Originally Posted By mrichmondj By the way, in reference to one of the previous posts -- I think I am most certainly a glass half full kinda guy! I always seize upon the positive in these sorts of scenarios. For example: In December 2000, I took a look at our future prospects under our new leadership and I promptly loaded my stock portfolio up with ExxonMobil, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. I have made quite a tidy profit! It makes me sick to my stomach sometimes in hindsight, but I'd say that the glass (and bank account) are at least half full at this point.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer (psst, woody - you're supposed to be all positive and upbeat if you are a conservative. I think you got confused!)
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Realistically Tom, we live in a very confusing world and it's tough to be upbeat all the time.
Originally Posted By woody What happened to my post? I thought I stated my case quite explicitly that retiring persons do not cause low unemployment by freeing up positions for younger people. TomSawyer: I am upbeat. I believe low unemployment is caused by real economic growth, not the replacement of workers. Here are more statistics and stories to backup my claim. ---------- <a href="http://www.bls.gov/" target="_blank">http://www.bls.gov/</a> "Unemployment Rate: 4.8% in Feb 2006" <a href="http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp" target="_blank">http://www.miseryindex.us/urby year.asp</a> US Unemployment over the years. Bush is quite competitive with Clinton's performance. <a href="http://www.dawn.com/2006/01/24/int8.htm" target="_blank">http://www.dawn.com/2006/01/24 /int8.htm</a> "The optimistic view is that stronger European economic growth will bring more jobs. The European Commission says growth will rise to 1.9 percent in the euro zone and 2.1 percent in the EU as a whole this year, from 1.3 and 1.5 percent respectively in 2005." "Unemployment, the Commission predicts, will decline to 8.4 percent from 8.6 percent in the euro zone as a whole and from 8.5 percent from 8.7 in the EU." --------------- In Europe where they really have a pervasive aging population, they are hoping for economic growth to provide jobs for young people. We have it pretty good in the United States. Strong economic growth creates jobs for all Americans.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <TomSawyer: I am upbeat. I believe low unemployment is caused by real economic growth, not the replacement of workers.> It's not the "replacement" of workers; it's the greater numbers of people retiring compared to those entering the work force. If the numbers retiring are greater than the numbers entering (which has been the case recently), that in itself will lower the unemployment rate somewhat. Of course, so will a good economy. So the question is what was the cause? One, the other, or both? What mrichmonj and I were saying is that the decline in unemployment the past couple of years is not NECESSARILY the work of the economy in general, given that demographic shift. In fact, it can't be ALL the work of the economy, given that shift. It has to do with the undeniable demographic shift AT LEAST - and perhaps with a slightly stronger economy as well. How much of each? You'd have to look at what the rates would have been had the numbers of retirees and entering workers been equal... and no one's provided that. <Here are more statistics and stories to backup my claim.> They just show the raw data; they don't speak to causation.
Originally Posted By woody Dabob2: "They just show the raw data; they don't speak to causation." You weakened your own argument. You make a weak argument about the retiring workforce. You only provide a raw, unprovable linkage. Then you say the economy cannot be fully credited because there is a SHIFT in demographics, which may play a role (along with the good economy) in the lowering of the unemployment rate. Yet, your original argument is that demographic shift is the main reason for the shift. WEAK WEAK WEAK It is a stronger link to say the good economy has created jobs. You also ignore the data from Europe. Europe really does have a more advanced demographic shift. The population aged quite a bit, yet they have 8.7 percent employment.... that's almost DOUBLE the United State unemployment rate of 4.7 percent. Article: "The optimistic view is that stronger European economic growth will bring more jobs." You ignore the widely held view that the economy is the main factor in the creation of jobs. "You'd have to look at what the rates would have been had the numbers of retirees and entering workers been equal... and no one's provided that." You really haven't done this. LOL!!!!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Dabob2: "They just show the raw data; they don't speak to causation.">> <You weakened your own argument. You make a weak argument about the retiring workforce. You only provide a raw, unprovable linkage.> I didn't provide a link at all on this, actually. You're going off the deep end here. And it's not a weak argument. It's inarguable, in fact, that if you have more people retire than join the workforce, that in itself will lower the unemployment rate somewhat. Just as if you have more retiring workers than new ones, it will start depleting social security. Demographic shifts are important. <Then you say the economy cannot be fully credited because there is a SHIFT in demographics, which may play a role (along with the good economy) in the lowering of the unemployment rate. Yet, your original argument is that demographic shift is the main reason for the shift.> No, that wasn't my original argument. It wasn't even my argument. I merely agreed with mrichmondj, who pointed out that you can not attribute a lowered unemployment rate SOLELY to a good economy (which was itself a response to Beau), considering that the demographic shift will itself lower it somewhat. <WEAK WEAK WEAK> It is your reading of my posts as you would like to read them, rather than what they actually say, that is weak. I was very clear when I said that both the demographic shift and the economy in general could be responsible; I never said anywhere that the demographic shift was the main reason. In fact, I was clear to say that without better data it was difficult or impossible to assign relative weight to the factors. <It is a stronger link to say the good economy has created jobs.> Not unless you can show that it would have happened in the absence of the demographic shift. <You also ignore the data from Europe.> I "ignored" what we weren't even discussing? Um, okay. <Europe really does have a more advanced demographic shift. The population aged quite a bit, yet they have 8.7 percent employment.... that's almost DOUBLE the United State unemployment rate of 4.7 percent.> That ignores two things: two completely different economies (always better to compare an apple to an apple), and the question of what their unemployment rate was before the demographic shift. <Article: "The optimistic view is that stronger European economic growth will bring more jobs." You ignore the widely held view that the economy is the main factor in the creation of jobs.> Nowhere did I say that wasn't the main factor. But when the drop in unemployment has been modest (which it has been), and the demographic shift has occurred (which it has), it's legitimate to ask how much of the drop can be attributed to the economy in general, and how much to the demographic shift. <<You'd have to look at what the rates would have been had the numbers of retirees and entering workers been equal... and no one's provided that.>> <You really haven't done this. LOL!!!!> Nor did I claim to. I said very clearly that NO ONE has provided that. In short, I'm saying that to know the real story, one would have to have better data, and know approximately how much of a drop in unemployment could be expected merely from the demographic shift, and then compare that to how much of a drop there was. You claim to know the "real story" even in the absence of that data. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Hey Jim of Merced--After reading these last few posts, do you any of that ripple left? Is there room on the sofa so we can watch the Factor tonight on that rabbit eared 12 inch tv WEAK WEAK WEAK--------------I feel like lifting weights now as I'm confused. Am I the weak one?))))))))))
Originally Posted By woody Dabob2: "I didn't provide a link at all on this, actually." You said I provided evidence that didn't prove a link or causation. Then you make an argument not based on facts. You only provide an argument for the sake of an argument. At least you admit that. "No, that wasn't my original argument. It wasn't even my argument. I merely agreed with mrichmondj, who pointed out that you can not attribute a lowered unemployment rate SOLELY to a good economy" mrichmondj does not seem convinced the economy is good. Otherwise, why offer this alternative theory. >>mrichmondj said "low unemployment: not hard to do when your work force is retiring faster than there are younger people to replace the retirees.<< >>You said "I was very clear when I said that both the demographic shift and the economy in general could be responsible; I never said anywhere that the demographic shift was the main reason."<< But in Post 118 you said "And if you have demographics in the country in which you have more people retiring in a given year than people coming into the work force - which has been the case lately - that itself will make the unemployment rate fall. That was mrichmondj's point." You never mention economics at all. >>That ignores two things: two completely different economies (always better to compare an apple to an apple), and the question of what their unemployment rate was before the demographic shift.<< This is getting tiring. Europe does have a different economy. They have higher taxes which restricts their employment rate. However, if you merely consider their retiring workforce, Europe is doing poorly. "Nor did I claim to. I said very clearly that NO ONE has provided that." You provide an argument for your own sake or perhaps mrichmondj sake. --------- Repeat: mrichmondj said "low unemployment: not hard to do when your work force is retiring faster than there are younger people to replace the retirees."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Dabob2: "I didn't provide a link at all on this, actually.>> <You said I provided evidence that didn't prove a link or causation.> Which was true. <Then you make an argument not based on facts.> Not true. You really don't get it, do you? It is simply a FACT that if more people retire than join the work force, that will in itself lower the unemployment rate. That's simple math. It's inarguable. One doesn't need a link or "proof" other than simple arithmetic. The only question is HOW MUCH it has affected the unemployment rate. <You only provide an argument for the sake of an argument. At least you admit that.> I never admitted that. Once again, you read in something I didn't say. <<No, that wasn't my original argument. It wasn't even my argument. I merely agreed with mrichmondj, who pointed out that you can not attribute a lowered unemployment rate SOLELY to a good economy>> <mrichmondj does not seem convinced the economy is good. Otherwise, why offer this alternative theory. >>mrichmondj said "low unemployment: not hard to do when your work force is retiring faster than there are younger people to replace the retirees.< So take it up with mrichmondj. And take up with me what I actually say. When I offered my take on what he said, I said very clearly that both demographics and the economy in general were involved; the question was HOW MUCH each was involved. You seem to want to discount the demographic shift entirely; note I'm taking BOTH into account. >>You said "I was very clear when I said that both the demographic shift and the economy in general could be responsible; I never said anywhere that the demographic shift was the main reason."<< <But in Post 118 you said "And if you have demographics in the country in which you have more people retiring in a given year than people coming into the work force - which has been the case lately - that itself will make the unemployment rate fall. That was mrichmondj's point." You never mention economics at all.> I've mentioned if often. Don't take one quote that doesn't and pretend that's the extent of what I said. >>That ignores two things: two completely different economies (always better to compare an apple to an apple), and the question of what their unemployment rate was before the demographic shift.<< <This is getting tiring.> No kidding! <Europe does have a different economy. They have higher taxes which restricts their employment rate. However, if you merely consider their retiring workforce, Europe is doing poorly.> Who said we'd merely consider that? You're not presenting a logical argument here. <<Nor did I claim to. I said very clearly that NO ONE has provided that.>> <You provide an argument for your own sake or perhaps mrichmondj sake.> Nope. I point out that attributing lowered unemployment to the economy SOLELY (which you'd seemingly like to do), given the demographic shift we know of, is simplistic. --------- <Repeat: mrichmondj said "low unemployment: not hard to do when your work force is retiring faster than there are younger people to replace the retirees."> The demographic shift WILL lower the rate in itself to a degree. The question is to what degree - this is something neither of us has tackled, but that at least I take into account. mrichmondj may have been guilty of overstatement with the "not hard to do" thing, but since the drop in unemployment has been modest... perhaps not. Impossible to say absent more data.
Originally Posted By woody "The question is to what degree - this is something neither of us has tackled, but that at least I take into account." NO FACTS. "It is simply a FACT that if more people retire than join the work force, that will in itself lower the unemployment rate." UNSUPPORTABLE. Where's the proof? "So take it up with mrichmondj. And take up with me what I actually say." I did. He refused to respond. In Post 118, no mention of economics. If you keep changing your story, it will lead no where. No facts to back you up. You're making things up. It's fun to debate you, but this is not one of them. You haven't supported your arguments.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It is simply a FACT that if more people retire than join the work force, that will in itself lower the unemployment rate.> An "if" statement is not a fact. It has not been established that it is a fact that more people are retiring than are joining the work force.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<The question is to what degree - this is something neither of us has tackled, but that at least I take into account.>> <NO FACTS.> Are you even reading yourself? It is you who have provided no facts, other than raw unemployment numbers. And you continue to act as if demographics count for nothing at all. <<It is simply a FACT that if more people retire than join the work force, that will in itself lower the unemployment rate.>> <UNSUPPORTABLE. Where's the proof?> It's called math. Look into it. <<So take it up with mrichmondj. And take up with me what I actually say.>> <I did. He refused to respond.> Then keep it out of posts directed to me. <In Post 118, no mention of economics.> I said it before, but... I've mentioned it often. Don't take one quote that doesn't and pretend that's the extent of what I said. <If you keep changing your story, it will lead no where. No facts to back you up. You're making things up. It's fun to debate you, but this is not one of them. You haven't supported your arguments.> I'm making nothing up. You really are comical. All this comes down to is this: there are two possible factors for a declining unemployment rate - an improving economy or demographic shifts. I've talked about both; you'd like to pretend the latter doesn't exist. You talk about the need for proof, but can't seem to get it through your head that if more people retire than enter the workforce, no more proof is needed. Math takes care of it. Meanwhile, you've provided nothing but raw unemployment figures with no context.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<It is simply a FACT that if more people retire than join the work force, that will in itself lower the unemployment rate.>> <An "if" statement is not a fact. It has not been established that it is a fact that more people are retiring than are joining the work force.> I thought it was well established that this trend had begun, when we were looking at all the social security questions. It will accelerate soon for sure, but I did think it was established that that trend had begun. My bad if this is not the case, but I believe it is.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <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.
Originally Posted By woody "It's called math. Look into it." You haven't even done the math. You threw out this argument as if its evidence. There is no evidence. "All this comes down to is this: there are two possible factors for a declining unemployment rate - an improving economy or demographic shifts. I've talked about both; you'd like to pretend the latter doesn't exist." The latter doesn't exist. There is no math. "You talk about the need for proof, but can't seem to get it through your head that if more people retire than enter the workforce, no more proof is needed. Math takes care of it. Meanwhile, you've provided nothing but raw unemployment figures with no context." There is no math. You haven't done the work. You should at least point to a source other than mrichmondj's lame assertion. Now that you took up his cause, it's your job to prove it.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo You are correct, Dabob, in that the number of retirees are increasing; I think this point is beyond refute. Hello…Baby boomers? But it also hinges on the number of young people entering the workforce. If X amount of retirees equal the amount who are entering the workforce, the unemployment percentage would be a wash. I’d like to see figures to this regard. Frankly, I find it hard for anyone to conclusively state exactly has affected the unemployment figure—so many blooming factors; which is in turn why the unemployment figure IMO is a poor indicator regarding the strength of the economy.
Originally Posted By woody Dabob2: "You talk about the need for proof, but can't seem to get it through your head that if more people retire than enter the workforce, no more proof is needed." You have to fix your math. If the unemployment rate is merely the percentage of employed people to unemployed people, the retirees are not figured into the mix. Retired people drop off the rolls as unemployed people. The demographic shift is the wrong argument for low unemployment. Retirees are irrelevant in the unemployment statistics. The original argument was retirees provide more opportunities for young people since they open up job opportunities. For this, you should provide raw numbers. MATH.
Originally Posted By woody Do you notice a pattern? Assuming Dabob's theory is valid, there should be more retirements in the Clinton Administration than G.W. Bush. ---------- <a href="http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp" target="_blank">http://www.miseryindex.us/urby year.asp</a> The US Unemployment Rate - 1993 to 2005 1993 6.91 Clinton 1994 6.10 1995 5.59 1996 5.41 1997 4.94 1998 4.50 1999 4.22 2000 3.97 2001 4.76 Bush, G.W. 2002 5.78 2003 5.99 2004 5.53 2005 5.08
