90% Of June Job Gains Went To Workers 55 And Older

The age group is 55 to 69. Only 4 of those years occur after the age at which most people retire.

 

"On the other side are those such as senior fellow and director of Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute, Diana Furchtgott-Roth who, in a Jan. 14 piece for RealcCearMarkets.com noted that “since 2000 the labor force participation rates of workers 55 and over have been rising steadily, and the labor force participation rates of workers between 16 and 54 have been declining.”

Which is absolutely true. Since 2003, those 65 years and older have seen their labor force participation rate rise from 13.99 percent to 18.7 percent. Those aged 55-64 saw their rate rise from 62.44 percent to 64.36 percent, a recent Americans for Limited Government (ALG) study of Bureau data from 2003-2013 shows.

Meanwhile, participation by those aged 16-24 dropped from 61.56 percent in 2003 to 55.05 percent in 2013, and for those aged 25-54, it dropped from 82.98 percent to 82.01 percent."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin.../#1ffcbb25cb61

It's not baby boomers retiring causing the fall.

Record Low Labor Participation Rate Not Due to Retirement or School



http://www.economicpopulist.org/con...pation-rate-not-due-retirement-or-school-5431
- - - Updated - - -

bls.gov .....

 

"4-0-We can’t find the page you requested but please try:"

LOL, that is your source? Whatever happened to the BLS?

Q: Who can post here?

A: Anyone sane and wanting to talk about economic issues such as the above. Contact us if you are interested in writing articles. We don't care about your credentials, but your words and statistics must have quality and be accurate.

That source is as reliable as citing a PF post. And it makes the same logical fallacy you did. They assume because PR rates are increasing for older workers that more boomers are not the cause. Besides, that article is 2013, three years ago, when the effect of the recession was much stronger.

LOL! You cite "bls.gov" as if that generalized link supports your claim. But you can only quote 3 year old blog that anyone can post to.

If fact, the BLS based data I posted and linked to does the opposite, and completely undermines your claim.

Your baseless, unsupported say-so may fool some. Probably a lot of conservatives.

 

I'm 54. When I retire from my company in eight years at age 62, I'll be taking one of those Home Depot jobs because all of my life I've paid high taxes which didn't allow me to set up an individual retirement plan.

Cut government and taxes in half and I'd be able to save for retirement. Then some young person could take that Home Depot job instead of me.

 

You done nothing to refute the BLS or the other sites noted. The drop in LFPR is not due to older workers retiring. It is due to those in their prime working years dropping out.

 

To the contrary, anyone can see I've posted actual data showing the LFPR for seniors drops dramatically.

Here's my post again, as you apparently didn't read it:

You keep citing "bls.gov" as if that page somehow supports your position. It doesn't. And when pushed, all you can cite is a 3 year old post from a blog where anyone can write posts.

Are you just making it up? Link and quote the BLS page that says that aging boomers have nothing to do with the LFPR decline as you claim.

Your baseless, unsupported say-so may fool some.

 

If you've been making enough money to be paying high taxes all your life its your own damn fault you didn't save for retirement.

 

Good point, though I don't believe there is an upper limit to the 55+ age group in the BLS data. I could be wrong.

 

The graph shows 55 to 69.

 

It costs money to move; they most likely cannot afford to move.

 

Actually as posted already they are the only group that has increased their rate as has been shown using bls.gov data.

And note you do not even attempt to compare to the younger age groups as you attempt to cherry pick the numbers for the older workers.


https://www.dol.gov/wb/images/chart_12mv.gif

 

90% Of June Job Gains Went To Workers 55 And Older

And why not? They are mature and responsible, unlike most folks under 30-ish. They aren't snowflakes and they aren't perpetually outraged.

Seems obvious.

 

Same logical fallacy. It doesn't matter that the participation rates for seniors has increased a bit when it is 50 percentage points lower than younger workers.

As your own graph and this chart demonstrates.



Even though a slightly higher percentage may be working, when boomers hit retirement age they are dropping out of the work force in droves.

I'll trust our more astute members can see the logical fallacy.

 

so they didn't save and prepare for that? sounds like there party to much and spending there extra cash on wild women and wine

 

Sure it does, it flushes down the toilet the canard that they are the cause of the historically low labor participation rates.

 

As I said, I'll trust our more astute members can see the obvious logical fallacy your making.

 

Guy 1: labor force participation rate is not declining due to older employees retiring, in fact their participation rate is going up.

Guy 2: that's not true, let me show you this graph that shows the labor force participation rate for 55+ is going up, gibberish gibberish.


Thats what I see. And you're Guy 2.

 

If businesses fail to, then yes.

 

You think? Tell us, what is the LFPR for folks aged 65-69 versus 55-60?

Guy 3 - I don't know what the hell I'm talking about so I'll spout the RW propaganda nonsense.

Thanks for your input, Guy 3.

 

Wrong. I've paid all of my income to taxes and to my ex-wife. I've had nothing to save.

 

Sounds like a good alternative to me.

 

You posted graphs showing the rate went up for all people over 55. Every single line for all ages was going up. You either need glasses or you don't understand what was said. Your choice.

Edit: I'm one of those astute members you were talking about. But since I don't agree with your take, I'm spewing RW propaganda. No, I'm reading the graphs YOU posted, and seeing their rates go up despite you saying that it's not true.

 

Why they are considered the older workers a good part of them the baby boomers. Both have increased their labor participation rates, see my BLS chart above.

 

Ex-wives are expensive, no doubt. But alimony payments are tax deductible. If you were still paying high income taxes after paying alimony, you had high income.

- - - Updated - - -

Why did you dodge my question, Mr. Astute?

- - - Updated - - -

Why did you dodge my question?

Besides the obvious reason, I mean.

 

Your question doesn't matter to the conversation at hand.

Its not high, but it's not going down, it's going up, which means the overall rate can't be declining because of them.

All your graphs showed the same thing. The rate is increasing. For all sections above 55.