Sure, absolutely. But 100% of retiree's positions are not taken by new people joining the workforce. The math he used only makes sense if that is the case, and that isn't reality.
People graduate high school or college every year you know. That's just 2 ways people join the work force...
No that's not accurate. Those two retire. Two people below them move into their jobs. Etc.. Etc... The two graduates now occupy an entry position vacated by the movement of the others.Sure, absolutely. But 100% of retiree's positions are not taken by new people joining the workforce. The math he used only makes sense if that is the case, and that isn't reality.
It sounds like you like to play Chicken Little with your investments. Better to just invest and hold and don't worry about the small bumps in the road.Bad news for me. I got out of the market a month or so ago. Pissed off....
It sounds like you like to play Chicken Little with your investments. Better to just invest and hold and don't worry about the small bumps in the road.
Those 2 people were just born and then took the two jobs? Or how else did they "join the population"? Only new immigrants take job openings?
It would have always been 10/12. (or 12/12 if the two newborns were working before taking the retired people's jobs.)
Of course it wouldn't have always been 10/12 or 12/12. That would be assuming that the size and composition of our labor force is static and it most certainly is not. In fact, that was the whole point of my example, which seems to have escaped you.
People join (turn 16) and leave the labor force (die) every day. For the next 20 years or so however will be that we have an expanding portion of the population that is still considered to be in the labor force by the BLS definition but is no longer working nor desires to work. (retirees) At the same time we continue to have new people join the labor force (turn 16). That means that our labor force participation rate will naturally decline for the next couple of decades at least until the boomers die off.
There is really no way around it, it's just math. As a larger proportion of the population becomes an age where people tend to stop working you will see the labor force participation rate decline, all else being equal. It should be expected.
Yep, they fucked themselves over by not saving properly for retirement and now they will be sucking from governments teat and fucking over newer generations all while voting for politicians who won't address this countries real issues.
I can't wait till the "me generation" no longer burdens this country.
Given the choice of this or losing jobs at a rate of 800K/month under Republican rule guess which I'll take?
Which came after the meltdown initiated by acts Clinton signed into law. But I digress.
Bush was anything but a fiscal conservative but I would take the Bush deficits rather than the debt wrung up by Obama.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51580
Not sure about Trump because he is a man without details, but with Clinton we know the problem will grow.
So cheer your quarter of a million jobs...kudos to Obama. But while he has been long retired the shit will hit the fan. But hey leftists scored a shit ton of Internet brownie points!
Yep, they fucked themselves over by not saving properly for retirement and now they will be sucking from governments teat and fucking over newer generations all while voting for politicians who won't address this countries real issues.
I can't wait till the "me generation" no longer burdens this country.
So a whole generation all acted the same, huh? I raised four kids and put them through college on my dime. Lived very frugally-probably went on a vacation trip maybe once a decade, if that. Initially our savings got eaten up by inflation, then stagflation for the past couple of decades really sapped our earning power (unless your daddy's name was Trump).
Pray tell, what are the country's real issues? Unfettered gun rights? Outright ban of abortion in all cases, government dictation of personal decisions such as sexual preferences, etc.? Our generation (Bill Clinton) did balance the budget and made real strides towards lowering the deficit until GWB gave it all away and then went crazy war spending.
Ungrateful wretch.
I thought it was pretty obvious that the comment I was making was a generalized statement.
Ungrateful? I'm certainly ungrateful that the generation that organized against war is the same generation that meddled in other countries and brought more war, death and destruction into this world once they became they came into power. I'm ungrateful that the generation that helped fight for civil rights and equal rights is now the generation that stands in the way of progress towards those same causes. I'm ungrateful that the generation that once stood against "the man" and corporatism became the generation that put money before people and religion before country and has become "the man". I'm ungrateful that the generation that once was all about personal responsibility and community living did a 180 and has relied on future generations to take care of them while those same future generations get the shaft because of their refusal to enact proper change in that same system to keep it working for future generations. Sure I'm grateful that the boomer generation started off great but I'm not grateful that then they turned into the very thing they were against once they became a political force.
For all the good that generation did it was negated by all the shit they either voted for or let happen on their watch.
They went from peace and love to greed is good and their selfish, shortsighted policies have now come back to bite them in the ass all while screwing the generations of people that will come after them.
You know what else the "me generation" gave us? Donald fucking trump! Trump encapsulates the boomer generation and everything that's wrong with it perfectly.
So congrats on being able to raise a family of four with a good enough wage to do so, you should totally be proud that your generation will probably be the last one to do that in a long while (at least until most of you are gone).
It's pretty obvious that you need to get over yourself. It's the same mentality as the Trumpsters directed towards boomers rather than minorities & women.
Gawd. Nafta was signed by GHWB before he left office, needing only ratification by Congress, not Clinton. Just an inconvenient fact for you, obviously. Manufacturing employment didn't take a nosedive until the GWB years. Manufacturing output has actually gone up as employment fell, indicating that automation is a helluva lot bigger factor than offshoring. It can be no other way.
It wasn't the law that allowed the bankers to blow up the economy but rather preaching the ownership society from the bully pulpit & ridiculously lax regulation by the Bushistas.
Oh, yeh- with Doom!, of course.
This bill was enacted after being signed by the President on December 8, 1993.
Gawd. Nafta was signed by GHWB before he left office, needing only ratification by Congress, not Clinton. Just an inconvenient fact for you, obviously. Manufacturing employment didn't take a nosedive until the GWB years. Manufacturing output has actually gone up as employment fell, indicating that automation is a helluva lot bigger factor than offshoring. It can be no other way.
It wasn't the law that allowed the bankers to blow up the economy but rather preaching the ownership society from the bully pulpit & ridiculously lax regulation by the Bushistas.
Oh, yeh- with Doom!, of course.
Very difficult to do that since people drop out of the work force from both ends, gave up trying to find a job (i.e. bad economy) and don't need a job (i.e. investments and/or spouse doing well enough to not work.) I agree it's a problem because Social Security is a Ponzi scheme dependent on an ever-increasing number of workers, but I see no way to quantify the number of people not working by cause.Good news but concerns about labor force participation are legitimate and should be addressed while you're crowing about the headline unemployment rate.
Say rather that the AMERICAN free market economy based on human labor is dying. It's still booming in Red China and Germany. We elected to choose the path where we get cheap imported stuff, the path that leads to national debt exceeding GDP, the path that yields a huge number of poor people dependent on government, a relatively small number of very wealthy, and a smallish Mandarin class of government workers and talented professionals. Within that framework, 255,000 new $10 jobs is about the best we can expect.Labor is going to continue to lose value until the vast majority of people can no longer "work for a living".
Anyone celebrating today is ignoring two things. The enormous bubble in the room. Go ahead and return interest rates to normal. You cannot, because the economy is trash.
Why is it trash? Because the global economy and automation means fewer people are employable. Labor and wages are tanking, and this is a trend that will continue indefinitely. One way or another we are transitioning to a managed economy where the majority are unemployed with welfare, aka a basic income.
The "free market economy" based on human labor is dead and dying. You're just hiding from the fact.
Say rather that the AMERICAN free market economy based on human labor is dying. It's still booming in Red China and Germany. We elected to choose the path where we get cheap imported stuff, the path that leads to national debt exceeding GDP, the path that yields a huge number of poor people dependent on government, a relatively small number of very wealthy, and a smallish Mandarin class of government workers and talented professionals. Within that framework, 255,000 new $10 jobs is about the best we can expect.
Somebody at Clown College is very proud that Anandtech has adopted his new forum software.
Say rather that the AMERICAN free market economy based on human labor is dying. It's still booming in Red China and Germany. We elected to choose the path where we get cheap imported stuff, the path that leads to national debt exceeding GDP, the path that yields a huge number of poor people dependent on government, a relatively small number of very wealthy, and a smallish Mandarin class of government workers and talented professionals. Within that framework, 255,000 new $10 jobs is about the best we can expect.
Somebody at Clown College is very proud that Anandtech has adopted his new forum software.
Good to hear, although it will be awhile before I have time to read it.If you think we got 255,000 new $10/hour jobs you should actually go read the jobs report. Wage growth has been considerably higher this year than at any time since the financial crash. If all the jobs were $10/hour jobs we would see declines in wages, not growth.
But, obviously, not a while before you can make incorrect comments on it. Maybe you should reflect on that point.Good to hear, although it will be awhile before I have time to read it.
I laugh every time I hear this argument. The millennial generation is larger than the baby boomer generation. There are more millennials hitting the market than there are baby boomers leaving the market. The overall labor participation should be rising. The fact that it's not is why we have this overwhelming consensus that we're still in a depression. Young people are strong supporters of Bernie because he's saying everything is shit. Hillbot is saying everything is awesome, which is absolutely true if you're ultra rich like she is.the baby boomers are retiring. Thats the reality.