PDA

View Full Version : 100,000,000 Americans w/o Jobs???



Sev
05-26-2012, 08:34 AM
Def the sign of a thriving nation. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/sick.gif

http://www.businessinsider.com/100-million-americans-without-jobs-2012-5#ixzz1vuwXdXZn

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>100 Million Americans Without Jobs</span>

The national unemployment rates gets lots of attention, and lately more attention has been paid to the workforce participation rate since more Americans have given up looking for a job, but we can also see that an astounding 100 million Americans don’t have jobs.

Specifically, these are people who are part of the civilian over-16 non-institutional population who are either unemployed or not part of the workforce. According to the April jobs report, the number of jobless American stood at 100.9 million.

That’s an all-time record and it’s an increase of 26.2 million over the last 12 years. It’s as if we absorbed the entire adult population of Canada and not a single person had a job.

The numbers are staggering. The jobs-to-population ratio peaked 12 years ago. If we were to have the same ratio today, we would need 15.3 million more jobs, or 23.7 million fewer people.

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4fbce4edeab8ea9609000007-590-354/image.png

(Note: The chart above is the Civilian Over-16 Non-Institutional Population minus the seasonally adjusted Civilian Workforce.)

Stretch
05-26-2012, 09:05 AM
WOW, i didn't reolize how successful the manufacturing sector has been in moving to China. St.

Soflasnapper
05-26-2012, 02:01 PM
It's not that hard to understand this, if you use historical knowledge.

The percentage of workforce participation is the same as it was in the early '80s. Arguably, that is the NORMAL level of workforce participation. What happened at that time was a phenomenal increase in workforce participation, keyed on the entrance in historically record levels of female participation in the workforce, accompanied by the very large boomer cohort entering their working years. Then, with the economy very overheated by serial bubbles (NASDAQ and the high-tech sector, then housing), unemployment was so low that many people who were only marginally attached to working were able to find jobs. Not to mention that the wages of males with only a high school education or less fell off the cliff, causing the females in the households to need to go to work to make up the difference.

Now, that whole unusual situation is passing into the rear-view mirror. The boomers are reaching full retirement age of 65 at the pace of 10,000 a day (not that they all retire, of course), and as I've previously stated, the arithmetic is 3,650,000 such persons a year, starting last year.

But just as importantly, in a mirror image of an overheated economy pulling marginally attached workers into the workforce, this quiescent economy pushes marginally attached workers out of the workforce out of discouragement.

Pay attention to how they phrase this claim. If you are over 16, and not 'in an institution' (i.e., not in jail, or in a rest home), you are counted in this number, whether you are 65, 75, or 85+. Is it really horrible, or unexpected, that people participate less in the workforce after 65 years of age? If not, and I think not, you can only understand this number if you breakout the ages of the older population who are not in the workforce (and quite understandably so).

The alleged very low job participation rate is not only the historical norm for this country that was changed in our lifetimes under the unusual demographic changes of the boomers going to work, and the feminist ideology that helped women want to have careers, and the lowered male wages that made that necessary, but it is STILL HIGHER BY FAR (even now) than in the non-recession, relatively booming German economy.

Sev
05-26-2012, 04:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not that hard to understand this, if you use historical knowledge.

The percentage of workforce participation is the same as it was in the early '80s. Arguably, that is the NORMAL level of workforce participation. What happened at that time was a phenomenal increase in workforce participation, keyed on the entrance in historically record levels of female participation in the workforce, accompanied by the very large boomer cohort entering their working years. Then, with the economy very overheated by serial bubbles (NASDAQ and the high-tech sector, then housing), unemployment was so low that many people who were only marginally attached to working were able to find jobs. Not to mention that the wages of males with only a high school education or less fell off the cliff, causing the females in the households to need to go to work to make up the difference.

Now, that whole unusual situation is passing into the rear-view mirror. The boomers are reaching full retirement age of 65 at the pace of 10,000 a day (not that they all retire, of course), and as I've previously stated, the arithmetic is 3,650,000 such persons a year, starting last year.

But just as importantly, in a mirror image of an overheated economy pulling marginally attached workers into the workforce, this quiescent economy pushes marginally attached workers out of the workforce out of discouragement.

Pay attention to how they phrase this claim. If you are over 16, and not 'in an institution' (i.e., not in jail, or in a rest home), you are counted in this number, whether you are 65, 75, or 85+. Is it really horrible, or unexpected, that people participate less in the workforce after 65 years of age? If not, and I think not, you can only understand this number if you breakout the ages of the older population who are not in the workforce (and quite understandably so).

The alleged very low job participation rate is not only the historical norm for this country that was changed in our lifetimes under the unusual demographic changes of the boomers going to work, and the feminist ideology that helped women want to have careers, and the lowered male wages that made that necessary, but it is STILL HIGHER BY FAR (even now) than in the non-recession, relatively booming German economy. </div></div>

Very good. Your paying attention.

Its actually 20,000 boomers a day that are "leaving" the work force.

http://www.governing.com/blogs/by-the-nu...Rate.html#chart (http://www.governing.com/blogs/by-the-numbers/Labor-Force-Participation-Declines-in-States-Inflates-Jobless-Rate.html#chart)

Despite adding a mere jobs 115,000 in April, the nation’s unemployment rate further receded to 8.1 percent.

Many states reported similar jobless rate declines in recent months. The improvements haven’t been driven by significant jobs gains, though, as much as steady reductions in the labor force.

The labor force participation rate – the civilian population either employed or looking for work -- has fallen 2.4 percent from the start of the recession to 63.6 percent, the lowest level since 1981.

Governing compiled Labor Department data for all states, showing some have experienced significant shifts during the economic downturn. Participation rates have declined in all states since the recession began in December 2007, with the exception of Virginia.

Many job seekers dropped out of the labor force. This, along with the nation’s aging population of retirees, has pushed down rates in recent years.

“When you’re having big economic swings like this, then some changes you see in labor force participation reflect the state of the economy,” said Barry Hirsch, professor of economics at Georgia State University.

Many of those exiting the labor force opted for retirement. Others put job hunts on hold to go back to school and boost their employment prospects, further curtailing labor force totals.

Hirsch said participation rates for states with high populations of young people and those near retirement typically fluctuate the most. Moreover, certain demographic groups are less attached to the labor market, such as African American males, he said.

Utah’s participation rate has plunged 5.7 percent since the start of the recession – the most of any state.

The decline was mostly influenced by the state’s population of young workers, hit particularly hard by the recession, said Jim Robson, regional economist for the Utah Department of Workforce Services. Utah had a median age of 29.2 years in the 2010 Census, by far the lowest in the country.

“Our demographics have accentuated that decline among young people who have had difficulty getting jobs as a result of the recession and are going to or staying in school,” Robson said.

In 2007, Utah’s annual labor force participation rate was 54.7 percent for those ages 16 to 19. By the end of 2011, that figure had fallen to 42.4 percent.

In many respects, the state’s economy has fared better than others. Utah’s unemployment rate stands at 5.8 percent, well below the national rate.

States with high participation rates before the recession mostly reported stronger job growth than those with historically low rates, according to Hirsch’s analysis of the data.

The following states experienced the largest labor force percentage decreases since the start of the recession:


State---------Current Participation Rate--------Change Since 12-2007
Utah_________________62.6%________________________ _-5.7%
Delaware_____________57.3%________________________ _-4.7%
Michigan_____________54.8%________________________ _-4.5%
New Mexico___________54.5%_________________________-4.4%
Georgia______________58.3%________________________ _-4.1%
Colorado_____________63.7%________________________ _-3.8%
Florida______________55.0%________________________ _-3.8%
Alabama______________53.0%________________________ _-3.8%
Hawaii_______________58.3%________________________ _-3.6%
South Carolina________54.0%_________________________-3.3%

Monthly figures, shown below, further illustrate changes in labor force participation over time.

Some states with noteworthy job losses in recent years rank high on the list. It’s hard for economists to gauge, though, just how much the economy accounts for lower participation rates rather than demographics.

Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Research Director David Altig wrote last week that demographic factors explain about 40 percent of the falling U.S. labor force participation rate since 2000.

Doug Hall, director of the Economic Policy Institute’s Economic Analysis and Research Network, said multiple indicators must be assessed to better understand job markets.

A reduced labor force, for example, has inflated the unemployment rate. The U.S. labor force participation rate fell 0.2 percent last month, helping to lower the unemployment rate to 8.1 percent. The jobless rate would have jumped to 8.4 percent had the labor force remained at March levels, according to Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.

Labor Department data indicates the labor force shrunk in 17 states since the start of the recession.

Hall said the historically-low participation rates point to a dramatically underutilized work force. Well-qualified college graduates struggle to find employment. At the opposite end of the spectrum, experienced workers are often forced into early retirement.

“We’re at risk of having a lost generation at both ends if we’re not careful,” Hall said.

cushioncrawler
05-26-2012, 05:29 PM
I am reasonably happy with comments etc on this thread. But i karnt allow the last line.

.......“We’re at risk of having a lost generation at both ends if we’re not careful,” Hall said.......

IF WE ARE NOT CAREFULL.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHH HHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

WHAT UTTER BULLSHIT.
HOW WOULD WE BE CAREFULL.
WHAT SORT OF CARE.
HOW.
WHAT.
UTTER BULLSHIT.
KRAPPYNOMICYST TWERPS.
MAC.

cushioncrawler
05-26-2012, 10:52 PM
In the galley many rowers are not rowing. Which duznt matter koz the rowing are rowing in opposit direktions. Which duznt matter koz no-one knows where they want to go. Which duznt matter koz they dont know where they are.

The helmsmen are fighting each other for the helm. Which duznt matter koz the rudder iznt attached. Which duznt matter koz no-one knows where they want to go. Which duznt matter koz they dont know where they are.

The wind iz taking the galley towards shallows. The tide iz taking the galley towards a reef. And Captain Obama haz a mutiny. The Capn asks for suggestions, and one officer raises hiz hand.

Doug Hall, director of the Economic Rowing Policy Institute's Economic Analysis and Oar Research Network, steps forward...........
"Multiple indicators must be assessed to better understand rowing markets".

The paymaster steps forward...........
"A reduced rowing force, haz inflated the nonrowing rate. The galley's rowing force participation rate fell 0.2 percent last month, helping to lower the nonrowing rate to 8.1 percent. The rate would have jumped to 8.4 percent had the rowing force remained at March levels".
"Rowing Department data indicates the rowing force shrunk on 17 galleys since the start of the recession".

Semen Hall added........
"The historically-low rowing participation rates point to a dramatically under-utilized rowing force. Well-qualified college graduates struggle to find an oar and rowlock and seat. At the opposite end of the galley, experienced rowers are forced into early retirement".
"We are at risk of having a lost generation at both ends of the galley if we are not careful".

Capn Obama.......
"Ok then, thats the key, we will have to be more carefull".

Sev
05-27-2012, 06:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am reasonably happy with comments etc on this thread. But i karnt allow the last line.

.......“We’re at risk of having a lost generation at both ends if we’re not careful,” Hall said.......

IF WE ARE NOT CAREFULL.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHH HHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

WHAT UTTER BULLSHIT.
HOW WOULD WE BE CAREFULL.
WHAT SORT OF CARE.
HOW.
WHAT.
UTTER BULLSHIT.
KRAPPYNOMICYST TWERPS.
MAC.
</div></div>

The generation at one end always days off first. Obviously they are going to be lost. Eventually the generation at the other end suffers the same fate as well.

Oh wait. We are talking economically.
To late. The fox is already in the hen house.

Soflasnapper
05-27-2012, 02:07 PM
Even in our recessions, we have had a far larger percentage of our population in the workforce than Germany or other countries in boom economies. That isn't necessarily the proper metric to look at. Were we really more prosperous in our recessions than these other countries in booms, just because our workforce participation was so much higher?

To think so is to make a virtue out of a necessity, or a new norm out of something unheard of in this country as late as 1983.

Sev
05-27-2012, 07:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Even in our recessions, we have had a far larger percentage of our population in the workforce than Germany or other countries in boom economies. That isn't necessarily the proper metric to look at. Were we really more prosperous in our recessions than these other countries in booms, just because our workforce participation was so much higher?

To think so is to make a virtue out of a necessity, or a new norm out of something unheard of in this country as late as 1983. </div></div>

The metric is wrong. The geographical size of the US, its economy, business structure, manufacturing, resources, population and culture can not be compared on an equivalent basis with most other nation or a combination there of.

cushioncrawler
05-28-2012, 01:32 AM
But the geographical size of theusofa, its economy, business structure, manufacturing, resources, population and culture can be compared on an equivalent basis to a galley going in circles, closer and closer to a reef.
mac.

Sev
05-29-2012, 04:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But the geographical size of theusofa, its economy, business structure, manufacturing, resources, population and culture can be compared on an equivalent basis to a galley going in circles, closer and closer to a reef.
mac. </div></div>

Agreed.
However I would say going into a maelstrom.

Gayle in MD
05-29-2012, 05:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not that hard to understand this, if you use historical knowledge.

The percentage of workforce participation is the same as it was in the early '80s. Arguably, that is the NORMAL level of workforce participation. What happened at that time was a phenomenal increase in workforce participation, keyed on the entrance in historically record levels of female participation in the workforce, accompanied by the very large boomer cohort entering their working years. Then, with the economy very overheated by serial bubbles (NASDAQ and the high-tech sector, then housing), unemployment was so low that many people who were only marginally attached to working were able to find jobs. Not to mention that the wages of males with only a high school education or less fell off the cliff, causing the females in the households to need to go to work to make up the difference.

Now, that whole unusual situation is passing into the rear-view mirror. The boomers are reaching full retirement age of 65 at the pace of 10,000 a day (not that they all retire, of course), and as I've previously stated, the arithmetic is 3,650,000 such persons a year, starting last year.

But just as importantly, in a mirror image of an overheated economy pulling marginally attached workers into the workforce, this quiescent economy pushes marginally attached workers out of the workforce out of discouragement.

Pay attention to how they phrase this claim. If you are over 16, and not 'in an institution' (i.e., not in jail, or in a rest home), you are counted in this number, whether you are 65, 75, or 85+. Is it really horrible, or unexpected, that people participate less in the workforce after 65 years of age? If not, and I think not, you can only understand this number if you breakout the ages of the older population who are not in the workforce (and quite understandably so).

The alleged very low job participation rate is not only the historical norm for this country that was changed in our lifetimes under the unusual demographic changes of the boomers going to work, and the feminist ideology that helped women want to have careers, and the lowered male wages that made that necessary, but it is STILL HIGHER BY FAR (even now) than in the non-recession, relatively booming German economy. </div></div>



<span style="color: #CC0000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Such a disgrace what RW Repiglican policies and George Bush have done to our country!

pathetic! </span> </span>

Sev
05-29-2012, 05:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not that hard to understand this, if you use historical knowledge.

The percentage of workforce participation is the same as it was in the early '80s. Arguably, that is the NORMAL level of workforce participation. What happened at that time was a phenomenal increase in workforce participation, keyed on the entrance in historically record levels of female participation in the workforce, accompanied by the very large boomer cohort entering their working years. Then, with the economy very overheated by serial bubbles (NASDAQ and the high-tech sector, then housing), unemployment was so low that many people who were only marginally attached to working were able to find jobs. Not to mention that the wages of males with only a high school education or less fell off the cliff, causing the females in the households to need to go to work to make up the difference.

Now, that whole unusual situation is passing into the rear-view mirror. The boomers are reaching full retirement age of 65 at the pace of 10,000 a day (not that they all retire, of course), and as I've previously stated, the arithmetic is 3,650,000 such persons a year, starting last year.

But just as importantly, in a mirror image of an overheated economy pulling marginally attached workers into the workforce, this quiescent economy pushes marginally attached workers out of the workforce out of discouragement.

Pay attention to how they phrase this claim. If you are over 16, and not 'in an institution' (i.e., not in jail, or in a rest home), you are counted in this number, whether you are 65, 75, or 85+. Is it really horrible, or unexpected, that people participate less in the workforce after 65 years of age? If not, and I think not, you can only understand this number if you breakout the ages of the older population who are not in the workforce (and quite understandably so).

The alleged very low job participation rate is not only the historical norm for this country that was changed in our lifetimes under the unusual demographic changes of the boomers going to work, and the feminist ideology that helped women want to have careers, and the lowered male wages that made that necessary, but it is STILL HIGHER BY FAR (even now) than in the non-recession, relatively booming German economy. </div></div>



<span style="color: #CC0000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Such a disgrace what all our elected officials policies and have done to our country!

pathetic! </span> </span> </div></div>

Fixed that for you.

Gayle in MD
05-29-2012, 05:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not that hard to understand this, if you use historical knowledge.

The percentage of workforce participation is the same as it was in the early '80s. Arguably, that is the NORMAL level of workforce participation. What happened at that time was a phenomenal increase in workforce participation, keyed on the entrance in historically record levels of female participation in the workforce, accompanied by the very large boomer cohort entering their working years. Then, with the economy very overheated by serial bubbles (NASDAQ and the high-tech sector, then housing), unemployment was so low that many people who were only marginally attached to working were able to find jobs. Not to mention that the wages of males with only a high school education or less fell off the cliff, causing the females in the households to need to go to work to make up the difference.

Now, that whole unusual situation is passing into the rear-view mirror. The boomers are reaching full retirement age of 65 at the pace of 10,000 a day (not that they all retire, of course), and as I've previously stated, the arithmetic is 3,650,000 such persons a year, starting last year.

But just as importantly, in a mirror image of an overheated economy pulling marginally attached workers into the workforce, this quiescent economy pushes marginally attached workers out of the workforce out of discouragement.

Pay attention to how they phrase this claim. If you are over 16, and not 'in an institution' (i.e., not in jail, or in a rest home), you are counted in this number, whether you are 65, 75, or 85+. Is it really horrible, or unexpected, that people participate less in the workforce after 65 years of age? If not, and I think not, you can only understand this number if you breakout the ages of the older population who are not in the workforce (and quite understandably so).

The alleged very low job participation rate is not only the historical norm for this country that was changed in our lifetimes under the unusual demographic changes of the boomers going to work, and the feminist ideology that helped women want to have careers, and the lowered male wages that made that necessary, but it is STILL HIGHER BY FAR (even now) than in the non-recession, relatively booming German economy. </div></div>



<span style="color: #CC0000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Such a disgrace what all our elected officials policies and have done to our country!

pathetic! </span> </span> </div></div>

Fixed that for you. </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'> Nope. You didn't fix anything. You just wrote another nonsense incorrect sentence, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, because it is incorrect, on every level.

LOL...try again.</span> </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Sev
05-29-2012, 06:10 PM
Sorry dear.
The government and it denizens are the single largest problem this country faces.
They constantly tinker with a system that would be far better off without them in the first place.

Gayle in MD
05-30-2012, 02:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry dear.
The government and it denizens are the single largest problem this country faces.
They constantly tinker with a system that would be far better off without them in the first place. </div></div>

LMAO!

Yeah, it was all of those the government regulations that Bush put in there that caused the crash on Wall St.


BWA HA HA HA....

G.

Sev
05-30-2012, 02:11 PM
Keep thinking that. Your hatred blinds you.

Gayle in MD
05-30-2012, 02:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Keep thinking that. Your hatred blinds you. </div></div>

LOL, gee, one would think that if I were so full of hatred, I wouldn't spend so much time laughing at the Rightie posts I read on this site.

G.

Sev
05-30-2012, 02:18 PM
Laughing is not an indication that malice is not present.