UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yeah, people leaving the workforce en masse due to retirement has nothing to do with people leaving the workforce.
genius stuff.
Romney promised to bring unemployment down to 6% after four years with his economic plan...
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
genius stuff.
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
Older people are having to keep working longer because the value of the dollar decreases while the price of everything increases, among other reasons.
We don't need "more" jobs, we need "Better" jobs, and a better dollar value.
And that doesn't mean create busywork jobs just to make it seem like you helped the economy, while actually wasting more resources on things that could be done just as well by fewer people... or things that don't even need doing at all! (military style home invasions to intervene and ruin people's lives because they want to use a plant to make themselves feel better, don't want or can't afford to buy, and/or don't trust anyone else to provide a safe product, so they choose to DIY, instead... for example... and then all the bullshit propaganda jobs involved in attempting to justify the need for these types of jobs... etc.)
I was considering this alternative idea, earlier...
What if...
They gave literally EVERYONE a monthly stipend, regulated the prices of all goods/etc., so that this stipend were enough to not die, and not be miserable...
THEN, it would be a Choice, as to whether you want to work, or not. Then, employers would HAVE to pay people what a job is actually worth, or no one would do it. This way, you wouldn't have to have a "minimum wage," but the employers would have to offer enough compensation so that people would actually Want the job, instead of taking anything that's available, because they have no other available option. Having no available alternative allows employers to perpetuate the exploitative practices, because they KNOW you have no other choice; it's be miserable and dissatisfied with a difficult and underpaid job you hate, or starve homeless.
Where would we get the resources to pay everyone to survive? No idea. Maybe the Fed can just print more money (lol).
The point is: there has to be incentive on both ends. The employer has to have both incentive and ability to offer better compensation, enough to entice people to do things they'd rather not do, to achieve better results. And the person has to have Better Quality Incentive, or everyone making minimum wage, will do the absolute least amount of lowest quality labor, to just barely get by; just enough so they don't get fired. Which then lends to justify the employer's reasoning behind not offering better compensation, which leads to a downward spiral, a vicious cycle, that ends in a whole lot of badness.
Just some thoughts.
We don't need "more" jobs, we need "Better" jobs, and a better dollar value.
And that doesn't mean create busywork jobs just to make it seem like you helped the economy, while actually wasting more resources on things that could be done just as well by fewer people... or things that don't even need doing at all! (military style home invasions to intervene and ruin people's lives because they want to use a plant to make themselves feel better, don't want or can't afford to buy, and/or don't trust anyone else to provide a safe product, so they choose to DIY, instead... for example... and then all the bullshit propaganda jobs involved in attempting to justify the need for these types of jobs... etc.)
I was considering this alternative idea, earlier...
What if...
They gave literally EVERYONE a monthly stipend, regulated the prices of all goods/etc., so that this stipend were enough to not die, and not be miserable...
THEN, it would be a Choice, as to whether you want to work, or not. Then, employers would HAVE to pay people what a job is actually worth, or no one would do it. This way, you wouldn't have to have a "minimum wage," but the employers would have to offer enough compensation so that people would actually Want the job, instead of taking anything that's available, because they have no other available option. Having no available alternative allows employers to perpetuate the exploitative practices, because they KNOW you have no other choice; it's be miserable and dissatisfied with a difficult and underpaid job you hate, or starve homeless.
Where would we get the resources to pay everyone to survive? No idea. Maybe the Fed can just print more money (lol).
The point is: there has to be incentive on both ends. The employer has to have both incentive and ability to offer better compensation, enough to entice people to do things they'd rather not do, to achieve better results. And the person has to have Better Quality Incentive, or everyone making minimum wage, will do the absolute least amount of lowest quality labor, to just barely get by; just enough so they don't get fired. Which then lends to justify the employer's reasoning behind not offering better compensation, which leads to a downward spiral, a vicious cycle, that ends in a whole lot of badness.
Just some thoughts.
Why are people leaving the workforce?
America's jobs picture is seeing huge improvement, with robust numbers that are giving investors confidence in the economy. The U.S. added 248,000 jobs last month, bringing the unemployment rate below 6 percent.
But one part of that picture is still a puzzle: People continue to stop looking for work, and in doing so, are dropping out of the labor pool. In fact, the participation rate in the labor force has fallen to 62.7 percent -- its lowest level since early 1978.
How can this be? As the job market heats up and the unemployment rate falls, wouldn't that mean more people are looking for work, not less?
"The decline is without precedent," Bob Funk, chief executive of global staffing company Express Employment Professionals, told CBS MoneyWatch. Government tracking of employment statistics go back to 1948, he said, "and a decline like this has never happened since then."
There's no clear reason why people are leaving the workforce, and the issue has ignited a fierce debate among economists. One trend that they seem to agree on? About half of the decline is due to baby boomers entering their retirement years.
The other half of the decline gets a little fuzzy. Funk notes that some portion of the unemployed either don't want to work or don't think they can find a job. His company commissioned a poll of the unemployed in May, he said, and found that 47 percent have completely given up looking for work. "That's a real problem," he said.
The labor force participation rate was around 66 percent of the population in 2007 before falling to 62.7 percent.
Some economists say the expansion of food stamp and disability programs are keeping people out of the labor pool. Others says that young people are dropping out, partly because more are going to college and partly because the ones who aren't are getting crowded out of the job market.
The recession drove many out of the workplace, and there aren't enough job opportunities to bring them off of the sidelines, says Chad Stone, chief economist with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Don't expect the rate to rise anytime soon, say researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland in a recent paper. They're expecting further declines over the next decade or so. The youngest baby boomers are still in their early 50s, the researchers say, so boomers will be dropping out of the job market for years to come.
On the plus side, the researchers said, those job openings created by retiring baby boomers could open up more opportunities for younger adults and less-educated workers.
So what's the long-term impact of a falling participation rate? The economy needs the labor pool to start growing again, says Doug Handler, chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight. The weak labor market cannot support many more months in which jobs grow by 200,000 or more. "We may not be able to fight the effects of time and age, but we need the share of the population who can work to at least stabilize," he added.
Funk at Express Employment Professionals says the drop in the labor force is masking how high unemployment actually is. "For society, fewer people working means less revenue for the government and higher outlays on social programs," he adds. "It also means there are fewer people paying into Social Security and Medicare, at a time when both programs are already running out of money due to the baby boomer retirement."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-are-people-leaving-the-workforce/
America's jobs picture is seeing huge improvement, with robust numbers that are giving investors confidence in the economy. The U.S. added 248,000 jobs last month, bringing the unemployment rate below 6 percent.
But one part of that picture is still a puzzle: People continue to stop looking for work, and in doing so, are dropping out of the labor pool. In fact, the participation rate in the labor force has fallen to 62.7 percent -- its lowest level since early 1978.
How can this be? As the job market heats up and the unemployment rate falls, wouldn't that mean more people are looking for work, not less?
"The decline is without precedent," Bob Funk, chief executive of global staffing company Express Employment Professionals, told CBS MoneyWatch. Government tracking of employment statistics go back to 1948, he said, "and a decline like this has never happened since then."
There's no clear reason why people are leaving the workforce, and the issue has ignited a fierce debate among economists. One trend that they seem to agree on? About half of the decline is due to baby boomers entering their retirement years.
The other half of the decline gets a little fuzzy. Funk notes that some portion of the unemployed either don't want to work or don't think they can find a job. His company commissioned a poll of the unemployed in May, he said, and found that 47 percent have completely given up looking for work. "That's a real problem," he said.
The labor force participation rate was around 66 percent of the population in 2007 before falling to 62.7 percent.
Some economists say the expansion of food stamp and disability programs are keeping people out of the labor pool. Others says that young people are dropping out, partly because more are going to college and partly because the ones who aren't are getting crowded out of the job market.
The recession drove many out of the workplace, and there aren't enough job opportunities to bring them off of the sidelines, says Chad Stone, chief economist with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Don't expect the rate to rise anytime soon, say researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland in a recent paper. They're expecting further declines over the next decade or so. The youngest baby boomers are still in their early 50s, the researchers say, so boomers will be dropping out of the job market for years to come.
On the plus side, the researchers said, those job openings created by retiring baby boomers could open up more opportunities for younger adults and less-educated workers.
So what's the long-term impact of a falling participation rate? The economy needs the labor pool to start growing again, says Doug Handler, chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight. The weak labor market cannot support many more months in which jobs grow by 200,000 or more. "We may not be able to fight the effects of time and age, but we need the share of the population who can work to at least stabilize," he added.
Funk at Express Employment Professionals says the drop in the labor force is masking how high unemployment actually is. "For society, fewer people working means less revenue for the government and higher outlays on social programs," he adds. "It also means there are fewer people paying into Social Security and Medicare, at a time when both programs are already running out of money due to the baby boomer retirement."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-are-people-leaving-the-workforce/
nontheist
Well-Known Member
Bullshit
BLS show an across the board decline for young workers while across the board increase on 55+. Older people are working longer and less young working adults are working period.
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
BLS show an across the board decline for young workers while across the board increase on 55+. Older people are working longer and less young working adults are working period.
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
"For society, fewer people working means less revenue for the government..."
Because that's what it's really all about: revenue for the government.
The government gives no shits about quality of life for those GENERATING that revenue... the only thing that matters is making sure that revenue is still being generated, so they can keep taking the cut to which they declare themselves entitled, which they figured out they have to use coercion and violence to enable.
But without enough revenue, they'd lose the ability to enable themselves to siphon that revenue...
So, if everyone who doesn't like something the government is doing, would just refuse to pay taxes at all, we could beat them. Might get ugly and take a while, but if they have no or insufficient revenue, and the majority of people refusing to support them (ironically, they're own logic!), they won't be able to continue doing whatever we declare unacceptable.
Hell, we should be the ones taxing them! They should be generating revenue for us!
Because that's what it's really all about: revenue for the government.
The government gives no shits about quality of life for those GENERATING that revenue... the only thing that matters is making sure that revenue is still being generated, so they can keep taking the cut to which they declare themselves entitled, which they figured out they have to use coercion and violence to enable.
But without enough revenue, they'd lose the ability to enable themselves to siphon that revenue...
So, if everyone who doesn't like something the government is doing, would just refuse to pay taxes at all, we could beat them. Might get ugly and take a while, but if they have no or insufficient revenue, and the majority of people refusing to support them (ironically, they're own logic!), they won't be able to continue doing whatever we declare unacceptable.
Hell, we should be the ones taxing them! They should be generating revenue for us!
nontheist
Well-Known Member
nice rebuttal
Like the unemployment rate, the employment-population ratio is also affected by labor participation. Say a large number of baby-boomers retire and leave the workforce. The unemployment rate would go down, making the economy look better, even though it isn’t.
By high ranking economists do you mean Chesusrice?
Fail cuz
http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#nlf
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no, i mean the high ranking economists cited earlier by schuylaar.
why are you trying to use government stats when you are the one who accuses them of purposely orchestrating 9/11?
Before the 16th amendment, that was pretty much how it worked. Government relied on indirect taxes, like tariffs, corporate, and other excise taxes to fund itself.
FWIW The 16th amendment was never actually ratified by the states.
So you finally concede that the economy sucks, thanks for being a man for once in your life.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
more conspiracy theories. cute.
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
Huh. Interesting...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
apparently you reading compensation has failed you?
i said baby boomers are retiring, which is why we are seeing less labor force participation.
Citation please.
Now everyone watch while buck does nothing but call people names and falsely accuse them of all sorts of things.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so you are denying the fact that you claim 9/11 is some sort of a conspiracy?
I just linked the BLS, if you look in there you will find that retirees are not counted as part of the work force, i.e. the statistic would not change if all the baby boomers retired yesterday.
Why is your reading compensation so bad when it comes to the BLS link?