Record 90,609,000 Americans Not In Labor Force

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2013 7:14 PM GMT
    We warned you about Obamacare being a disaster:

    * Millions WON'T be able to keep their current health insurance

    * Insurance prices would be MORE expensive

    * Americans won't like being FORCED to purchase something

    * The Healthcare.gov website wasn't ready, the mandate should be delayed.


    And the libs ignored us. Maybe the libs won't ignore us when we keep saying that the Obama economic "plan" is a disaster:


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


    This is NOT good!
  • PIccadilly

    Posts: 240

    Oct 22, 2013 7:49 PM GMT
    Translation: Baby-boomers have started retiring.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2013 7:51 PM GMT
    Piccadilly saidTranslation: Baby-boomers have started retiring.


    OK. Please forward that to the White House, I'm sure they would love to use that excuse.
  • PIccadilly

    Posts: 240

    Oct 22, 2013 7:53 PM GMT
    MisterOrally saidOK. Please forward that to the White House, I'm sure they would love to use that excuse.


    An excuse for what?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2013 7:57 PM GMT
    Piccadilly said
    MisterOrally saidOK. Please forward that to the White House, I'm sure they would love to use that excuse.


    An excuse for what?


    Send it over to them, then watch Carney's press conference when he trots it out. Then you'll understand. icon_wink.gif

    BTW, since you actually believe this, how 'bout sharing the numbers with us. Thanks.
  • PIccadilly

    Posts: 240

    Oct 22, 2013 8:47 PM GMT
    MisterOrally saidSend it over to them, then watch Carney's press conference when he trots it out. Then you'll understand. icon_wink.gif

    BTW, since you actually believe this, how 'bout sharing the numbers with us. Thanks.


    The oldest boomers reached the age of 65 in 2011. You think they'll be working until they reach 99?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2013 8:51 PM GMT
    Piccadilly said
    MisterOrally saidSend it over to them, then watch Carney's press conference when he trots it out. Then you'll understand. icon_wink.gif

    BTW, since you actually believe this, how 'bout sharing the numbers with us. Thanks.


    The oldest boomers reached the age of 65 in 2011. You think they'll be working until they reach 99?


    How many people became qualified to enter the workforce in September?

    How many people left the workforce in September due to retirement?

    Get those two numbers and we can move forward from there. You've got to be able to back up your assertion with at least some hard facts.
  • PIccadilly

    Posts: 240

    Oct 22, 2013 8:55 PM GMT
    MisterOrally saidHow many people became qualified to enter the workforce in September?

    How many people left the workforce in September due to retirement?

    Get those two numbers and we can move forward from there. You've got to be able to back up your assertion with at least some hard facts.


    What's your assertion? You're the one that started this tread to begin with.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2013 9:00 PM GMT
    Piccadilly said
    MisterOrally saidHow many people became qualified to enter the workforce in September?

    How many people left the workforce in September due to retirement?

    Get those two numbers and we can move forward from there. You've got to be able to back up your assertion with at least some hard facts.


    What's your assertion? You're the one that started this tread to begin with.


    OK, backing up:

    ME: Record 90,609,000 Americans Not In Labor Force

    ME: This is not good

    YOU: It's because the baby boomers are retiring

    ME: Show me the numbers that proves what you are saying is corect

  • pandx970

    Posts: 357

    Oct 22, 2013 9:11 PM GMT
    'ObamaCare' Not To Blame For Low Labor Participation Rate (Forbes.com)

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/09/06/obamacare-not-to-blame-for-low-labor-participation-rate/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2013 9:12 PM GMT
    pandx970 said'ObamaCare' Not To Blame For Low Labor Participation Rate (Forbes.com)

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2013/09/06/obamacare-not-to-blame-for-low-labor-participation-rate/



    Who said it was?

    Obama's economic "policies" are to blame.

    We can't blame EVERYTHING on Obamacare! icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2013 9:20 PM GMT
    Classic SouthBeach. He's not even pretending his sock isn't him any more.
  • PIccadilly

    Posts: 240

    Oct 22, 2013 10:09 PM GMT
    MisterOrally saidOK, backing up:

    ME: Record 90,609,000 Americans Not In Labor Force

    ME: This is not good

    YOU: It's because the baby boomers are retiring

    ME: Show me the numbers that proves what you are saying is correct


    I didn't say this was good. I'm only offering a plausible explanation why this is the case. The retirement boom and the demographic shift have been predicted for years so it should certainly not be a surprise. That number is only going to increase in the future unless most baby-boomers work until they die.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2013 10:16 PM GMT
    Piccadilly said
    MisterOrally saidOK, backing up:

    ME: Record 90,609,000 Americans Not In Labor Force

    ME: This is not good

    YOU: It's because the baby boomers are retiring

    ME: Show me the numbers that proves what you are saying is correct


    I didn't say this was good. I'm only offering a plausible explanation why this is the case. The retirement boom and the demographic shift have been predicted for years so it should certainly not be a surprise. That number is only going to increase in the future unless most baby-boomers work until they die.


    No, it is not necessarily going to increase in the future.

    And you still haven't provided the numbers upon which you are basing your position.

    I'll give you another "theory" to ponder: The reason for the record number of Americans not in the work force is because of a stalled economy.
  • pandx970

    Posts: 357

    Oct 22, 2013 10:48 PM GMT
    MisterOrally said

    Who said it was?

    Obama's economic "policies" are to blame.

    We can't blame EVERYTHING on Obamacare! icon_lol.gif


    Umm...you did. at least with your bad writing...

    You: "Obamacare" + Labor force participation decline => Obama bad.

    Even if you're just wanting to talk about the labor force participation declining, I presented a contrary opinion that you didn't even address.

    The article that you didn't read discusses trends in labor force participation -- that is that number you pulled from the Labor Department report. The article also discusses historical labor participation rates being similar to the current one.

    Using a gross "record" of Americans not in the labor force is misleading. The rate of participation is much more meaningful comparing year of year or decade over decade numbers. Even a snapshot of the past 25 years would seem horrific if you used the gross number.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2013 11:19 PM GMT
    pandx970 said
    MisterOrally said

    Who said it was?

    Obama's economic "policies" are to blame.

    We can't blame EVERYTHING on Obamacare! icon_lol.gif


    Umm...you did. at least with your bad writing...

    You: "Obamacare" + Labor force participation decline => Obama bad.


    I didn't even bother quoting the rest of what you wrote because your premise is completely wrong.

    Please CAREFULLY read what I wrote to start off the topic. CAREFULLY.

    Hint: I'm talking about the Obama economic plan, NOT Obamacare.
  • PIccadilly

    Posts: 240

    Oct 22, 2013 11:42 PM GMT
    MisterOrally saidNo, it is not necessarily going to increase in the future.

    And you still haven't provided the numbers upon which you are basing your position.

    I'll give you another "theory" to ponder: The reason for the record number of Americans not in the work force is because of a stalled economy.


    The aging of the population isn't a myth. Unless you can provide "numbers" yourself, your "theory" is as good as mine.

    In fact, the participation rate has been falling even since 2000 (67.1% back then). Surely it was accelerated by the financial crisis but the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts it will keep falling until 2020 (to 62.5%). The main reason: baby-boomers.

    http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2012/01/art3full.pdf

    So yes, with life expectancy constantly increasing and a decreased participation rate, with everything else being equal, the number of people out of the work force will increase.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2013 11:52 PM GMT
    quick we need more illegal Mexicans to buy ObamaCare icon_smile.gif
  • pandx970

    Posts: 357

    Oct 23, 2013 2:31 AM GMT
    MisterOrally said
    pandx970 said
    MisterOrally said

    Who said it was?

    Obama's economic "policies" are to blame.

    We can't blame EVERYTHING on Obamacare! icon_lol.gif


    Umm...you did. at least with your bad writing...

    You: "Obamacare" + Labor force participation decline => Obama bad.


    I didn't even bother quoting the rest of what you wrote because your premise is completely wrong.

    Please CAREFULLY read what I wrote to start off the topic. CAREFULLY.

    Hint: I'm talking about the Obama economic plan, NOT Obamacare.


    Good writing is so uncommon these days. You're the one who badly wrote the original post, man. Paragraphs are your friend...topic sentence / opinion ... facts, supporting evidence, and on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2013 5:29 AM GMT
    MisterOrally said90,609,000: Americans Not in Labor Force Climbs to Another Record


    This is NOT good!


    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USAWFPNA
    Working-age Population in the United States (USAWFPNA)

    2012: 243,284 Thousands of Persons Last 5 ObservationsAnnual, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Updated: 2013-06-10 9:17 AM CDT


    fredgraph.png?&id=USAWFPNA&scale=Left&ra

    So you are saying that 90,609,000 of 243,284,000 people are not working? What's that, a 37.2% unemployment rate? Is that correct?

    gdunemployment.gif

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/90609000-americans-not-labor-force-climbs-another-record
    In January 2009, when President Barack Obama took office, there were 80,507,000 Americans not in the labor force. Thus, the number of Americans not in the labor force has increased by 10,102,000

    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.

    Another reason is that female participation in the labor force has been declining. In January 2009, the female labor force participation rate was 59.4 percent. In September 2013, it was 57.1 percent.











  • pandx970

    Posts: 357

    Oct 23, 2013 6:54 PM GMT
    The number is the labor force participation rate. Not the unemployment rate.

    Total Population of the US ~ 313,900,000
    - Under 16 year old
    - Members of the armed forces
    - Institutionalized persons

    = Labor Force ~ 240,000,000
    - Not in Labor Force (School, Retirement, Unable to find work)
    - Employed people (incl. underemployed)

    = Unemployed People (Who've been looking for work in the past month)

    The traditional unemployment rate (the U6 rate) is based on the number of unemployed people divided by the labor force.

    Also, unemployment statistics did not exist during the Depression, so Depression-era statistics are highly researched "good" guesses.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 23, 2013 6:59 PM GMT
    MisterOrally saidWe warned you about Obamacare being a disaster:

    * Millions WON'T be able to keep their current health insurance

    * Insurance prices would be MORE expensive

    * Americans won't like being FORCED to purchase something

    * The Healthcare.gov website wasn't ready, the mandate should be delayed.


    And the libs ignored us. Maybe the libs won't ignore us when we keep saying that the Obama economic "plan" is a disaster:


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


    This is NOT good!


    Umm like dude?
    If they don't have an jncome the medicaid exoansion will cover them ......


    Completely

    The only thing that will prevent THAT from happening ks if you happen to be unlucky enough to have a republican for governor
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2013 5:43 PM GMT
    pandx970 saidThe number is the labor force participation rate. Not the unemployment rate.

    Total Population of the US ~ 313,900,000
    - Under 16 year old
    - Members of the armed forces
    - Institutionalized persons

    = Labor Force ~ 240,000,000
    - Not in Labor Force (School, Retirement, Unable to find work)
    - Employed people (incl. underemployed)

    = Unemployed People (Who've been looking for work in the past month)

    The traditional unemployment rate (the U6 rate) is based on the number of unemployed people divided by the labor force.

    Also, unemployment statistics did not exist during the Depression, so Depression-era statistics are highly researched "good" guesses.


    Good info. Wasn't aware about no unemployment stats back then. I see now tracking started only about 60 years ago. As to the figuring, I got that wrong on purpose to make a point. But 90 mil of 314 is about 28.7% when even shadowstats shows about 23% max and it's interesting to then remove those retiring who are still of age to work.

    sgs-emp.gif?hl=ad&t=1382448013
  • pandx970

    Posts: 357

    Oct 24, 2013 6:08 PM GMT
    "Shadowstats" isn't really an acceptable source to use. It provides some additional points to talk about at a dinner party, but not really the kind of information you need in detailed.

    As an alternative, discussions on U3 v U6 are definitely worthwhile.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2013 7:24 PM GMT
    pandx970 said"Shadowstats" isn't really an acceptable source to use. It provides some additional points to talk about at a dinner party, but not really the kind of information you need in detailed.

    As an alternative, discussions on U3 v U6 are definitely worthwhile.


    Again, I was using an extreme example to place in context the supposed implication of the numbers as proposed by the OP. You have no idea how to read me.