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

How do you figure? That doesn't even make sense. It's a logical fallacy.

10,000 baby boomers are entering retirement age (i.e. 65+) every day. They are moving from age groups that have 70 and 55% average participation rates, to an age group that has a 30% participation rate -- and that is after the increase.

And your argument is that that doesn't affect the overall LFPR?

You're falling for the same logical fallacy as the rest of them. The fact that the 65-69 age group ticked up a few percentage points doesn't matter when millions of baby boomers are aging out of the high participation rate age groups into the low participation rate age groups each year.

It's a logical fallacy to argue that because the PR rate for each age group has ticked up, that means aging boomers aren't affecting the overall LFPR because they are aging into the groups with the far lower rates. You've fallen for the RW propaganda trick like the others.

Which is why I addressed my comment to our more astute members.

 

Record 94,708,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Drops in May

By Susan Jones | June 3, 2016 | 8:49 AM EDT

(CNSNews.com) - A record 94,708,000 Americans were not in the labor force in May -- 664,000 more than in April -- and the labor force participation rate dropped two-tenths of a point to 62.6 percent, near its 38-year low, the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday.

When President Obama took office in January 2009, 80,529,000 Americans were not participating in the labor force; since then, 14,179,000 Americans have left the workforce -- some of them retiring and some just quitting because they can't find work.

You gotta hand it to BO Plenty, he sure knows how to make a mess out of a recovery.

 

Because it has no bearing on the fact that older workers are increasing their labor participation rate as opposed to those in their prime working age.

 

It has every bearing on why the overall LFPR is falling, as millions of boomers move from high participation rate age groups to low participation rate age groups each year.

Which, of course, is why you dodged answering the question.

As I'm sure our more astute members will have deduced.

 

Yet another of the RW propaganda deceived.

The number of Americans not in the labor force grows to a new record almost every year and that has always been the case.




So what?

 

It's not "the left" saying it: it's economists.

Your factoid does not actually prove what you think it proves. There is no contradiction between "baby boomers retiring" and "most job gains in June went to people 55 and older."

 

There is a contradiction to the facts in the statement older people leaving the workplace are the cause of the low LPR however.

 

Completely false.
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Full-Time-vs-Part-Time-Employment

As you would expect, full-time jobs fell and part-time jobs increased during the recession. That happens in every recession. But as also happens in every recession, when the recovery began, full-time jobs came back and part-time jobs fell.

And note the chart at the end of the article that specifically debunks the "Obamacare is to blame" angle.

 

Yet another item in the long list of falsehoods promulgated by RW propaganda and believed by millions of conservatives as we've seen on these boards.

 

They are not so astute if they do make such a deduction as you have been shown.

 

Hardly. Because you're talking about two different things.

A net 259,000 people 55+ gained a job in June.

Meanwhile, an average of 333,000 people retire every month.
https://www.reference.com/business-finance/many-people-retire-year-e8550816b2d3b2e7

Those retirees, naturally, come almost entirely from the 55+ group.

So it is possible to see workers 55+ gain most of the new jobs, while STILL having overall employment in that age group fall.

 

What do you claim is the problem with my statement. It is not a deduction, but a fact, that millions of boomers move from high participation rate age groups to low participation rate age groups each year.

 

It's ridiculous. In conservoworld, the following are taken as givens:

1. There has been no job creation since the recession (in reality, there are 14 million more jobs than we had at the bottom of the recession, and 10 million more than when Obama took office)
2. All the jobs that HAVE been created are part-time jobs (shown to be false)
3. #2 is because of Obamacare (shown to be false)

4. Wages have stagnated. There is some long-term truth to this: inflation-adjusted wages are flat or down compared to the 1980s. But in recent years, wage growth has been reasonable. Average hourly earnings has gone from about $20 an hour to $26 an hour since 2007.
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=CE_cesbref3

5. What conservatives ignore is that the real problem with #4 is that nearly all of the wage growth has been captured by the top 10% of earners. So for most people, wages HAVE stagnated, even as average earnings have gone up. In other words, income inequality is the problem. But conservatives don't like to hear that. So they just say "wages have stagnated" and blame Obama.

And then there are the oldies but goodies, like claiming the BLS just makes up numbers, or that the "real" unemployment rate is far higher than the official rate, and other claims born of ignorance or conspiracy theories.

There are segments of our population that have legitimate gripes: They have seen their earnings stagnate or fall, seen jobs shipped overseas, seen the American Dream slip away.

But the culprits are things not easily changed: economic globalization and income inequality, for the most part.

That's not very satisfying, so they look for scapegoats. It's Democrats, or immigrants, or what have you.

It's understandable, but wrong.

 

That's a pretty reckless statement that's easily disproved.

 

Who Is Dropping Out Of The Labor Force, and Why?
By Diana Furchtgott-Roth

Although many economic indicators are heading in a positive direction, last week's December jobs report highlighted the problem of the declining labor force participation rate, the percentage of people aged 16 and over who choose to work or look for work.

The labor force participation rate moved back to 62.8 percent from its November level of 63 percent. In 2007, before the recession, 66 percent of Americans were in the labor force. Today's levels are equivalent to 1978, before the Reagan Revolution and the movement of women into the labor force during the 1980s.

Who is dropping out, and why?

A popular view is that labor force participation is declining because older people are retiring. But 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.

What is clear is that the workforce is aging. Since the beginning of the recession in 2007, 2 million fewer Americans are employed. The 25 to 54 age group has seen a decline in employment of 6 million workers. The 55+ age group, in contrast, has seen an increase in employment of 4.8 million workers. Employment in the 16 to 24 group is down by 1.8 million.

The labor force participation rate of Americans aged 55 and over has increased by 4.6 percentage points from 2003 to 2013. Both men and women have seen increases in labor force participation rates and employment levels.

In contrast, for the 25 to 54 age group, the core group of workers in the labor force, participation rate has declined by 2 percentage points over the same time period, from 83 percent to 81 percent.

The biggest decline in labor force participation rates can be observed for workers aged 16 to 24. In 2013, 55 percent were participating in the labor force, compared to 62 percent in 2003, a decline of 7 percentage points.

If these young people were increasingly enrolled in school, then declining labor force participation might not be negative. They might be investing in education, resulting in better jobs later on in life. But no, the percentage of 16 to 24 year olds enrolled in high school, college, or university has risen by only three tenths of a percentage point over the past decade, from 56 percent to 56.3 percent.

The 55+ are the winners. Compared with all other groups, unemployment rates were lowest for the 55+ age group in 2013 and have seen the smallest increase since the recession.

Young workers entering the labor force are having a difficult time finding a job. Openings for unskilled workers often attract many more applicants than position. Colleges and professional schools have many graduates with no jobs.

One reason for few jobs for younger workers is the increasing labor force participation rate of older workers who are delaying retirement, leaving fewer job openings for younger workers.

Another reason is the slow GDP growth rate of around 2 percent, which results in low job creation. Younger workers, and middle-aged workers, become discouraged and drop out.

Of course, with lengthening life expectancies, it is good news that older people show increasing rates of labor force participation. The economy needs faster growth so that jobs can be created for the core 25 to 54 group, as well as for younger people.

The one bright spot in the economy: the low price of shale gas is attracting energy-intensive firms back to the United States and offers hope of a manufacturing renaissance. Jim Ratcliffe, chairman and CEO of the multinational petrochemical firm Ineos, interviewed in Saturday's Wall Street Journal, described the new "cracker" plants which turn cheap shale into ethylene, and then to a variety of plastics. These plants are located increasingly in America.

But other possibilities to jump-start economic growth, including fundamental tax reform, regulatory reform, entitlement reform, and immigration reform, will likely have to wait until after the 2014 elections. So will the lagging labor force participation rate.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth is a contributing editor at RealClearMarkets. (*)A former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, she directs www.economics21.org at the Manhattan Institute where she is a senior fellow. Follow her on Twitter: @FurchtgottRoth. (*)(*)

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...ng_out_of_the_labor_force_and_why_100840.html

 

I would love nothing more than to reduce the size of the federal government, put more emphasis on a literal interpretation of the 10th, quite using interstate commerce clause like a blank check and allow states to be the experimental centers they are supposed to be.

 

Less than 2% mean GDP growth through Obama's two terms so far.

 

That's what you Republicans wanted, and why you obstructed Obama's jobs programs and forced austerity.


Step 1: Obstruct and use control of the House to (*)(*)(*)(*) up the economy. E.g. Create as much uncertainty as possible by threatening to cause the US to shut down the government, default on its obligations, and wreck the economy. Add 700,000+ people to the unemployment lines by eliminating government jobs. Block every single proposal by the President to create jobs. Force austerity cuts in Govt spending to prevent or limit economic growth.


Step 2: Blaaaaame Obaaaaaamaaaaaa and count on the sheeple being ignorant and misinformed or simply blaming whoever is president.

 

And I bet the population of the United States hits a new record every year too. More of that specious use of the data I see.

 

What obstruction? What Obama proposals to get the economy back in gear did they oppose and stop from passage?

So you admit Obama did not cut the deficit it was those evil Republicans?

 

And millions move from never having worked at all into the younger working groups, so what. It has already been demonstrated the fall in the overall LFPR is NOT being driven by older workers, they have increased their participation. You seem to be conflating shear numbers with rates, a basic logical mistake and statistical mistake.