(07-24-2015 08:49 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 08:26 AM)fsquid Wrote:  how do we know that workplace participation isn't falling because baby boomers are retiring at a rate of 10k a day?

If the workplace participation is dropping do to a voluntary removal of workers, then that would drive up the wages due to a lack of workers to fill the position.

Does the wage level, since Obama's term started, suggest that there is a lack of workers due to retirement? No. Wages are flat to down.

Therefore, you can conclude that many people are retiring early because thats the only option they have. Those graduating college can not find work (unless becoming a bistro at starbucks is considered work for a business major) , and those who have been unemployed forever have given up looking for work.

The final proof will be when an actual job creator gets in the white house. Good jobs will start to get created, which will see many of the hopeless jump back into the job market, which will lead to a higher unemployment number because people now have hope and are looking for work again. The unemeployment number being tossed around today is a number trick. It is not the true level of unemployed. It doesnt even hack into the underemployed. So while today we see the mathematical anomaly of the tricked out unemployment rate dropping as labor participation drops, when a job creator gets into office we will see the tricked out unemployment number rise sa the labor participation rate rises.

The true number of unemployed sits around 16%-18%. Thats how bad it is. When a job creator gets into the white house, thats the number that will be dropping, not necessarily the tricked out "dont count people who have lost all hope" unemployment number.

the unemployed or underprivileged or underwater don't want to hear that....

one of the better posts I've read.....

Quote:Does the wage level, since Obama's term started, suggest that there is a lack of workers due to retirement? No. Wages are flat to down.

Not necessarily, if higher-paid older workers are being replaced with lower-paid younger workers.

(07-24-2015 10:12 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

Quote:Does the wage level, since Obama's term started, suggest that there is a lack of workers due to retirement? No. Wages are flat to down.

Not necessarily, if higher-paid older workers are being replaced with lower-paid younger workers.

Thats not how it works.

Workers who are no longer working do not count in the equation, just as workers who had yet to start working are not counted.

In your scenario, let's say a person who was making $50 an hour retires. That retiree is replaced by a worker who was making $30 an hour but is now making $40 by taking on the new job.

This would net a wage increase of 33%.

What is happening is that people of retirement age are out of work, cant find a job, and taking retirement. Since there was no current job to fill, none of the other workers move up to a higher position with more pay. Or, those who lost their jobs have to take jobs that pay less than what they were making, causing their wage increases to go negative.

(07-24-2015 10:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 10:12 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

Quote:Does the wage level, since Obama's term started, suggest that there is a lack of workers due to retirement? No. Wages are flat to down.

Not necessarily, if higher-paid older workers are being replaced with lower-paid younger workers.

Thats not how it works.

Workers who are no longer working do not count in the equation, just as workers who had yet to start working are not counted.

In your scenario, let's say a person who was making $50 an hour retires. That retiree is replaced by a worker who was making $30 an hour but is now making $40 by taking on the new job.

This would net a wage increase of 33%.

What is happening is that people of retirement age are out of work, cant find a job, and taking retirement. Since there was no current job to fill, none of the other workers move up to a higher position with more pay. Or, those who lost their jobs have to take jobs that pay less than what they were making, causing their wage increases to go negative.

No. You make the younger worker do the same job for $30/hour. #likeaboss

(07-24-2015 08:46 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 04:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you can't find a job, you aren't trying.

That's almost always the case regardless of the status of the economy.

(07-24-2015 01:28 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 10:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 10:12 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

Quote:Does the wage level, since Obama's term started, suggest that there is a lack of workers due to retirement? No. Wages are flat to down.

Not necessarily, if higher-paid older workers are being replaced with lower-paid younger workers.

Thats not how it works.

Workers who are no longer working do not count in the equation, just as workers who had yet to start working are not counted.

In your scenario, let's say a person who was making $50 an hour retires. That retiree is replaced by a worker who was making $30 an hour but is now making $40 by taking on the new job.

This would net a wage increase of 33%.

What is happening is that people of retirement age are out of work, cant find a job, and taking retirement. Since there was no current job to fill, none of the other workers move up to a higher position with more pay. Or, those who lost their jobs have to take jobs that pay less than what they were making, causing their wage increases to go negative.

No. You make the younger worker do the same job for $30/hour. #likeaboss

Given that they mentioned wages are flat or dropping, it is likely that the person IS making the same or less than that $30/hour.

(07-24-2015 01:28 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 10:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 10:12 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

Quote:Does the wage level, since Obama's term started, suggest that there is a lack of workers due to retirement? No. Wages are flat to down.

Not necessarily, if higher-paid older workers are being replaced with lower-paid younger workers.

Thats not how it works.

Workers who are no longer working do not count in the equation, just as workers who had yet to start working are not counted.

In your scenario, let's say a person who was making $50 an hour retires. That retiree is replaced by a worker who was making $30 an hour but is now making $40 by taking on the new job.

This would net a wage increase of 33%.

What is happening is that people of retirement age are out of work, cant find a job, and taking retirement. Since there was no current job to fill, none of the other workers move up to a higher position with more pay. Or, those who lost their jobs have to take jobs that pay less than what they were making, causing their wage increases to go negative.

No. You make the younger worker do the same job for $30/hour. #likeaboss

Thats the scenario when you have a job killer in the whitehouse.

When you have a job creator, you have to pay your young workers more just to retain them and keep them from being snatched away.

The key to all of this is being a job creator.

(07-24-2015 10:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 10:12 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

Quote:Does the wage level, since Obama's term started, suggest that there is a lack of workers due to retirement? No. Wages are flat to down.

Not necessarily, if higher-paid older workers are being replaced with lower-paid younger workers.

Thats not how it works.

Workers who are no longer working do not count in the equation, just as workers who had yet to start working are not counted.

In your scenario, let's say a person who was making $50 an hour retires. That retiree is replaced by a worker who was making $30 an hour but is now making $40 by taking on the new job.

This would net a wage increase of 33%.

What is happening is that people of retirement age are out of work, cant find a job, and taking retirement. Since there was no current job to fill, none of the other workers move up to a higher position with more pay. Or, those who lost their jobs have to take jobs that pay less than what they were making, causing their wage increases to go negative.

That is how it seems to work

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/11/art3full.pdf

(07-23-2015 04:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Carry-outs, managers for FF restaurants, signs for OTR drivers, billboards for factory work. All the temp places are begging for workers.

Gotta love what passes for exciting new jobs that grow a workforce in a Democrat administration. Low wage, low skilled, low satisfaction jobs.

Thanks, Obama!

(07-24-2015 02:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 01:28 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 10:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 10:12 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

Quote:Does the wage level, since Obama's term started, suggest that there is a lack of workers due to retirement? No. Wages are flat to down.

Not necessarily, if higher-paid older workers are being replaced with lower-paid younger workers.

Thats not how it works.

Workers who are no longer working do not count in the equation, just as workers who had yet to start working are not counted.

In your scenario, let's say a person who was making $50 an hour retires. That retiree is replaced by a worker who was making $30 an hour but is now making $40 by taking on the new job.

This would net a wage increase of 33%.

What is happening is that people of retirement age are out of work, cant find a job, and taking retirement. Since there was no current job to fill, none of the other workers move up to a higher position with more pay. Or, those who lost their jobs have to take jobs that pay less than what they were making, causing their wage increases to go negative.

No. You make the younger worker do the same job for $30/hour. #likeaboss

Thats the scenario when you have a job killer in the whitehouse.

When you have a job creator, you have to pay your young workers more just to retain them and keep them from being snatched away.

The key to all of this is being a job creator.

Normally if the economy is doing poorly, the party that is in the White House loses the election. The Republicans should be able to win this time around. In that case they can try their hand at creating jobs.

Of course, if the Republicans came up with the same job numbers, the numbers would be touted as signs of prosperity. Any good numbers would be directly tied to the administration, while currently any good numbers are immediately assumed to have nothing to do with the administration. I'm starting to see how this works.

(07-24-2015 01:30 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 06:05 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Why work when you can stay at home and collect up to $45K per year?

Work is hard.

Is that the next talking point after workforce participation?

Is workplace participation a "talking point now? Or apparently a "drum"?

How about the BLS? They a part of the vast right wing conspiracy?!?



So a couple bootlickers have seen a job sign on carryout restaurants and fast food joints. Thanks for confirming my point all along.

The new normal. Create a crap business and economic climate and relegate people to jobs previously occupied by pimply faced teenagers. Then clamor around for someone else to raise these crap jobs to some kind of desirable "career" status, and of course watch them go broke or out of business in the process. Great plan.

More people on the sideline than at any time since 1977. Fact. No talking point there. Jimmy Carter territory, only worse. Who would have believed it possible?

Once we're all either working fast food "careers" or on the dole ourselves, who's gonna pay for all these pampered teachers, six figure federal bureaucrats and the other takers?

Keep clinging to that Hopey-Changey though!!!

(07-24-2015 02:57 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 10:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 10:12 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

Quote:Does the wage level, since Obama's term started, suggest that there is a lack of workers due to retirement? No. Wages are flat to down.

Not necessarily, if higher-paid older workers are being replaced with lower-paid younger workers.

Thats not how it works.

Workers who are no longer working do not count in the equation, just as workers who had yet to start working are not counted.

In your scenario, let's say a person who was making $50 an hour retires. That retiree is replaced by a worker who was making $30 an hour but is now making $40 by taking on the new job.

This would net a wage increase of 33%.

What is happening is that people of retirement age are out of work, cant find a job, and taking retirement. Since there was no current job to fill, none of the other workers move up to a higher position with more pay. Or, those who lost their jobs have to take jobs that pay less than what they were making, causing their wage increases to go negative.

That is how it seems to work

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/11/art3full.pdf

Did you read your own source, from a decade ago?

Did you see how far off his (?) (I don't know what a Mitra, is) numbers are?

Problem with putting up a link to a source like that is that some of us may actually read what's linked. That's a problem...

Quote:Meanwhile, the aggregate labor force participation rate, which
reached a plateau at 67.1 percent over the 1997–2000 period,
has exhibited a gradual decline that seems to be continuing.
Registering 66.8 percent in 2001, the rate continued its gradual
slide, decreasing to 66.6 percent in 2002, 66.2 percent in 2003,
and, finally, 66.0 percent in 2004. The Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics projects that the overall participation rate will decrease
slightly, to 65.6 percent, in 2014.

So this projection was of a slight decline from a "plateau" of 67.1% to 65.6%= -1.5%. Not even close, off by triple that.

By these measures what we've had is damn near the equivalent of a cliff dive instead. Representing MILLIONS of people. Swing and a BIG miss!

Thanks for the link though, moderately interesting read.