Wisconsin native.
"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."--GKC
"Liberalism is the modern and morbid habit of always sacrificing the normal to the abnormal" --G K Chesterton
"The only objective of Liberty is Life" --G K Chesterton
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Friday, December 02, 2011
What Really Counts in the Unemployment Numbers
That's the Employment-to-Population (above 16 years of age) ratio.
As you can see, from 1990 to 2008, that averaged about 63%. Now?
Ugly.
That chart takes into account the 'not-in-labor-force' group, which grew by 315K this period.
Well, besides being obvious (there was a Baby Boom, there are Baby Boomers, Baby Boomers are retiring, thus leaving the workforce), here is some statistical evidence:
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
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.
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.
That changed with MFN status (Clinton), and likely has something to do with the part/rate now, too.
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.
Remember that some of the increase in "not-in-labor-force" can be attributed to the Baby Boomers beginning to retire in larger numbers.
ReplyDeleteJim:
ReplyDeletePlease prove that via links to solid statistical evidence.
Please provide evidence to back up your statement.
Well, besides being obvious (there was a Baby Boom, there are Baby Boomers, Baby Boomers are retiring, thus leaving the workforce), here is some statistical evidence:
ReplyDeleteCatalpa Capital Advisors
Jim--from your source:
ReplyDeletesome 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
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.
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.
That changed with MFN status (Clinton), and likely has something to do with the part/rate now, too.
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.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, it's not all Obama's fault.
No, it is not Bozo's fault.
ReplyDeleteThe indictment belongs to LBJ, the 1965-66 whore called "Congress", and most of their successors.
Wow, I'd love to read your explanation of that. Care to expound?
ReplyDelete