The rich get richer
- Thread starter TarHeelEer
- Start date
Another fact.......
More Americans dropped out of the labor force last month, as the number of people not in the labor force hit another record high in March.
According to Friday's Bureau of Labor Statics jobs data 93,175,000 Americans were not in the work force in March, an addition of 277,000 to February's level of 92,898,000.
The BLS defines people not in the labor force as people ages 16 and older who are neither employed nor have they "made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week."
The work force decline also corresponded with a drop in the labor force participation rate, wherein March's rate of 62.7 percent mached earlier lows seen September and December 2014 but not seen before since in 1978. February's participation rate was 62.8 percent.
March was the first month on record where the number of people not in the labor force - whether due to discouraged worker, baby boomers hitting retirement or otherwise - surpassed 93 million.
More Americans dropped out of the labor force last month, as the number of people not in the labor force hit another record high in March.
According to Friday's Bureau of Labor Statics jobs data 93,175,000 Americans were not in the work force in March, an addition of 277,000 to February's level of 92,898,000.
The BLS defines people not in the labor force as people ages 16 and older who are neither employed nor have they "made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week."
The work force decline also corresponded with a drop in the labor force participation rate, wherein March's rate of 62.7 percent mached earlier lows seen September and December 2014 but not seen before since in 1978. February's participation rate was 62.8 percent.
March was the first month on record where the number of people not in the labor force - whether due to discouraged worker, baby boomers hitting retirement or otherwise - surpassed 93 million.
Pretty meaningless ...
Unless they specify what percentage is due to retirement and what percentage is due to other factors.
It's hard to quantify what this means to the economy in general and the unemployment rates in particular if we don't know how much of this is simply retirement. I've seen a lot of people use the "people leaving workforce" numbers to attack the unemployment rate but have never seen it quantified.
I have no idea what the distribution of this statistic looks like, but what if 50% of that 93M is from retirement? What if another 5% is due to disability from injured veterans? etc.
Unless they specify what percentage is due to retirement and what percentage is due to other factors.
The baby boomers entering retirement has been discussed for 15-20 years now and the overall effect that was going to have on social security.
It's hard to quantify what this means to the economy in general and the unemployment rates in particular if we don't know how much of this is simply retirement. I've seen a lot of people use the "people leaving workforce" numbers to attack the unemployment rate but have never seen it quantified.
I have no idea what the distribution of this statistic looks like, but what if 50% of that 93M is from retirement? What if another 5% is due to disability from injured veterans? etc.
Re: The numbers speak for themselves. This fact cannot be disputed....
It is hard to look at this without asking if the reduction is voluntary or involuntary. There is a difference between those who have reached the age and chose retirement. Totally different when they just totally give up and recognize there is nothing out there for them. That is a sad situation, no matter how you frame it.
It is hard to look at this without asking if the reduction is voluntary or involuntary. There is a difference between those who have reached the age and chose retirement. Totally different when they just totally give up and recognize there is nothing out there for them. That is a sad situation, no matter how you frame it.
OK ... you completely ignored my point and avoided my question
I'm not disputing the numbers, but it's hard to draw any conclusion until we know the distribution within that number.
If it's 75% of people that have just given up, that's bad.
If it's 75% of people that have retired, that's not so bad, and actually something that's been expected for quite awhile.
So no, the numbers absolutely do not speak for themselves.
If people left the workforce to retire, then you wouldn't want to count them against unemployment numbers. If they left the workforce because they couldn't find anything and just gave up, then you would want to count them against unemployment numbers to give a more accurate representation.
I'm not disputing the numbers, but it's hard to draw any conclusion until we know the distribution within that number.
If it's 75% of people that have just given up, that's bad.
If it's 75% of people that have retired, that's not so bad, and actually something that's been expected for quite awhile.
So no, the numbers absolutely do not speak for themselves.
If people left the workforce to retire, then you wouldn't want to count them against unemployment numbers. If they left the workforce because they couldn't find anything and just gave up, then you would want to count them against unemployment numbers to give a more accurate representation.
Nor can this fact be disputed ...
The number of people is at a record high. Some statistics are meaningless without context. Your statistic about more people than ever out of work is one of those meaningless ones. Rates make sense in context, but an increasing population means the numbers associated with those rates rise even if the rates hold steady.
The number of people is at a record high. Some statistics are meaningless without context. Your statistic about more people than ever out of work is one of those meaningless ones. Rates make sense in context, but an increasing population means the numbers associated with those rates rise even if the rates hold steady.
The retirees are having an impact, but not as huge as some
would like to think.
An older Forbes article on the data.
would like to think.
An older Forbes article on the data.
I did not ignore your point.......
have no doubt that your comments have some validity. On one hand you say you do not dispute the numbers and on the other hand you say the numbers do not speak for themselves. The numbers do indeed speak for themselves, they are what they are.
have no doubt that your comments have some validity. On one hand you say you do not dispute the numbers and on the other hand you say the numbers do not speak for themselves. The numbers do indeed speak for themselves, they are what they are.
Thank you, that article provides the granularity I was referencing
One take away from it also is that the labor participation rate has been declining steadily since 1997, 12 years before Obama took office and 4 years before Bush did. So this definitely isn't an Obama phenomenon, and not a Bush one either.
What still seems to be missing for me is why aren't the 16-24 year olds entering the work force? I would imagine it's probably tied to higher rates of college participation, but I could be wrong.
The 25-34 year old group is somewhat troubling. That would be after people are done with college (presumably) so they should be working. This one, to me, is more telling than any of the others.
The 93M number is utterly useless without all of this other context.
One take away from it also is that the labor participation rate has been declining steadily since 1997, 12 years before Obama took office and 4 years before Bush did. So this definitely isn't an Obama phenomenon, and not a Bush one either.
What still seems to be missing for me is why aren't the 16-24 year olds entering the work force? I would imagine it's probably tied to higher rates of college participation, but I could be wrong.
The 25-34 year old group is somewhat troubling. That would be after people are done with college (presumably) so they should be working. This one, to me, is more telling than any of the others.
The 93M number is utterly useless without all of this other context.
This reminds me of a joke ...
Two people are in a hot air balloon and they get blown off course and get lost. They descend into a field and are floating above a man walking in the field. They ask the man "can you tell us where we are?". The man says "you're in a hot air balloon".
Then the guy in the hot air balloon says "you're an economist aren't you?"
"Why yes, how did you know"
"Because you gave me information that was technically true, but utterly worthless"
Two people are in a hot air balloon and they get blown off course and get lost. They descend into a field and are floating above a man walking in the field. They ask the man "can you tell us where we are?". The man says "you're in a hot air balloon".
Then the guy in the hot air balloon says "you're an economist aren't you?"
"Why yes, how did you know"
"Because you gave me information that was technically true, but utterly worthless"
Re: Yea, It's all good, everything is great.... especially for
When I find fault with your statistical analysis, you make assumptions about how I vote. How aboutique acknowledging the fact that head counts aren't a good measure in a historical context since the population is increasing? I would make the same point about statements about the number of people working. I would love for someone to compile statistics on the rate of retirement for the baby boomers also, especially compared to the number of young people entering the work force. I would also prefer that number be based on people trying to enter the real work force - 18+ looking for full time employment. I suspect those are hard stats to find.
When I find fault with your statistical analysis, you make assumptions about how I vote. How aboutique acknowledging the fact that head counts aren't a good measure in a historical context since the population is increasing? I would make the same point about statements about the number of people working. I would love for someone to compile statistics on the rate of retirement for the baby boomers also, especially compared to the number of young people entering the work force. I would also prefer that number be based on people trying to enter the real work force - 18+ looking for full time employment. I suspect those are hard stats to find.
Re: Thank you, that article provides the granularity I was referencing
I would think the shrinking number in the 16-24 range is tied to the higher age ranges higher participation rates. Those older folks hanging in mean that there are likely fewer openings without some growth. The middle range is a concern. I wonder how many folks in that range could be accounted for by parents looking to stay home with young children. That may not entirely be by choice, whether it's an inability to find a job or an inability to find a job that more than offsets the cost of day care.
I would think the shrinking number in the 16-24 range is tied to the higher age ranges higher participation rates. Those older folks hanging in mean that there are likely fewer openings without some growth. The middle range is a concern. I wonder how many folks in that range could be accounted for by parents looking to stay home with young children. That may not entirely be by choice, whether it's an inability to find a job or an inability to find a job that more than offsets the cost of day care.
Re: Thank you, that article provides the granularity I was referencing
Not sure what that has to do with the discussion? The Federal government has entry level jobs (mostly clerical), which theoretically an 18-year-old with a high school diploma could qualify for -- my former boss came to Washington from West Virginia right out of high school -- and there are other lower to middle grade positions that people 21 and older who have a bachelor's degree could qualify for. And most cabinet agencies have an intern program aimed specifically at bringing in people from this age group.
Re: Thank you, that article provides the granularity I was referencing
I'm not sure that a lot of new jobs are government, at least not federal. A lot of agencies are stagnant, hiring only to replace necessary positions that were vacated by retirees or folks who left for other reasons.
I'm not sure that a lot of new jobs are government, at least not federal. A lot of agencies are stagnant, hiring only to replace necessary positions that were vacated by retirees or folks who left for other reasons.
Re: Thank you, that article provides the granularity I was referencing
Got it. As mule_eer points out, most of the new government jobs are at the state or local level -- and most of those aren't really "new" jobs, but hiring to refill jobs that were lost during the downturn. The Fed has been marking time for about five years, only hiring to fill jobs opened by retirement or other attrition, and it's almost impossible for a Federal agency to add positions. And you're right, not many 18-24 year olds think of public service at any level when job hunting, unless they're looking to get into a police or fire department.
Re: Thank you, that article provides the granularity I was referencing
The majority of government positions that I see are only open to current government employees. I don't look at all government positions, so I don't know if this is a universal trend or just a trend in my field/pay scale. If it's a universal trend, then you are right, the government isn't really adding to their ranks too much.
Re: Thank you, that article provides the granularity I was referencing
But in many agencies, a vacancy will be announced first for current employees of that agency only, then if nobody applies or is found to be qualified it's next opened only to people already in the government, and the general public last. Not every agency does it, but you have to search for the ones that don't.
When a position is open to people not already in government, either a separate announcement is posted or it will say in the "Who May Apply" list that it's open to all U.S. citizens.
But in many agencies, a vacancy will be announced first for current employees of that agency only, then if nobody applies or is found to be qualified it's next opened only to people already in the government, and the general public last. Not every agency does it, but you have to search for the ones that don't.
Re: Thank you, that article provides the granularity I was referencing
I was a contractor, then was government civilian. Then when I needed to move back to WV (Mother started dialysis and needed transplant) I couldn't find a government position quickly enough and jumped back to being a contractor. I've been wanting to get back into another government civilian position, but many I've seen recently have only been for current government employees.
Granted, my sample set is relatively small. Same general geographical area, specific position types and pay scales, etc.
There have been some positions I've seen recently that were only open to people already in government from the very beginning and were never opened to all US Citizens.
I was a contractor, then was government civilian. Then when I needed to move back to WV (Mother started dialysis and needed transplant) I couldn't find a government position quickly enough and jumped back to being a contractor. I've been wanting to get back into another government civilian position, but many I've seen recently have only been for current government employees.
Granted, my sample set is relatively small. Same general geographical area, specific position types and pay scales, etc.
Re: Thank you, that article provides the granularity I was referencing
You're right, many never get beyond that stage, at least not in my job series and grade. When I came into the Civil Service 16 years ago from being a contractor, one of my colleagues said that there should be a plaque put up to me someplace because it had been so long since anyone from outside the government had been hired here.
Re: Thank you, that article provides the granularity I was referencing
I dont know what recent bls reports have shown but at one point half of all new jobs were govt. jobs. We had a thread about it. I just wonder if those jobs dont avoid younger hires or younger people avoid those jobs.
I dont know what recent bls reports have shown but at one point half of all new jobs were govt. jobs. We had a thread about it. I just wonder if those jobs dont avoid younger hires or younger people avoid those jobs.
Re: Thank you, that article provides the granularity I was referencing
Maybe a little of both. Government jobs don't pay all that well until you get well up in seniority and grade, plus as I said, young people tend to not think of government service when considering careers. As for those jobs avoiding younger hires, 18 is the minimum age for the Federal government, but most police and fire departments require applicants to be 21, which leaves out pretty much everyone of college age.
Re: Thank you, that article provides the granularity I was referencing
I also don't think a lot of young people attach the proper valuation to the total benefits package, outside of salary, or the job security for government employees.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I also don't think a lot of young people attach the proper valuation to the total benefits package, outside of salary, or the job security for government employees.
Posted from Rivals Mobile