• 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!

US Unemployment: Good news or bad news?

Regarding the unemployment information in this thread ...

  • This is good news (I lean right)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • This is bad news (I lean left)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • This is bad news (I'm a centrist)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .
Good news...labor force participation has been dropping for a long time, before Obama took office. It's the aging of our population. The financial hit and sluggish economy has accelerated the trend but the labor force participation the country had when boomers where of working age and before people started living longer and going to school longer isn't going to be the norm anymore.

Overall, we're adding jobs which is a positive.

As for wages, job growth has to happen before wages start going up. That's to be expected

Link needed here.

The baby boom, the largest most impactful generation in history has only started leaving the work force, and many now over 65 are staying in. I guess you haven't heard, but progressive countries are raising the age of retirement as we are now as healthy at 80 as were at 60 at the turn of the previous century. Part of the reason for job shortages is that we are staying in harness five and ten years longer.

Please avail yourself of the latest demographics and trends and refrain from making stuff up.
 
Fair enough.

But 're-gear' to what?

There's little manufacturing done in the U.S. today, so that leaves providing services to each other.

I suppose there's always room for construction workers or mechanics, though. (but construction work is very cyclical)

I cannot count how many professional skilled people like plumbers, electricians carpenters, furnace folks and others have stated that they just cannot get good young talent to go into the profession. That is one such area.
 
Link needed here.

The baby boom, the largest most impactful generation in history has only started leaving the work force, and many now over 65 are staying in. I guess you haven't heard, but progressive countries are raising the age of retirement as we are now as healthy at 80 as were at 60 at the turn of the previous century. Part of the reason for job shortages is that we are staying in harness five and ten years longer.

Please avail yourself of the latest demographics and trends and refrain from making stuff up.

I am a boomer born in 1949. I retired from a teaching job of 33.5 years ten years ago. And I know lots of other boomers who left long before they were 65.

I found a second career in politics for three years but am retired again now.

Do we really want people working until age 75 or 80 and keeping younger people out of tat opportunity?
 
I cannot count how many professional skilled people like plumbers, electricians carpenters, furnace folks and others have stated that they just cannot get good young talent to go into the profession. That is one such area.
Fair enough - those are skilled services we can market to each other at a (currently) livable rate.

As long as the skill levels in a particular specialty are high enough, there shouldn't be much downward wage pressure from unskilled citizens & immigrants as seen in some service industries - though corporations using very low-skilled labor are nipping away at some of these specialties (ex: oil change 'only' places, vs full service mechanics).

But there's another good thing to note for some of the skillsets you mentioned: Relatively easy entry to becoming your own boss - and THAT'S something to say!
 
I am loathe to put much stock into Labor Force Participation because it addresses everyone not in the workforce equally without looking into their reasons. For example, someone who has retired at the age of 60, someone who is completely discouraged from looking for a job, and someone who is a hippie with zero desire to ever work are all treated the exact same.

Instead, if you wish to look into individuals that have dropped out of the labor force temporarily because they are discouraged, but have expressed a desire to resume looking for work in the future, I would suggest looking at the U6 unemployment rate.

That rate dropped from 10.8% to 10.5% in the most recent jobs report.

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

The only reason that I hesitated on calling this report mediocre (even though I ultimately selected positive) is because of the wage stagnation.


I doubt I can find it, but I recently saw an article about how the 'real age of average retirement has dropped dramatically. I retired at 55, went back to work because of boredom and retired again at 63. A colleague retired at 59, and on it goes. I would also say we appear to be entering the work force later in life. I see a lot of specialty training in technology where the worker is not ready for the work for until mid to late 20's, during my father's era all but the wealthy entered the work force at 18, many at 15 and 16
 
[SUB][/SUB]
Why do you object to a reduction in the workweek?

I said it won't happen. If we were forced to reduce our workweek to 35 hours, we wouldn't hire more people. The ones who work for us would have to do more in less time.
 
[SUB][/SUB]

I said it won't happen. If we were forced to reduce our workweek to 35 hours, we wouldn't hire more people. The ones who work for us would have to do more in less time.

That's how I learned too: The employer says you have X amount of time to get Y things sucessfully completed. If you cannot do that, you are not competent at your job and therefore should not work here. The only job I was ever fired from was when I was in HS doing part time cold calling sales at an ITT facility. They'd rip off a sheet of names and I'd have to call each and every one of them --- I was so horrible at it after 1 month and nearly 5,000 manually dialed calls I had exactly ZERO valid sales. I was never so happy to be fired... ever.
 
Why do you object to a reduction in the workweek?

Why would you want to work fewer hours? Don't you enjoy, what you do? I have always found it time to do something new, when that has happened to me.
 
Why would you want to work fewer hours? Don't you enjoy, what you do? I have always found it time to do something new, when that has happened to me.

See my earlier post in this thread. My support for a shorter workweek has nothing to do with my personal situation. Reducing the workweek reduces unemployment by requiring businesses to hire more employees to compensate for the fact that employees are working less hours. As society currently functions, not everyone has the option of having the job they want, and workers, especially those engaged in daily physical labor, deserve the right not to be overworked.
 
Why would you want to work fewer hours? Don't you enjoy, what you do? I have always found it time to do something new, when that has happened to me.
Even if you love what you do, many believe a more balanced life of family, friends, and recreation is more fruitful.

Working a lot of hours for long periods of time exemplifies a one dimensional & shallow life, IMO.

There's a time where that may be required occasionally, but it should not be life's normalcy.
 
"Don't care. I don't care about polar bears, and I don't care about people who think our policies should be dictated by the effects on polar bears. Polar bears are basically Ice Monsters. Like that thing in the second Star Wars movie. **** em. And anything with more than four legs." -Deuce


Apparently that quote is something your agree with. Let me just say that nature doesn't care what you care about. We might be not far down below polar bears on the list of species nature decides can't be supported anymore and that might be something you care about but it won't help you a bit.
 
See my earlier post in this thread. My support for a shorter workweek has nothing to do with my personal situation. Reducing the workweek reduces unemployment by requiring businesses to hire more employees to compensate for the fact that employees are working less hours. As society currently functions, not everyone has the option of having the job they want, and workers, especially those engaged in daily physical labor, deserve the right not to be overworked.

Actually, that probably does not work that way. I would have to look up to see, what studies have been done. But the French did reduce worked hours a while back and seemed to effect the reduction in economic activity I had expected. This is because the cost of doing business rises, when two people do the job one could. When the cost of business goes up it reduces production. Ultimately you need fewer employees.
 
What? Are you making the claim that the boomers started leaving the workforce "a long time before Obama took office"? The baby boom started in 1946. Those people didn't turn 65 until 2 years after Obama took office.

I stated that our population has aged and the boomers getting older are accelerating the process.
 
I stated that our population has aged and the boomers getting older are accelerating the process.

The population has been aging since the first man. That's what happens. The boomers didn't leave the workforce until after Obama was President. You said it all happened before he became President. Untrue.
 
Even if you love what you do, many believe a more balanced life of family, friends, and recreation is more fruitful.

Working a lot of hours for long periods of time exemplifies a one dimensional & shallow life, IMO.

There's a time where that may be required occasionally, but it should not be life's normalcy.

I have thought about that a lot and am not sure of what to think. I am not even sure that a balanced life is anything but easier.
Maybe, if you want children it would be different. But meeting friends, dining with them, discussing their and your specialties, seeing the ruins and cathedrals and art, wherever the road takes you? Travelling with the wife and the cats? It would be less good if you didn't like the job you do. But then you wouldn't enjoy yourself off the job as much either.
 
Link needed here.

The baby boom, the largest most impactful generation in history has only started leaving the work force, and many now over 65 are staying in. I guess you haven't heard, but progressive countries are raising the age of retirement as we are now as healthy at 80 as were at 60 at the turn of the previous century. Part of the reason for job shortages is that we are staying in harness five and ten years longer.

Please avail yourself of the latest demographics and trends and refrain from making stuff up.

Good lord...the aging of our population started before the boomers but is accelerating as one of the largest generations start hitting retirement age.

In 2012 27.3 Percent of the population was over the age of 55. In 2003 that percentage was 21.

For 65 in over it was 12 percent in 2003, and 13.4% as of 2012.

Our population is getting older, younger people are going to college and people are living longer. It's going to accelerate.

As I pointed out earlier, the main working age demographic which is individuals between the ages of 25 to 55 has dropped, but only by 0.2% in the last decade. You can probably chalk a portion of that up to staying in the school longer.

Oh...here's your link....Age and Sex Composition in the United States: 2003 - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau
 
The population has been aging since the first man. That's what happens. The boomers didn't leave the workforce until after Obama was President. You said it all happened before he became President. Untrue.
What? This is what I said...a direct quote from my post
Good news...labor force participation has been dropping for a long time, before Obama took office. It's the aging of our population.

Our population overall is getting older...that's a fact...longer life expectancy will do that. The boomers being a large population segment reaching their later years is just magnifying that trend.
 
Good lord...the aging of our population started before the boomers but is accelerating as one of the largest generations start hitting retirement age.

In 2012 27.3 Percent of the population was over the age of 55. In 2003 that percentage was 21.

For 65 in over it was 12 percent in 2003, and 13.4% as of 2012.

Our population is getting older, younger people are going to college and people are living longer. It's going to accelerate.

As I pointed out earlier, the main working age demographic which is individuals between the ages of 25 to 55 has dropped, but only by 0.2% in the last decade. You can probably chalk a portion of that up to staying in the school longer.

Oh...here's your link....Age and Sex Composition in the United States: 2003 - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau


I stated that our population has aged and the boomers getting older are accelerating the process.

Try for some consistency. You can't object to a post which basically documents your "accelerating" claim and takes it to the conclusion you simply don't want to have. But maybe you like arguing with yourself.
 
According to the household survey:

- there were 56,000 LESS Americans employed last month
- there were 349,000(!) LESS Americans employed full time last month (with 111,000 more employed part time)

And

- average weekly earnings did not budge from May - thus wages did not keep pace with inflation in June

And

- the employment-to-population ratio dropped.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm


How on Earth can people say with a straight face that 56,000 less people employed plus 349,000 less full time employees plus stagnant wage growth is a good report?

Either they are politically closed minded and/or they are incredibly naive and/or they are macroeconomic ignoramuses, imo.


Read the details people...this is a lousy report.
 
Last edited:
What? This is what I said...a direct quote from my post


Our population overall is getting older...that's a fact...longer life expectancy will do that. The boomers being a large population segment reaching their later years is just magnifying that trend.

And as I said, the population overall has been getting older since day 1. And the work force grew long before Obama took office (grew by almost 8 percent in 40 years), not shrank. In 2000 it was 67 percent participation. In 2007 it was 66 percent. In January of 2009 it was 65.7. These were very slight drops.
 
Try for some consistency. You can't object to a post which basically documents your "accelerating" claim and takes it to the conclusion you simply don't want to have. But maybe you like arguing with yourself.

What? I don't even know what your point is here. Consistency? Both posts attribute the decrease in the labor force participation to
A: Aging population
B: Aging Boomers

I even pointed out that the participation rate for individuals between 25 and 55 has remained relatively stable.
 
And as I said, the population overall has been getting older since day 1. And the work force grew long before Obama took office (grew by almost 8 percent in 40 years), not shrank. In 2000 it was 67 percent participation. In 2007 it was 66 percent. In January of 2009 it was 65.7. These were very slight drops.

The high point was in 98...here is the historical participation rate
PartRate.gif

As you can see...raised dramatically, and has started dropping from it's high in 98/99. So yes, the trend has been downward for a long time.
 
Back
Top Bottom