90,609,000 not included in work force

[Dragonlady]

That would be important if retirees were counted as part of the labor force.

They are not.

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)

Not in the labor force
Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. See also Labor force and Discouraged workers.​

You can try to sugar-coat Obama's abysmal unemployment record, but don't expect anyone to buy it.

That's the POINT. They're NOT part of the labor force.

You might want to at LEAST read the article before you so easily make yourself look foolish.

Below is an excerpt FROM the article:

One reason for the increasing number of people not in the labor force is the aging of the Baby Boom generation, whose members have begun retiring--and are not being replaced by an equal number of young people entering the labor force. - See more at: 90,609,000: Americans Not in Labor Force Climbs to Another Record | CNS News

Right. So it's not necessarily that boomers are retiring, it's that they aren't being replaced. Can you see the forest for the trees?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?? It's not that these retirees are not being replaced in the workplace, the numbers of people retiring are greater than the number of people ENTERING THE WORKFORCE. That's because there are more Boomers in the population than young people.

The Boomers are a giant demographic moving through history, like a large meal through a snake. Our group is larger than the one that came before us, and those who came after.

Of course this doesn't fit with your scenario that Obama has failed to create jobs so you're going to run with the idea that Baby Boomers aren't being replaced in the workforce.

 

[depotoo]

That's the POINT. They're NOT part of the labor force.

You might want to at LEAST read the article before you so easily make yourself look foolish.

Below is an excerpt FROM the article:

One reason for the increasing number of people not in the labor force is the aging of the Baby Boom generation, whose members have begun retiring--and are not being replaced by an equal number of young people entering the labor force. - See more at: 90,609,000: Americans Not in Labor Force Climbs to Another Record | CNS News

Right. So it's not necessarily that boomers are retiring, it's that they aren't being replaced. Can you see the forest for the trees?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?? It's not that these retirees are not being replaced in the workplace, the numbers of people retiring are greater than the number of people ENTERING THE WORKFORCE. That's because there are more Boomers in the population than young people.

The Boomers are a giant demographic moving through history, like a large meal through a snake. Our group is larger than the one that came before us, and those who came after.

Of course this doesn't fit with your scenario that Obama has failed to create jobs so you're going to run with the idea that Baby Boomers aren't being replaced in the workforce.

actually in numbers, no they are not. Just check my post further up if you don't believe me. It has links and numbers.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

what part of "not being replaced by an equal number of young people entering the workforce" dont you understand?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It must be the word "equal". LOLberals usually use this term to mean its exact opposite.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Its not surprising that this so called recovery is below mediocre. O simply doesn't understand economics nor has he ever run a business or worked. The people surrounding him are just as clueless.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

This must be the recovery they keep yapping about...

 

[The Rabbi]

Guess what started happening in 2011.

The first of the baby boom generation (1946-1964) reached the retirement age of 65.

And?
That hardly accounts for the massive unemployment that is largely off the books. The worst is among those 18-25, with an unemployment/underemployment rate over 40%.
No way to spin this. Obama's recovery has been worse than Bush's recession.

The Govt had little to do with the 08 crash
And BHO has had little to do with the recovery as well
without "fracking" where would we be?
states like ND, Okl, Texas, La, etc... have created most of the jobs BHO taking cerdit for

Drilling for oil and natural gas in shale rock is supporting 1.7 million U.S. jobs this year, including workers outside the energy industry such as waiters and shop clerks, according to researcher IHS Global Insight.
Fracking Will Support 1.7 Million Jobs, Study Shows - Businessweek

Are you kidding me?
The gov'ts actions directly caused the crash, as the Fed kept interest rates too low too long, raising incentives for mortgage lending i a real estate bubble.
The gov'ts actions after 2009 directly caused the slow recovery, as dysincentives for hiring and wealth accumulation kicked in.
This is Econ 101. A subject most libs are completely ignorant of.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And?
That hardly accounts for the massive unemployment that is largely off the books. The worst is among those 18-25, with an unemployment/underemployment rate over 40%.
No way to spin this. Obama's recovery has been worse than Bush's recession.

The Govt had little to do with the 08 crash
And BHO has had little to do with the recovery as well
without "fracking" where would we be?
states like ND, Okl, Texas, La, etc... have created most of the jobs BHO taking cerdit for

Drilling for oil and natural gas in shale rock is supporting 1.7 million U.S. jobs this year, including workers outside the energy industry such as waiters and shop clerks, according to researcher IHS Global Insight.
Fracking Will Support 1.7 Million Jobs, Study Shows - Businessweek

Are you kidding me?
The gov'ts actions directly caused the crash, as the Fed kept interest rates too low too long, raising incentives for mortgage lending i a real estate bubble.
The gov'ts actions after 2009 directly caused the slow recovery, as dysincentives for hiring and wealth accumulation kicked in.
This is Econ 101. A subject most libs are completely ignorant of.

Not too mention they've essentially continued with the same policies that got us there in teh first place. The fed knows it created a bubble and burst it, so what is their repsonse? To build another bubble of course! We need LOWER interest rates, more real estate re-priming and most of all, more printing of currency out of thin air.

 

[Dragonlady]

Its not surprising that this so called recovery is below mediocre. O simply doesn't understand economics nor has he ever run a business or worked. The people surrounding him are just as clueless.

With a Congress which refuses to do anything to help the economy, and which blocks any attempt by the President to promote infrastructure spending or to create jobs, in addition to imposing Sequester spending cuts which further stifled the recovery, why is it a surprise that the recovery is sluggish?

As many conservatives remind us on a daily basis, Obama doesn't pass laws or spending. With a "do-nothing" Congress whose primary goal is to prevent this President from having any accomplishments, and not to do what is best for the country, the President is seriously hobbled in assisting the recovery.

I was recently reminded of the great infrastructure construction which occurred under FDR during the Great Depression, but none of that has been occurring under Obama because Congress has blocked all of the infrastructure spending proposed by Obama.

Of course the Republicans want the recovery to fail. They feel this will enable them to win back the Senate and the White House in 2016 and then they can continue to benefit their wealthy and corporate backers in an unrestrained manner, while continuing to blame social spending for the economic problems the nation faces.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

That's the POINT. They're NOT part of the labor force.

You might want to at LEAST read the article before you so easily make yourself look foolish.

Below is an excerpt FROM the article:

One reason for the increasing number of people not in the labor force is the aging of the Baby Boom generation, whose members have begun retiring--and are not being replaced by an equal number of young people entering the labor force. - See more at: 90,609,000: Americans Not in Labor Force Climbs to Another Record | CNS News

Right. So it's not necessarily that boomers are retiring, it's that they aren't being replaced. Can you see the forest for the trees?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?? It's not that these retirees are not being replaced in the workplace, the numbers of people retiring are greater than the number of people ENTERING THE WORKFORCE. That's because there are more Boomers in the population than young people.

The Boomers are a giant demographic moving through history, like a large meal through a snake. Our group is larger than the one that came before us, and those who came after.

Of course this doesn't fit with your scenario that Obama has failed to create jobs so you're going to run with the idea that Baby Boomers aren't being replaced in the workforce.

Your summation of the problem doesn't add up. If the problem was not enough youth to replace the boomers then why is the youth UE rate so astronomically high?

Doesn't add up

 

[JRK]

That's the POINT. They're NOT part of the labor force.

You might want to at LEAST read the article before you so easily make yourself look foolish.

Below is an excerpt FROM the article:

One reason for the increasing number of people not in the labor force is the aging of the Baby Boom generation, whose members have begun retiring--and are not being replaced by an equal number of young people entering the labor force. - See more at: 90,609,000: Americans Not in Labor Force Climbs to Another Record | CNS News

Right. So it's not necessarily that boomers are retiring, it's that they aren't being replaced. Can you see the forest for the trees?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?? It's not that these retirees are not being replaced in the workplace, the numbers of people retiring are greater than the number of people ENTERING THE WORKFORCE. That's because there are more Boomers in the population than young people.

The Boomers are a giant demographic moving through history, like a large meal through a snake. Our group is larger than the one that came before us, and those who came after.

Of course this doesn't fit with your scenario that Obama has failed to create jobs so you're going to run with the idea that Baby Boomers aren't being replaced in the workforce.

To start with the private sector creates jobs
All the Govt can do is provide ans enviroment that assists in that goal
Like income tax and capital gains tax cuts in 01-03

Under BHO we have over 2 million fewer people working today than in 2008
Despite Job Growth, 2.4 Million Fewer Americans Work Than in 2008 - Reason 24/7 : Reason.com
As a result, there are still 2.4 million fewer people working than there were in January 2008, the previous jobs peak. And since the recovery started in June 2009, the number of jobs has increased a mere 3.9%, well below the post-World War II average of 9.7%.

In fact, had this jobs recovery merely kept pace with average of the previous 10, there would be 7.6 million more people working today, and the unemployment rate would be less than half its current level.

If Obama spent the time fhelping the system as much as he has fighting it, we would be fine
Fracking should be with-in reason fully supported
clean coal
all the effort put on the ACA should be put on tax reform as well as a full support of those things that create jobs
talk about minimum wage?
go to ND and work @ a burger joint

The Inside Scoop Online: McDonald's Paying $15.00/hour? Yes, It's Real, But if You Move.

 

[JRK]

And?
That hardly accounts for the massive unemployment that is largely off the books. The worst is among those 18-25, with an unemployment/underemployment rate over 40%.
No way to spin this. Obama's recovery has been worse than Bush's recession.

The Govt had little to do with the 08 crash
And BHO has had little to do with the recovery as well
without "fracking" where would we be?
states like ND, Okl, Texas, La, etc... have created most of the jobs BHO taking cerdit for

Drilling for oil and natural gas in shale rock is supporting 1.7 million U.S. jobs this year, including workers outside the energy industry such as waiters and shop clerks, according to researcher IHS Global Insight.
Fracking Will Support 1.7 Million Jobs, Study Shows - Businessweek

Are you kidding me?
The gov'ts actions directly caused the crash, as the Fed kept interest rates too low too long, raising incentives for mortgage lending i a real estate bubble.
The gov'ts actions after 2009 directly caused the slow recovery, as dysincentives for hiring and wealth accumulation kicked in.
This is Econ 101. A subject most libs are completely ignorant of.

The govt keeping intrest rates low had nothing to do with people making bad loans.
that was a choice made in the free market, not in Washington
do a root cause and you will agree
easy money was only easy because people in the free market made bad choices
I agree there has been little effort to help the economy get back to where it was from 80s to late 07 sense 2009
Obama spent his first 2 year 100% focused on ACA

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Its not surprising that this so called recovery is below mediocre. O simply doesn't understand economics nor has he ever run a business or worked. The people surrounding him are just as clueless.

With a Congress which refuses to do anything to help the economy, and which blocks any attempt by the President to promote infrastructure spending or to create jobs, in addition to imposing Sequester spending cuts which further stifled the recovery, why is it a surprise that the recovery is sluggish?

As many conservatives remind us on a daily basis, Obama doesn't pass laws or spending. With a "do-nothing" Congress whose primary goal is to prevent this President from having any accomplishments, and not to do what is best for the country, the President is seriously hobbled in assisting the recovery.

I was recently reminded of the great infrastructure construction which occurred under FDR during the Great Depression, but none of that has been occurring under Obama because Congress has blocked all of the infrastructure spending proposed by Obama.

Of course the Republicans want the recovery to fail. They feel this will enable them to win back the Senate and the White House in 2016 and then they can continue to benefit their wealthy and corporate backers in an unrestrained manner, while continuing to blame social spending for the economic problems the nation faces.

How many jobs bills did congress send over to the senate only to see reid table them and never bring them to the floor?

 

[edthecynic]

90,609,000: Americans Not in Labor Force Climbs to Another Record | CNS News

that is nuts

were allmost to 1 in 3

Yeah, stoke up the furnaces for all these "useless eaters."

How dare a child stay in school past 16 years old!
How dare a spouse stay home and care for their children!
How dare a senior retire, they must work until the drop dead on the job!
How dare a person become disabled, they are all just faking it anyway!
How dare an adult stay home to care for a sick or aging family member!
Yeah, death to the useless eaters!!!

October 15, 2013
RUSH: We've got a lot of people -- look, 90 million Americans -- I love to put it this way 'cause I think it's the proper perspective. Ninety million Americans are not working, Donna, but they're eating. What does that mean? That's over 10 New York Cities that are not working. But they're eating, which means somebody's buying their sustenance, and that somebody is somebody else, is the government. They are eating.

 

[Avatar4321]

Guess what started happening in 2011.

The first of the baby boom generation (1946-1964) reached the retirement age of 65.

It think it's totally messed up that people want to stop working. I plan on working for the rest of my life.

The Lord didn't say work 6 days and rest on the 7th until you are 65 and then dont do any more work.

There are so many people who could do so many good things that just don't because we have somehow bought this lie that we should retire.

You know, Colonel Sanders didn't even start KFC until he was around 65. If he listened to the conventional "wisdom" he would have died dirt poor.

 

[edthecynic]

Their idea of lowering unemployment is all about the number, and the easiest way to get that number down is to discourage people from looking. It beats actually creating an environment for people to prosper.

Except the number of discouraged workers went DOWN last momth from 866,000 to 852,000. So it is not discouraged workers leaving the workforce that is lowering the LPR but an increase in retirees and women staying home to care for their children.

 

[Dragonlady]

It think it's totally messed up that people want to stop working. I plan on working for the rest of my life.

The Lord didn't say work 6 days and rest on the 7th until you are 65 and then dont do any more work.

There are so many people who could do so many good things that just don't because we have somehow bought this lie that we should retire.

You know, Colonel Sanders didn't even start KFC until he was around 65. If he listened to the conventional "wisdom" he would have died dirt poor.

By all means do so. But the reality is that most people are unable to learn new skills after age 50, and they slow down in what they are able to accomplish. We don't just decline physically as we age, we decline mentally as well.

When the Bible was written, people didn't live much past 50 years so retirement wasn't an issue, and those who did, were cared for by their families. Since modern medicine has increased life expectancy, and families are scattered across the country, neither scenario is reasonable in this day and age.

 

[edthecynic]

That's the POINT. They're NOT part of the labor force.

You might want to at LEAST read the article before you so easily make yourself look foolish.

Below is an excerpt FROM the article:

One reason for the increasing number of people not in the labor force is the aging of the Baby Boom generation, whose members have begun retiring--and are not being replaced by an equal number of young people entering the labor force. - See more at: 90,609,000: Americans Not in Labor Force Climbs to Another Record | CNS News

Right. So it's not necessarily that boomers are retiring, it's that they aren't being replaced. Can you see the forest for the trees?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?? It's not that these retirees are not being replaced in the workplace, the numbers of people retiring are greater than the number of people ENTERING THE WORKFORCE. That's because there are more Boomers in the population than young people.

The Boomers are a giant demographic moving through history, like a large meal through a snake. Our group is larger than the one that came before us, and those who came after.

Of course this doesn't fit with your scenario that Obama has failed to create jobs so you're going to run with the idea that Baby Boomers aren't being replaced in the workforce.

The Right knows that, they made that same point when they were pushing for privatizing Social Security.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Govt had little to do with the 08 crash
And BHO has had little to do with the recovery as well
without "fracking" where would we be?
states like ND, Okl, Texas, La, etc... have created most of the jobs BHO taking cerdit for

Drilling for oil and natural gas in shale rock is supporting 1.7 million U.S. jobs this year, including workers outside the energy industry such as waiters and shop clerks, according to researcher IHS Global Insight.
Fracking Will Support 1.7 Million Jobs, Study Shows - Businessweek

Are you kidding me?
The gov'ts actions directly caused the crash, as the Fed kept interest rates too low too long, raising incentives for mortgage lending i a real estate bubble.
The gov'ts actions after 2009 directly caused the slow recovery, as dysincentives for hiring and wealth accumulation kicked in.
This is Econ 101. A subject most libs are completely ignorant of.

The govt keeping intrest rates low had nothing to do with people making bad loans.
that was a choice made in the free market, not in Washington
do a root cause and you will agree
easy money was only easy because people in the free market made bad choices
I agree there has been little effort to help the economy get back to where it was from 80s to late 07 sense 2009
Obama spent his first 2 year 100% focused on ACA

It had everything to do with it.
Low interest rates by the Feds made it immensely profitable to make mortgage loans (difference between interest rate on mortgage loan and rate on fed funds equals profit), which were packaged and sold. Only way to increase borrower pool is to lower cost and/or lower credit quality. They did both. Eventually lower credit quality caught up.
Easy money was easy because the Fed sets monetary policy.
Obama spent his first year focused on the Porkulus Bill, Cash for Clunkers, and Dodd-Frank. ACA was in there somewhere.

 

[The Rabbi]

It think it's totally messed up that people want to stop working. I plan on working for the rest of my life.

The Lord didn't say work 6 days and rest on the 7th until you are 65 and then dont do any more work.

There are so many people who could do so many good things that just don't because we have somehow bought this lie that we should retire.

You know, Colonel Sanders didn't even start KFC until he was around 65. If he listened to the conventional "wisdom" he would have died dirt poor.

By all means do so. But the reality is that most people are unable to learn new skills after age 50, and they slow down in what they are able to accomplish. We don't just decline physically as we age, we decline mentally as well.

When the Bible was written, people didn't live much past 50 years so retirement wasn't an issue, and those who did, were cared for by their families. Since modern medicine has increased life expectancy, and families are scattered across the country, neither scenario is reasonable in this day and age.

Speak for yourself. I'm 51 and starting to learn jewelry repair and doing fairly well at it.
Just because someone turns 65 doesnt mean they have to retire. The fact that people are is more testament to the lack of prospects in the job market than anything else.