Unemployment falls to 8.3%

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb has made no sensible point here.

 

[edthecynic]

2011 is not 2012 Where are those numbers showing baby boomers retired at the age they were supposed to retire.

Here's an article that says a large portion of baby boomers will decline retirement

What this will mean is that the age of retirement - or at least full-fledged retirement - may no longer be acceptable at 65, and especially not before that, as workers are going to have to keep working to support themselves since life expectancy is at one of its highest points in history.

Retiring Baby-Boomers and the Threat to the Economy

Another teachable moment!!!

Notice how the mindless CON$ervative just gave his knee jerk rejection of the numbers he demanded with the moronic claim that they were not 2012 numbers when the data for the year ending Dec 2011 was published Jan 2012. The year 2012 is not over, its just started, and the BLS data was for the year 2011, but the CON$ervative rejects the 2011 data because it is not for the incomplete year 2012!!!

CON$ are the biggest mindless boobs on Earth!

Where are those numbers ed?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

first of all, there is nothing invalid about the data I gave. People on the average have been retiring at 62 since 2001. Why don't you provide data that they are retiring on the average at an older age in 2011.

Secondly, why are you CON$ so lazy that you won't find data that contradicts what I linked to, all you do is dismiss it because it doesen't jive with the unsubstantiated lies from GOP hate media? Why don't you demand proof from the lying sources you cite who claim that the 1.2 million who dropped out of the labor force were discouraged rather than retired or disabled???

And lastly when I take the time to look up the data from the Social security Administration, you lazy CON$ will just refuse to accept it because it comes from the government.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v71n1/ssb-v71n1.pdf

Table 2page 78 shows in Dec 2010 there were 34,592,000 Retired workers and 8,205,000 Disabled workers.

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, December 2011

Table 2 shows in Dec 2011 there were 35,599,000 Retired workers and 8,576,000 Disabled workers.

Do the math and you see that more than 1.3 million workers left the workforce in 2011 due to retirement and disability alone, not counting people who died, went back to school, stopped working to take care of a sick or injured family member, left the country, etc., so the BLS reduction of the labor force by only 1.2 million clearly UNDERESTIMATES the number leaving the workforce, so the 8.3% U-3 rate is probably too high. Are you happy now???

Now it's time for your rationalizations why those numbers are wrong.

2011 is not 2012 Where are those numbers showing baby boomers retired at the age they were supposed to retire.

Here's an article that says a large portion of baby boomers will decline retirement

What this will mean is that the age of retirement - or at least full-fledged retirement - may no longer be acceptable at 65, and especially not before that, as workers are going to have to keep working to support themselves since life expectancy is at one of its highest points in history.

Retiring Baby-Boomers and the Threat to the Economy

The operating word is not may. From the article: "This means that we are just about to see the initial effects of the first wave of baby-boomers retiring, and then society is not going to enjoy a significant let up in the amount of retirees for a good fifteen years or more. The manner in which this will affect the economy is extremely hard to predict, especially in the US where the systems of health care and social security are intrinsically flawed in and of themselves. The strain of a greater number of retiring and aging citizens on an economic system that is very tenuous in terms of safety-nets could be catastrophic for the working class generations who are coming up behind them and who are going to have to somehow keep the economy propped up on increasingly shaky legs."

Social security needs minor "fixing" and is not instrinsically flawed. The private sector and free markets have demonstrated they cannot "fix" the health care sector. The extremists to the Left and the Right have to be dismissed, and a consensus from right of to left of center must determine and then do the "fixing."

What this will mean is that the age of retirement - or at least full-fledged retirement - may no longer be acceptable at 65, and especially not before that, as workers are going to have to keep working to support themselves since life expectancy is at one of its highest points in history.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Another teachable moment!!!

Notice how the mindless CON$ervative just gave his knee jerk rejection of the numbers he demanded with the moronic claim that they were not 2012 numbers when the data for the year ending Dec 2011 was published Jan 2012. The year 2012 is not over, its just started, and the BLS data was for the year 2011, but the CON$ervative rejects the 2011 data because it is not for the incomplete year 2012!!!

CON$ are the biggest mindless boobs on Earth!

Where are those numbers ed?

Where are the numbers asshole?

 

[edthecynic]

2011 is not 2012 Where are those numbers showing baby boomers retired at the age they were supposed to retire.

Here's an article that says a large portion of baby boomers will decline retirement

What this will mean is that the age of retirement - or at least full-fledged retirement - may no longer be acceptable at 65, and especially not before that, as workers are going to have to keep working to support themselves since life expectancy is at one of its highest points in history.

Retiring Baby-Boomers and the Threat to the Economy

The operating word is not may. From the article: "This means that we are just about to see the initial effects of the first wave of baby-boomers retiring, and then society is not going to enjoy a significant let up in the amount of retirees for a good fifteen years or more. The manner in which this will affect the economy is extremely hard to predict, especially in the US where the systems of health care and social security are intrinsically flawed in and of themselves. The strain of a greater number of retiring and aging citizens on an economic system that is very tenuous in terms of safety-nets could be catastrophic for the working class generations who are coming up behind them and who are going to have to somehow keep the economy propped up on increasingly shaky legs."

Social security needs minor "fixing" and is not instrinsically flawed. The private sector and free markets have demonstrated they cannot "fix" the health care sector. The extremists to the Left and the Right have to be dismissed, and a consensus from right of to left of center must determine and then do the "fixing."

What this will mean is that the age of retirement - or at least full-fledged retirement - may no longer be acceptable at 65, and especially not before that, as workers are going to have to keep working to support themselves since life expectancy is at one of its highest points in history.

Where are the numbers

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb has made no sensible point here.

You said I lied in that post what was the lie? point it out. or is it when you fail that your brain triggers the remote lie word in your mind? You repeat it with out any proof. Where is the lie in the post you said I lied in?

 

[edthecynic]

Where are those numbers ed?

Where are the numbers asshole?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The operating word is not may. From the article: "This means that we are just about to see the initial effects of the first wave of baby-boomers retiring, and then society is not going to enjoy a significant let up in the amount of retirees for a good fifteen years or more. The manner in which this will affect the economy is extremely hard to predict, especially in the US where the systems of health care and social security are intrinsically flawed in and of themselves. The strain of a greater number of retiring and aging citizens on an economic system that is very tenuous in terms of safety-nets could be catastrophic for the working class generations who are coming up behind them and who are going to have to somehow keep the economy propped up on increasingly shaky legs."

Social security needs minor "fixing" and is not instrinsically flawed. The private sector and free markets have demonstrated they cannot "fix" the health care sector. The extremists to the Left and the Right have to be dismissed, and a consensus from right of to left of center must determine and then do the "fixing."

What this will mean is that the age of retirement - or at least full-fledged retirement - may no longer be acceptable at 65, and especially not before that, as workers are going to have to keep working to support themselves since life expectancy is at one of its highest points in history.

Where are the numbers

asshole you were the one that said baby boomers retired causing the unemployment numbers to go down. You need to show how many baby boomers have actually retired. instead of saying like I think you did 3 out of 4 have retired. or something like that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Where are the numbers asshole?

You made a claim now support it or you shut the fuck up.

 

[saveliberty]

Workers are now retiring at older ages because the incentives to retire have changed. Since the mid-1990s, the average retirement age has risen from 62 to 64 for men and from 60 to 62 for women, according to a new Center for Retirement Research at Boston College analysis of Census Bureau data. The trend toward later retirement has been driven by declines in traditional pensions and retiree health benefits offered by employers, changes in the way Social Security benefits are calculated, better education and health, and less strenuous jobs that people are able to perform at older ages.

Average Retirement Age Grows - Planning to Retire (usnews.com)

A quarter of middle-class Americans are now so pessimistic about their savings that they are planning to delay retirement until they are at least 80 years old -- two years longer than the average person is even expected to live.

25% of Americans expect to wait until age 80 to retire - Nov. 16, 2011

Wrong again Ed.

 

[Newby]

I have recently stopped looking at government numbers no matter the party they can no longer be trusted.

Plus he has stated that baby boomers have retired I want to see those numbers of how many actually retired at 62

Oh, I'd like to see them too. Certainly what he posted holds no validity in 2012.

first of all, there is nothing invalid about the data I gave. People on the average have been retiring at 62 since 2001. Why don't you provide data that they are retiring on the average at an older age in 2011.

Secondly, why are you CON$ so lazy that you won't find data that contradicts what I linked to, all you do is dismiss it because it doesen't jive with the unsubstantiated lies from GOP hate media? Why don't you demand proof from the lying sources you cite who claim that the 1.2 million who dropped out of the labor force were discouraged rather than retired or disabled???

And lastly when I take the time to look up the data from the Social security Administration, you lazy CON$ will just refuse to accept it because it comes from the government.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v71n1/ssb-v71n1.pdf

Table 2page 78 shows in Dec 2010 there were 34,592,000 Retired workers and 8,205,000 Disabled workers.

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, December 2011

Table 2 shows in Dec 2011 there were 35,599,000 Retired workers and 8,576,000 Disabled workers.

Do the math and you see that more than 1.37 million workers left the workforce in 2011 due to retirement and disability alone, not counting people who died, went back to school, stopped working to take care of a sick or injured family member, left the country, etc., so the BLS reduction of the labor force by only 1.2 million clearly UNDERESTIMATES the number leaving the workforce, so the 8.3% U-3 rate is probably too high. Are you happy now???

Now it's time for your rationalizations why those numbers are wrong.

Where's the number of people that entered the job market during that same time period?

 

[edthecynic]

What this will mean is that the age of retirement - or at least full-fledged retirement - may no longer be acceptable at 65, and especially not before that, as workers are going to have to keep working to support themselves since life expectancy is at one of its highest points in history.

Where are the numbers

asshole you were the one that said baby boomers retired causing the unemployment numbers to go down. You need to show how many baby boomers have actually retired. instead of saying like I think you did 3 out of 4 have retired. or something like that.

I already posted that info in post 1310 WITH LINKS, as you well know.

That's why you are a worthless lying

To refresh your worthless memory 1.37 workers left the workforce in 2011 due to retirement and disability alone, so the BLS reduction of the workforce by only 1.2 million is grossly underestimated which means the real U-3 rate is LESS than 8.3%, which is why you are still playing dumb.

Here is the data from post 1310:

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v71n1/ssb-v71n1.pdf
Table 2 page 78 shows in Dec 2010 there were 34,592,000 Retired workers and 8,205,000 Disabled workers.

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, December 2011
Table 1 beneficiaries 2011
Table 2 shows in Dec 2011 there were 35,599,000 Retired workers and 8,576,000 Disabled workers.

Do the math and you see that more than 1.37 million workers left the workforce in 2011 due to retirement and disability alone, not counting people who died, went back to school, stopped working to take care of a sick or injured family member, left the country, etc., so the BLS reduction of the labor force by only 1.2 million clearly UNDERESTIMATES the number leaving the workforce, so the 8.3% U-3 rate is probably too high. Are you happy now???

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Where are the numbers

asshole you were the one that said baby boomers retired causing the unemployment numbers to go down. You need to show how many baby boomers have actually retired. instead of saying like I think you did 3 out of 4 have retired. or something like that.

I already posted that info in post 1310 WITH LINKS, as you well know.

That's why you are a worthless lying

To refresh your worthless memory 1.37 workers left the workforce in 2011 due to retirement and disability alone, so the BLS reduction of the workforce by only 1.2 million is grossly underestimated which means the real U-3 rate is LESS than 8.3%, which is why you are still playing dumb.

Here is the data from post 1310:

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v71n1/ssb-v71n1.pdf
Table 2 page 78 shows in Dec 2010 there were 34,592,000 Retired workers and 8,205,000 Disabled workers.

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, December 2011
Table 1 beneficiaries 2011
Table 2 shows in Dec 2011 there were 35,599,000 Retired workers and 8,576,000 Disabled workers.

Do the math and you see that more than 1.37 million workers left the workforce in 2011 due to retirement and disability alone, not counting people who died, went back to school, stopped working to take care of a sick or injured family member, left the country, etc., so the BLS reduction of the labor force by only 1.2 million clearly UNDERESTIMATES the number leaving the workforce, so the 8.3% U-3 rate is probably too high. Are you happy now???

Did you not read my reply on that post? The year is 2012 not 2010 or 2011. I want to see something other than flawed propaganda from obama's government people.

 

[edthecynic]

Oh, I'd like to see them too. Certainly what he posted holds no validity in 2012.

first of all, there is nothing invalid about the data I gave. People on the average have been retiring at 62 since 2001. Why don't you provide data that they are retiring on the average at an older age in 2011.

Secondly, why are you CON$ so lazy that you won't find data that contradicts what I linked to, all you do is dismiss it because it doesen't jive with the unsubstantiated lies from GOP hate media? Why don't you demand proof from the lying sources you cite who claim that the 1.2 million who dropped out of the labor force were discouraged rather than retired or disabled???

And lastly when I take the time to look up the data from the Social security Administration, you lazy CON$ will just refuse to accept it because it comes from the government.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v71n1/ssb-v71n1.pdf

Table 2page 78 shows in Dec 2010 there were 34,592,000 Retired workers and 8,205,000 Disabled workers.

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, December 2011

Table 2 shows in Dec 2011 there were 35,599,000 Retired workers and 8,576,000 Disabled workers.

Do the math and you see that more than 1.37 million workers left the workforce in 2011 due to retirement and disability alone, not counting people who died, went back to school, stopped working to take care of a sick or injured family member, left the country, etc., so the BLS reduction of the labor force by only 1.2 million clearly UNDERESTIMATES the number leaving the workforce, so the 8.3% U-3 rate is probably too high. Are you happy now???

Now it's time for your rationalizations why those numbers are wrong.

Where's the number of people that entered the job market during that same time period?

Nice deflection! CON$ claim that in 2011 the 1.2 million that left the labor force in the BLS number was due to discouraged workers, but they give no numbers to prove it. I just proved that 1.37+ workers left the workforce due to retirement or disability.

How does the number of people entering the workforce support the phony claim that 1.2 million left the workforce because they were discouraged?

 

[saveliberty]

Ignoring post #1330 won't make it go away Ed.

btw, I found it this morning, but it was way more fun waiting. lol

 

[edthecynic]

asshole you were the one that said baby boomers retired causing the unemployment numbers to go down. You need to show how many baby boomers have actually retired. instead of saying like I think you did 3 out of 4 have retired. or something like that.

I already posted that info in post 1310 WITH LINKS, as you well know.

That's why you are a worthless lying

To refresh your worthless memory 1.37 workers left the workforce in 2011 due to retirement and disability alone, so the BLS reduction of the workforce by only 1.2 million is grossly underestimated which means the real U-3 rate is LESS than 8.3%, which is why you are still playing dumb.

Here is the data from post 1310:

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v71n1/ssb-v71n1.pdf
Table 2 page 78 shows in Dec 2010 there were 34,592,000 Retired workers and 8,205,000 Disabled workers.

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, December 2011
Table 1 beneficiaries 2011
Table 2 shows in Dec 2011 there were 35,599,000 Retired workers and 8,576,000 Disabled workers.

Do the math and you see that more than 1.37 million workers left the workforce in 2011 due to retirement and disability alone, not counting people who died, went back to school, stopped working to take care of a sick or injured family member, left the country, etc., so the BLS reduction of the labor force by only 1.2 million clearly UNDERESTIMATES the number leaving the workforce, so the 8.3% U-3 rate is probably too high. Are you happy now???

Did you not read my reply on that post? The year is 2012 not 2010 or 2011. I want to see something other than flawed propaganda from obama's government people.

Yeah I did and it is just as stupid now that you have repeated it. There is no 2012 yearly data because the year 2012 isn't over yet
The BLS data we are arguing over was for 2011 and you get the number of people who left the workforce in 2011 because of retirement and disability by subtracting the total of workers collecting in 2010 from the total in 2011. Like you really couldn't figure that out on your own!

This is what I mean about CON$ playing dumb so they can repeat their stupid bullshit.

 

[edthecynic]

Workers are now retiring at older ages because the incentives to retire have changed. Since the mid-1990s, the average retirement age has risen from 62 to 64 for men and from 60 to 62 for women, according to a new Center for Retirement Research at Boston College analysis of Census Bureau data. The trend toward later retirement has been driven by declines in traditional pensions and retiree health benefits offered by employers, changes in the way Social Security benefits are calculated, better education and health, and less strenuous jobs that people are able to perform at older ages.

Average Retirement Age Grows - Planning to Retire (usnews.com)

A quarter of middle-class Americans are now so pessimistic about their savings that they are planning to delay retirement until they are at least 80 years old -- two years longer than the average person is even expected to live.

25% of Americans expect to wait until age 80 to retire - Nov. 16, 2011

Wrong again Ed.

If 1 out of 4 are waiting to retire, how does that change the fact that 3 out of 4 are not waiting???

Ideation Insurance Group
Approximately 3 out of 4 Americans start claiming Social Security benefits the moment they are eligible at age 62.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I already posted that info in post 1310 WITH LINKS, as you well know.

That's why you are a worthless lying

To refresh your worthless memory 1.37 workers left the workforce in 2011 due to retirement and disability alone, so the BLS reduction of the workforce by only 1.2 million is grossly underestimated which means the real U-3 rate is LESS than 8.3%, which is why you are still playing dumb.

Here is the data from post 1310:

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v71n1/ssb-v71n1.pdf
Table 2 page 78 shows in Dec 2010 there were 34,592,000 Retired workers and 8,205,000 Disabled workers.

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, December 2011
Table 1 beneficiaries 2011
Table 2 shows in Dec 2011 there were 35,599,000 Retired workers and 8,576,000 Disabled workers.

Do the math and you see that more than 1.37 million workers left the workforce in 2011 due to retirement and disability alone, not counting people who died, went back to school, stopped working to take care of a sick or injured family member, left the country, etc., so the BLS reduction of the labor force by only 1.2 million clearly UNDERESTIMATES the number leaving the workforce, so the 8.3% U-3 rate is probably too high. Are you happy now???

Did you not read my reply on that post? The year is 2012 not 2010 or 2011. I want to see something other than flawed propaganda from obama's government people.

Yeah I did and it is just as stupid now that you have repeated it. There is no 2012 yearly data because the year 2012 isn't over yet
The BLS data we are arguing over was for 2011 and you get the number of people who left the workforce in 2011 because of retirement and disability by subtracting the total of workers collecting in 2010 from the total in 2011. Like you really couldn't figure that out on your own!

This is what I mean about CON$ playing dumb so they can repeat their stupid bullshit.

Yes you did, but how does your claim refute that baby boomers have delayed planned retirements. You haven't given any proof other than something from 2010 and 2011 and that is from obama's propaganda.

 

[edthecynic]

Did you not read my reply on that post? The year is 2012 not 2010 or 2011. I want to see something other than flawed propaganda from obama's government people.

Yeah I did and it is just as stupid now that you have repeated it. There is no 2012 yearly data because the year 2012 isn't over yet
The BLS data we are arguing over was for 2011 and you get the number of people who left the workforce in 2011 because of retirement and disability by subtracting the total of workers collecting in 2010 from the total in 2011. Like you really couldn't figure that out on your own!

This is what I mean about CON$ playing dumb so they can repeat their stupid bullshit.

Yes you did, but how does your claim refute that baby boomers have delayed planned retirements. You haven't given any proof other than something from 2010 and 2011 and that is from obama's propaganda.

And there it is, anything that contradicts the lies of the Right is Obama's propaganda. Social Security data is now propaganda. There is nothing like the willfully ignorant bliss of CON$ervatism.

And the CON$ervative propaganda that 1 in 4 is delaying retirement hardly contradicts my post that 4 out of 4 are not delaying retirement, at least for those who can do math.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yeah I did and it is just as stupid now that you have repeated it. There is no 2012 yearly data because the year 2012 isn't over yet
The BLS data we are arguing over was for 2011 and you get the number of people who left the workforce in 2011 because of retirement and disability by subtracting the total of workers collecting in 2010 from the total in 2011. Like you really couldn't figure that out on your own!

This is what I mean about CON$ playing dumb so they can repeat their stupid bullshit.

Yes you did, but how does your claim refute that baby boomers have delayed planned retirements. You haven't given any proof other than something from 2010 and 2011 and that is from obama's propaganda.

And there it is, anything that contradicts the lies of the Right is Obama's propaganda. Social Security data is now propaganda. There is nothing like the willfully ignorant bliss of CON$ervatism.

And the CON$ervative propaganda that 1 in 4 is delaying retirement hardly contradicts my post that 4 out of 4 are not delaying retirement, at least for those who can do math.

Where are those retiring baby boomer numbers at ed? it's an election year with no explanation of where all those number of unemployed people went to. Hell maybe you can explain if a lot of people retired who was hired to replace them.