Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 10 Jan '14 17:20
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-10/people-not-labor-force-soar-record-918-million-participation-rate-plunges-1978-level


    It makes for great unemployment numbers, but just goes to show the smoke and mirrors liberals like to use when describing Obama's success!
  2. 10 Jan '14 17:59
    As was pointed out to you before, the labour participation rate naturally goes down if you have an ageing population, because of early retirement. What does the trend look like if you correct for this?
  3. 10 Jan '14 18:36
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    As was pointed out to you before, the labour participation rate naturally goes down if you have an ageing population, because of early retirement. What does the trend look like if you correct for this?
    http://www.econport.org/content/handbook/Unemployment/Define.html

    While studying employment, another important figure to determine is the labor force participation rate. Here, we compare the size of the labor force with the number of people that could potentially be a part of the labor force. It is important to note that we do not include people under the age of 16 in this figure. In addition, students, retirees, the disabled, homemakers, and the voluntarily idle are not counted in the labor force. The labor force as the percentage of the total population over the minimum working age is called labor force participation rate.
  4. 10 Jan '14 18:42
    Originally posted by Eladar
    http://www.econport.org/content/handbook/Unemployment/Define.html

    [b]While studying employment, another important figure to determine is the labor force participation rate. Here, we compare the size of the labor force with the number of people that could potentially be a part of the labor force. It is important to note that we do not include people under t ...[text shortened]... the total population over the minimum working age is called labor force participation rate.
    [/b]
    If you read that paragraph carefully, you will see that retirees (under 65) ARE counted for the participation rate, but not for the unemployment rate. The participation rate simply measures what percentage of people aged 16-64 are working regardless of the reason they may not be working.
  5. 10 Jan '14 18:45
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    As was pointed out to you before, the labour participation rate naturally goes down if you have an ageing population, because of early retirement. What does the trend look like if you correct for this?
    The left can't have it both ways. If everything is just hunky dorry, and unemployment is on a downward trend, there is no need for extensions which perpetuate long term unemployment. If many people use up their extensions, and no longer file for unemployment, and the number appears better due to fewer people making claims, things aren't so great.

    I seriously doubt that there are 91.8 million Americans who just retired. If there are, Social Security will go broke a lot sooner than has been projected.
  6. 10 Jan '14 18:46
    Originally posted by normbenign
    The left can't have it both ways. If everything is just hunky dorry, and unemployment is on a downward trend, there is no need for extensions which perpetuate long term unemployment. If many people use up their extensions, and no longer file for unemployment, and the number appears better due to fewer people making claims, things aren't so great.

    I s ...[text shortened]... just retired. If there are, Social Security will go broke a lot sooner than has been projected.
    That's not at all what I said. Perhaps you ought to re-read what I said and let it sink in a bit more.
  7. 10 Jan '14 18:49
    how do you define the "voluntarily idle"?
  8. 10 Jan '14 18:53
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    That's not at all what I said. Perhaps you ought to re-read what I said and let it sink in a bit more.
    Sure the labor participation rate is effected by voluntary idleness (early retirement). An ageing population is partly explaining the declining labor participation rate, but far from entirely.
  9. 10 Jan '14 18:55
    Originally posted by sigrun
    how do you define the "voluntarily idle"?
    Hard to put a handle on this. Around here, it often means workers whose unemployment has run out, and who have been working under the table for most of their unemployment period. Others slip into dependency on family members.

    They are people who don't work, or appear not to be working based on government numbers.
  10. 10 Jan '14 19:27
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Sure the labor participation rate is effected by voluntary idleness (early retirement). An ageing population is partly explaining the declining labor participation rate, but far from entirely.
    So you have seen the data correcting for early retirement, then? I asked the question because I honestly don't know what the effect of early retirement is on these labour participation trends. I recall there being a thread on the same topic not too long ago, and I think this issue was also addressed there, but I'm not certain.
  11. 10 Jan '14 19:43
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    So you have seen the data correcting for early retirement, then? I asked the question because I honestly don't know what the effect of early retirement is on these labour participation trends. I recall there being a thread on the same topic not too long ago, and I think this issue was also addressed there, but I'm not certain.
    I'm not sure the issue can totally settled. Depending on who is in the White House, unemployment data tends to be used as a club.

    I remember that in Bush 43's last year, unemployment rates of 4% + or - were being savaged by leftists.
  12. 10 Jan '14 20:03
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    If you read that paragraph carefully, you will see that retirees (under 65) ARE counted for the participation rate, but not for the unemployment rate. The participation rate simply measures what percentage of people aged 16-64 are working regardless of the reason they may not be working.
    Not many of us are going for early retirement.
  13. 10 Jan '14 20:06 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    I'm not sure the issue can totally settled.
    Why not? This seems like a sort of statistic that is not too difficult to gather. If I was interested in labour participation rates, as Eladar claims to be, I would probably try to find out.

    Another relevant factor is how long people spend in education. Has this gone up or down over the past few decades?
  14. 10 Jan '14 20:36
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Why not? This seems like a sort of statistic that is not too difficult to gather. If I was interested in labour participation rates, as Eladar claims to be, I would probably try to find out.

    Another relevant factor is how long people spend in education. Has this gone up or down over the past few decades?
    Why not?

    Because most people's pocket books haven't been doing so great. The people who would be retiring about now (because they've been saving) lost a bunch of money in their retirement accounts.

    People in general are worse off now than before Obama was elected. People who are worse off generally need to work to make ends meet.

    Maybe in Europe where you get the same amount of income from doing nothing as you do from working it would make sense to take early retirement.
  15. 11 Jan '14 01:57 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-10/people-not-labor-force-soar-record-918-million-participation-rate-plunges-1978-level


    It makes for great unemployment numbers, but just goes to show the smoke and mirrors liberals like to use when describing Obama's success!
    There is abundant evidence that hiding malpractice from the public is a nonpartisan practice.