Originally Posted By tiggertoo You'll also notice that the lowest unemployment rates were during a period of recession. So why do staunch conservatives always tout this number as an indicator of economic strength?
Originally Posted By woody "You'll also notice that the lowest unemployment rates were during a period of recession." That is wrong. 1993 & 1994 was a recession during Clinton. 2001-2003 was a recession during Bush. The unemployment rate is higher than the other years. "So why do staunch conservatives always tout this number as an indicator of economic strength?" Economic strength is measured by the unemployment rate as well as other indicators like interest rates and economic growth. As a basis for comparison, Bush is doing much better now because the unemployment rate has lowered to 4.8 percent in 2006 versus 5.99 percent in 2003.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Retired people drop off the rolls as unemployed people.> Wrong. They are counted as neither employed nor unemployed. Perhaps this is the crux of your misunderstanding. It's about the only thing that could explain your mystifyingly clueless complaints about "there is no math" etc. like a broken record. <Assuming Dabob's theory is valid, there should be more retirements in the Clinton Administration than G.W. Bush.> Wrong. First of all, it's not a "theory." It's a simple fact that if the number of retirees exceeds that of new workers in a given year, that in itself will drop the unemployment rate somewhat. The questions are: what are the numbers, and how much did the demographic shift affect it. You keep denying this, but perhaps you really thought retirees were counted as unemployed.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Oh, and second, since I've already said the state of the economy also matters, to say "there should be more retirements in the Clinton Administration than G.W. Bush." doesn't work.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I thought it was well established that this trend had begun, when we were looking at all the social security questions.>> <The ratio of retirees to workers is definitely declining, but I believe that's because retirees are living longer, not because there are more people retiring than there are new workers entering the workplace.> I think both are true; I looked for definitive numbers and couldn't find them just now. It's been a long day, and I'm goin' home. Night, Ralph.
Originally Posted By woody "They are counted as neither employed nor unemployed." This is what I meant, but literally, they are unemployed. Of course, they are no longer counted statistically. "Perhaps this is the crux of your misunderstanding. It's about the only thing that could explain your mystifyingly clueless complaints about "there is no math" etc. like a broken record." I think you're the one who is clueless. You provide no evidence of your argument. No math. No statistics. You only rely on your supposedly superior logic. Your argument cannot be accepted as fact. It is only an unsupported assertion. I say this because I'm cited actual statistics with the unemployment rates. You provide nothing. "First of all, it's not a "theory." It's a simple fact that if the number of retirees exceeds that of new workers in a given year, that in itself will drop the unemployment rate somewhat. The questions are: what are the numbers, and how much did the demographic shift affect it. You keep denying this, but perhaps you really thought retirees were counted as unemployed." Do you care to tell me where you found this information and extracted your argument? Frankly, I acknowledge the demographic shift. I read a lot about it, but it is your job to prove the connection to the unemployment rate. I have never heard it except from you and mrichmondj. If it is really simple as you claim and you said the logic is really simple, why not show the math to me? Show me the math. Show me the math. (use real numbers, please). >>Oh, and second, since I've already said the state of the economy also matters, to say "there should be more retirements in the Clinton Administration than G.W. Bush." doesn't work.<< This only proves the economy is the major factor in the unemployment rate. Your theory is irrelevant!!!
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<That is wrong. …2001-2003 was a recession during Bush.>> The recessionary downturn started in later part of 1999 and spiraled out of control until 2002. And I understand what the indicators of economic vitality are. My issue stems for giving the one indicator so much weight: “Our economy is great and Bush is doing a great job! See, look at the unemployment rate!†It is this sort of sentiment which I am wary of. The employment rate hinges upon such a vast array of factors, many of which have little to do with economic policies. My point is simply, if one is going to make the argument that our economy is stellar, use more than the unemployment rate. Right now, our economy is in flux. The statistical figures are good and the economy is IMO doing well, but workforce dynamics are changing. For better or worse has yet to be seen.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <My point is simply, if one is going to make the argument that our economy is stellar, use more than the unemployment rate.> By every measurement the economy is doing well.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Except the real estate market as the foreclosures are skyrocketing with all the people who took out interest only or adjustable rates and now have to pay the piper. At least there is no bubble though yet?
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Speaking of houses> How's your house situation Douglas? I hope you're hanging in there.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Except the real estate market as the foreclosures are skyrocketing with all the people who took out interest only or adjustable rates and now have to pay the piper.> From what I've read, even though foreclosures have been rising, they remain below the historic average. <How's your house situation Douglas? I hope you're hanging in there.> Sleeping in the RV, waiting to hear from the lawyer.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Man-that s........ so sorry Douglas. As you may or may not know I have millions tied up in real estate, our life savings, so I don't think it's tanking but it bears watching. The foreclosures are mostly in my neck of the woods so it's perhaps bigger news here than there> Where are you? LA?
Originally Posted By gadzuux Really! And all these years I thought you were in utah - and all that goes with it. Say - maybe beau has a spare room ...
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Lots of information on the U.S. Census Bureau website regarding population demographics -- all broken out by age group. For example. In 2004, there were 12.5M people age 60-64 (nominal retirement age). There were 21M people age 20-24 (nominal age for entering the workforce). That's a positive differential -- for every one person nearing retirement age you have about 8.5M entering the workforce. What was the differential 5 years ago? About 8.5M. How about 10 years ago? 10M people. So, in ten years, the number of potential new workers has declined by about 1.5M. Not a hugely significant number. The real challenge is happening right now and accelerates in the next 10 years. By 2010, the number of new potential replacing potential retirees drops to 4M people -- 50% fewer than in 2004! (Based on 16.5M retirees and 20.7M new workers). By 2015 it is less than 2M! We'll make up some of the difference with immigration, but overall the pool of workers is shrinking. If the overall economy shrinks and jobs disappear, there will be no impact on employment rates. But if we maintain or grow the job base, the unemployment rate will grow as well. Check out the Census Bureau website. They have all sorts of interesting statistics and population information that is very interesting!
Originally Posted By mrichmondj >>> But if we maintain or grow the job base, the unemployment rate will grow as well. <<< Should read that the unemployment rate will decline as well. My error. :-(
Originally Posted By woody It is time for Dabob2 to get a smackdown. I had enough of his illogical arguments. Dabob2 said "First of all, it's not a "theory." It's a simple fact that if the number of retirees exceeds that of new workers in a given year, that in itself will drop the unemployment rate somewhat. The questions are: what are the numbers, and how much did the demographic shift affect it. You keep denying this, but perhaps you really thought retirees were counted as unemployed." And another lovely nugget. "Oh, and second, since I've already said the state of the economy also matters, to say "there should be more retirements in the Clinton Administration than G.W. Bush." doesn't work." What happens when the amount of people retire at a faster rate than the replacement rate of younger workers? Companies will not hire younger workers at the same rate as older people retiring. Why? I will say this slowly. Less young people, especially young productive workers/professionals, means a slowing economy from less economic due to less consumption. I-N O-T-H-E-R W-O-R-D-S, employment cannot be sustained at previous levels. The demographic shift is actually adverse to economic activities. Therefore, the economy has to perform especially well to counter the declining economic activity of the demographic shift. An aging population means less tax receipts and more Social Security payments, which will adversely affect the younger population. Young people will face higher taxes, which will constrain consumer spending, thus economic activity declines. I'VE DONE THE MATH. I don't see how companies will hire younger workers at the same rate as the retirees are leaving. It isn't logical for assume your argument will work. Unemployment of young people will incrementally get worse if economic activity remains constant. mrichmondj said "low unemployment: not hard to do when your work force is retiring faster than there are younger people to replace the retirees." Any low unemployment is only temporary and not sustainable. That's why Europe has a high unemployment. Their economic model constrains economic growth. Another interesting fact, retiring workers will be taking with them valuable skills, knowledge, and education. Companies cannot easily replace them even if they wanted to. There may be a critical employee crisis as young inexperienced workers cannot find jobs as the economy worsens, while companies cannot find experienced workers. A good economy works.
Originally Posted By woody An interesting speech. It sounds like the employment of young people will suffer. The employment of people in the age bracket between 55-64 has increased. So the theory that unemployment will drop due to the demographic shift is really just a wash and largely a new challenge. Having a skilled and educated workforce is the key, but society is not perfect. Employment will not improve without economic incentives to counter the economic decline due to the demographic change. ----- <a href="http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/speeches/20050311_london.htm" target="_blank">http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/ speeches/20050311_london.htm</a> Remarks Prepared for Delivery by U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao “Meeting the Challenge of Demographic Change: Aging Population†G8 Labor and Employment Ministerial Conference London Friday, March 11, 2005 The United States, like many of your countries, will soon experience a dramatic change in demographics. In just a few years, Baby Boomers—those born from 1946 to 1964—will begin to retire. And because from 1965 and 1985, the U.S. experienced a declining birth rate, there will be fewer younger workers to replace older workers as they retire. The U.S. labor force growth will slow from an annual rate of 1.6 percent over the last 50 years to a projected annual rate of just .6 percent over the next 50 years. The aging workforce will pose new challenges to our retirement and health-care systems. In fact, by 2018, the Social Security system will pay out more in retirement benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes. Since 2001, employment in the U.S. among persons aged 55-64 has increased. In fact, the unemployment rate for older workers is 3.5 percent—well below the U.S. national unemployment rate of 5.4 percent. And since 2001, median wages and earnings for full-time older workers have grown at a faster rate than for any other age group. The vitality of this segment of our population is reflected in the fact that, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, 78 percent of Americans 65 and older owned their own homes. More than 70 percent earned income from financial assets. Between 2002-2012 it is expected that the annual growth rate of workers 55 and older will increase nearly four times faster than that of the overall labor force. So it is important that economies continue to grow, create new jobs and that workers of all ages continually update their skills so they can have as many choices as possible throughout their working lives. ---------
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It is time for Dabob2 to get a smackdown. I had enough of his illogical arguments.> This is hilarious. My "theory" is just based on basic math. I think deep down you even know this, because - all other things being equal - if more people retire than join the workforce, the unemployment rate will decline somewhat. This does not to be "proven" any more than a simple assertion that if more people move away from the state of south dakota then move into it in a given year, its population will decline. It's simple math. The employment rate is a ratio, so okay, there's one more step - but this is not rocket science. I suspect, as I said, that you even know this. So you then insist that all other things are not equal. If you could show that, that would be fine. But all you have are assertions like: "I'VE DONE THE MATH. I don't see how companies will hire younger workers at the same rate as the retirees are leaving. It isn't logical for assume your argument will work." First of all, that's not math. That's an assertion/opinion that's based on... let's see... nothing. Like the rest of your post, it's based on nothing but your own half-baked economic theories that you've convinced yourself are brilliant. LOL. I was an adjunct professor for a time, and used to grade student papers. It was always amusing to read the ones that thought they had it all figures out, and were constructing a brilliant argument, when in fact they were incoherent, based more on opinion than objective analysis, and didn't even have internal logic. Typically they would end with a non-sequitur that the author somehow thought summed everything up. <A good economy works.> It's like deja vu all over again.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
