What the biggest employment problem in the economy?

Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":


Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...g-labor-force/2012/05/04/gIQANXAy1T_blog.html

 

Unless I misunderstand, your contention for our overall economic situation is individual failures to achieve better levels of success?

 

More myth making. Shocking



Conservatives simplistic minds

If you are rich it is because of your merits. If you are poor its because of your faults.


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.


It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.

The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)#Origins

 

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64. Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.


http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677

 

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertl...of-the-nation-earn-half-of-all-capital-gains/


Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High

'corporate profits are at an all-time high as a percentage of the economy, wages are at an all-time low.'

'Last year, corporations made a record $824 billion, which didn’t stop conservatives from continually claiming that President Obama is anti-business.'
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/22/504853/corporate-profits-all-time-high/

 

There's no question we need to increase output in order to utilize our underutilized production capability and human capital output. The problem is how do you pay for it? We need the demand in front of the supply so that the demand drives us to maximize what we already have in place, then drive up demand for workers and output. The problem I see is there's no source of money remaining to pay for that demand since consumers are tapped out. Government can't do it because they're already running 1/2 trillion deficits, and businesses won't do it before the demand exists.

 

Trickle down economics and lower taxes on the wealthy are synonymous with 'Banana Republic' which is exactly where we're headed with right wing republican policies. Banana Republics are also run by the 1% elite, not democracies. Given the opportunity that's exactly how the right wing would like it here in the USA and they'll do anything to get to that point - lie, cheat and steal. What baffles me is just how many of the American working class believe the republican rhetoric that they represent them when it couldn't be further from the truth. What a travesty!

 

Lots of folks working retail boxes like the "marts" would benefit from union representation and the higher wages it brings. As would our economy. It doesn't help the economy that the Walton heirs get more billions.

 

Nonsense. As we've cut taxes for the very top, they've benefited by squeezing jobs and to offshore as much as possible to push up their stock prices. I live in Monterey, Ca and trades people here are even making less than they did 30+ years ago. That is a phenomenon thorough out the nation, except in union jobs. As the rights war on unions contnues *shaking head*

 

Along with the loss in jobs. Unions are one of the reasons we no longer have manufacturing in this country.

 

Exactly. It's not a work ethic thing. American workers are as productive as ever.

That's fine, but since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution all those gains have gone to the rich, virtually none to the middle/lower class working folk

 

Gov't COULD do it, IF the GOP worked for the bottom 90% as much as they do for the top 1%


Obama has proposed taking the Corp tax rates to 28% and closing loopholes AND using the extra money for infrastructure repairs/rebuilding. The GOP of course is against new revenues!

 

LOL, still trying to blame global dynamic on a dead President?

 

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.


http://budiansky.blogspot.com/2010/10/adam-smith-thomas-jefferson-and-other.html



The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster


A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural. Thomas Jefferson

There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death. Adam Smith

- - - Updated - - -

Keynes predicted a 15 hour work week 80+ years ago. No reason we couldn't go to 30 hour one today

 

Yeah, WHY have GOOD GOV'T POLICY??


NOT LIKE THE US IS THE LARGEST PROFIT DRIVER OF CORPS, RIGHT? OR THE BIGGEST ECONOMY?







(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.


It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.

The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)#Origins

 

I'll translate:



When right wing policies force the race to the bottom on wages

 

Not surprised your answer to the global situation is sound bites and left wing memes.

 

YOU IGNORING POST 70 IS NOTED BUBS

HERE IT IS AGAIN:



Yeah, WHY have GOOD GOV'T POLICY??






NOT LIKE THE US IS THE LARGEST PROFIT DRIVER OF CORPS, RIGHT? OR THE BIGGEST ECONOMY?


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.


It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.

Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.

The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)#Origins

 

I'm not so sure. While raising corporate tax rates and closing loopholes will generate more revenue in taxes, it does nothing to help workers have more money to generate demand. Government-created demand through higher taxation will result in higher prices and/or lower wages as corporations shift to accommodate the additional taxes in their pricing structures or through cuts to workers or benefits or pay. Ultimately taxpayers pay corporate taxes through their prices, so we'd just be taking more from consumers to give to government to give back to consumers. It's zero sum in that regard. We need growth to stimulate new money changing hands between companies to workers, back to stores and to government in taxes on the new incomes. If we just shift existing money around, it's not efficient and it just robs peter to pay paul. Maybe I'm wrong in how I perceive what you said, but it looks like more taxes from companies to put into the economy through infrastructure investment, which would create jobs for people. But when we consider that all corporate/business taxes are really paid by consumers via pricing structures, there's no true gain.

I think of it from the perspective of a business owner, which I am. If my taxes are raised on my business, so too are my prices to cover the added expense. Otherwise I lose profit or I cut wages/benefits, assuming I'm operating at max efficiency regarding what I pay for supplies and materials, energy, etc. So I pass those costs onto the consumer, just as corporations do. In the end, you and I pay all those taxes so raising them only harms us further through inflation of prices in response, or worse, declines in wages/benefits to those companies' employees. Companies just don't give up profits to pay taxes if they can pass those costs on.