tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post5162196720597418342..comments2024-03-28T09:54:55.115-05:00Comments on Dad29: What Really Counts in the Unemployment NumbersDad29http://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-30993516073219847432011-12-05T21:41:03.106-06:002011-12-05T21:41:03.106-06:00Wow, I'd love to read your explanation of that...Wow, I'd love to read your explanation of that. Care to expound?Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-84520772838016987592011-12-05T16:30:36.264-06:002011-12-05T16:30:36.264-06:00No, it is not Bozo's fault.
The indictment be...No, it is not Bozo's fault.<br /><br />The indictment belongs to LBJ, the 1965-66 whore called "Congress", and most of their successors.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-87167689096766347062011-12-04T14:15:08.565-06:002011-12-04T14:15:08.565-06:00There is no doubt that people are giving up lookin...There is no doubt that people are giving up looking for work. I didn't deny that. I only pointed out that the percent of Americans in the workforce has declined in part because a significant percent of the workforce is beginning to retire.<br /><br />In other words, it's not all Obama's fault.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-73810740246976134122011-12-04T12:54:55.932-06:002011-12-04T12:54:55.932-06:00Jim--from your source:
some boomers without jobs ...Jim--from your source:<br /><br /><i>some boomers without jobs are not ready to retire and they are accounting for an increasing share of the unemployed. In the mid 1990s, 6.7% of unemployed Americans were 55 or older; today that share is already 15.6%. Even as the business cycle expansion continues to gain momentum, the aging of the unemployed might be a permanent feature of the US labor market</i><br /><br />By the way, your source missed something VERY significant: the post-1965 entry of women into the labor market. EEO had a serious impact on the participation rate. They also missed the entry of PRChina.<br /><br />At the time when EEO took hold (1965-1985 or so) there was plenty of prosperity to go around in the US, as PRChina was still off the grid for practical purposes.<br /><br />That changed with MFN status (Clinton), and likely has something to do with the part/rate now, too.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-58583456494123976152011-12-04T12:23:46.040-06:002011-12-04T12:23:46.040-06:00Well, besides being obvious (there was a Baby Boom...Well, besides being obvious (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S.BirthRate.1909.2003.png" rel="nofollow">there was a Baby Boom</a>, there are Baby Boomers, Baby Boomers are retiring, thus leaving the workforce), here is some statistical evidence:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.catalpacapital.com/dibs/7-february-2011-chart-of-the-week/" rel="nofollow">Catalpa Capital Advisors</a>Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-89174376369279264562011-12-04T04:03:39.547-06:002011-12-04T04:03:39.547-06:00Jim:
Please prove that via links to solid statist...Jim:<br /><br />Please prove that via links to solid statistical evidence.<br /><br />Please provide evidence to back up your statement.Saint Revolutionnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-51383194513560411262011-12-03T13:09:40.221-06:002011-12-03T13:09:40.221-06:00Remember that some of the increase in "not-in...Remember that some of the increase in "not-in-labor-force" can be attributed to the Baby Boomers beginning to retire in larger numbers.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10004209843701697773noreply@blogger.com