to work.
The blue line is the labor force participation rate.
 
Oh_the_irony.jpg


coming from the member who spams zerohedge ad nauseum.

So much for that hope.

Lol
 
The oldest baby boomers would have been born around 1946. 2014-1946 = 68

Some of them started drawing ss 5 years ago, the lfpr started declining at a fast rate 5 years ago.

You don't see any correlation?

Yes, your math is correct. However the bulk of the Baby Boomers are just now crossing over the 60 threshold, which would mean the vast majority of them are all opting to take early retirement.

Given the penalty, and the impact of declines in the value of held assets, I'm not convinced the contribution to the participation rate decline is as significant as what is being suggested. It has become more and more common for workers to stay in the workforce longer, which I have yet to see addressed in the data provided.
 
Yeah, but then you'll just say BLS is biased.

Series Report tool

Population LNS10000000
Not in Labor Force LNS15000000
Labor force participation rate LNS11300000
Not in labor force wants job now LNS15026639



I'm not sure why you need definitions...they're well known terms.
Population: everyone in the U.S. age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution.
Labor Force: Employed plus Unemployed
Not in the Labor Force: Neither employed nor unemployed.
Not in the Labor Force wants a job now: Not in the labor force, wants a job now.

So the red line is the percent of the population who is neither working nor looking for work and doesn't want to work.
The blue line is the labor force participation rate.

No, not term definitions.

I need the parameters of the chart.

But now I assume you are saying the source of th chart is thE BLS.

Then why post it from the Fed website?


I will ask again...where is the link to the actual chart you posted?
 
So much for that hope.

Lol

A study with more than 50 peer-reviewed citations pertaining to the subject matter is considered biased. This is why only most partisan members of this forum take you seriously.
 
You have something against reading?





You have no excuse for your ignorance.
More nonsense. The labor force participation rate is increasing among retirement age individuals, therefore they can't possibly be putting off retirement??? That's your argument?
 
No, not term definitions.

I need the parameters of the chart.
Which parameters? It's all on the chart. I'm not sure what you think is missing.
Here's the link, though FRED Graph - FRED - St. Louis Fed

But now I assume you are saying the source of th chart is thE BLS.
The source of the data is BLS. Where else could it come from?

Then why post it from the Fed website?
Because BLS does not have a tool that let's me input the data and make a nice chart. FRED lets me construct my own chart and my own transformations.
 
I know you're being facetious and sarcastic with your comment, but it makes one ponder... What will happen to the job market when the President makes all the new illegal democrat voters, oops I mean immigrants, in to take the jobs, driving down wages, and then have to be counted in the tallies?

latest_numbers_LNS11300000_1990_2014_all_period_M09_data.gif

I'm not sure how he's being facetious....the aging of the population didn't come out of no where. The baby boom generation is a large generation and they are nearing retirement. Younger kids are staying in school longer because it's required in today's economy. A four year degree is nice but to really be competitive grad school is required.

These are long term trends that some folk apparently believe only started at the election of President Obama. If a Republican President is elected and the trend continues I'm pretty confident you won't hear chirps about labor force participation declines since you never did under Bush
 
Are you afraid of becoming better informed?

Not at all. Are you?


I read all 53 pages of the Administration's spin document. While I don't dispute the quoted facts, I do dispute the findings and conclusions. I can see where they come from however, because they are based on perceptions seen through the rose colored glasses of our nations leading progressives.

For one thing, I didn't notice anywhere where that point out the amount of treasure (measured in trillions of dollars) that was paid by this Administration to drive down this key indicator.

What's the ROI?
 
That's good news for the country.

Which of Obama's specific policies that he implemented as POTUS can be directly associated with and credited for this fantastic news?

he brought us hope and change












































just kidding


he is not bush. he did not spend what would have been a tax surplus on lower taxes (disproportionately for the rich), nor did he originate wars of choice
so, unlike his predecessor, it is more about the stupid decisions Obama did not implement
no kidding
 
More nonsense. The labor force participation rate is increasing among retirement age individuals, therefore they can't possibly be putting off retirement??? That's your argument?

This is not too difficult: Historically, participation among those over 60 declines rather dramatically. However, the realities of the Great Recession have reduced the weight of this historic relationship. Which confirms structural imbalances, e.g. underemployment, within the labor market.
 
While I don't dispute the quoted facts, I do dispute the findings and conclusions.

Can you explain this in greater detail? What causes you to dispute these findings and conclusions?
 
Which parameters? It's all on the chart. I'm not sure what you think is missing.
Here's the link, though FRED Graph - FRED - St. Louis Fed

The source of the data is BLS. Where else could it come from?

Because BLS does not have a tool that let's me input the data and make a nice chart. FRED lets me construct my own chart and my own transformations.

Uhh, thank you.

But I don't care about a 'nice chart'...I care about the statistics that go into the chart.

Okay, please tell me where are the statistics on the BLS website that contributed to the Fed's 'nice chart'?
 
he brought us hope and change












































just kidding


he is not bush. he did not spend what would have been a tax surplus on lower taxes (disproportionately for the rich), nor did he originate wars of choice
so, unlike his predecessor, it is more about the stupid decisions Obama did not implement
no kidding

I know he's not Bush, although in a lot of ways, he is Bush part deux. So are you saying the lowered taxes for the rich and the Iraq war caused high unemployment?

PS - it's "hopey changey", not "hope and change"!
 
A study with more than 50 peer-reviewed citations pertaining to the subject matter is considered biased. This is why only most partisan members of this forum take you seriously.
This is a new one. Apparently you can write anything you want and it won't be biased so long as you cite more than 50 others who actually had their work peer-reviewed.
 
I know he's not Bush, although in a lot of ways, he is Bush part deux. So are you saying the lowered taxes for the rich and the Iraq war caused high unemployment?

marshaling our tax surplus away from the treasury and instead into the hands of the affluent, and spending massive tax dollars on elective wars certainly had an adverse effect on our nation's economic health
 
Uhh, thank you.

But I don't care about a 'nice chart'...I care about the statistics that go into the chart.

Okay, please tell me where are the statistics on the BLS website that contributed to the Fed's 'nice chart'?
I already gave them to you
Series Report tool

Population LNS10000000
Not in Labor Force LNS15000000
Labor force participation rate LNS11300000
Not in labor force wants job now LNS15026639

So the red line is (not in the labor force minus not in the labor force wants a job now)/population In other words: those who do not want a job as a percent of the population.
And the blue line is the labor force participation rate.
 
Last edited:
This is not too difficult: Historically, participation among those over 60 declines rather dramatically. However, the realities of the Great Recession have reduced the weight of this historic relationship. Which confirms structural imbalances, e.g. underemployment, within the labor market.

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the claim that was made, or show it to be "incorrect."
 
Save that BS for the Koolaid drinkers.people old enough to draw SS are not counted in the participation rate

i meant see my previous post.
 
marshaling our tax surplus away from the treasury and instead into the hands of the affluent, and spending massive tax dollars on elective wars certainly had an adverse effect on our nation's economic health

Well, I don't know that I agree, but I appreciate the response.
 
Back
Top Bottom