Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

    Well, the other thread on GDP has run it's course. Thought I might start a new, related thread here on one of the key arguments, that the workforce participation rate is all Bush's fault. Now, I am no defender of Bush, as he folded like a deck chair with TARP, but the idea that the decline in the workforce participation rate is due to his policies has been found to be bogus. Read this:


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/


    Best parts, for the google-challenged:


    "Importantly, the decline has nothing to do with “retiring baby boomers.” That trend line has been flat since President Obama took office. "


    "But what the graph shows is more important than the start and end points, because it depicts a relatively flat Labor Force Participation Rate from late 2003 through late 2008, at least when compared to the accelerated rate of decline in the rate from the middle of 2009 until the present.  "


     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well, the other thread on GDP has run it's course. Thought I might start a new, related thread here on one of the key arguments, that the workforce participation rate is all Bush's fault. Now, I am no defender of Bush, as he folded like a deck chair with TARP, but the idea that the decline in the workforce participation rate is due to his policies has been found to be bogus. Read this:

     

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/

     

    Best parts, for the google-challenged:

     

    "Importantly, the decline has nothing to do with “retiring baby boomers.” That trend line has been flat since President Obama took office. "

     

    "But what the graph shows is more important than the start and end points, because it depicts a relatively flat Labor Force Participation Rate from late 2003 through late 2008, at least when compared to the accelerated rate of decline in the rate from the middle of 2009 until the present.  "

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The 55 and over trend has been flat since 2007 (article was written in 2011).  That's not the same as baby boomers retiring - in fact, it supports the idea that baby boomers retiring is the number one factor.  Baby boomers were entering that 55+ demographic for the first time in the late 90s.  So if it flat-lined a decade later, and the younger baby boomers are still entering that demographic, then they must be offset by the older boomers retiring.  

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well, the other thread on GDP has run it's course. Thought I might start a new, related thread here on one of the key arguments, that the workforce participation rate is all Bush's fault. Now, I am no defender of Bush, as he folded like a deck chair with TARP, but the idea that the decline in the workforce participation rate is due to his policies has been found to be bogus. Read this:

     

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/

     

    Best parts, for the google-challenged:

     

    "Importantly, the decline has nothing to do with “retiring baby boomers.” That trend line has been flat since President Obama took office. "

     

    "But what the graph shows is more important than the start and end points, because it depicts a relatively flat Labor Force Participation Rate from late 2003 through late 2008, at least when compared to the accelerated rate of decline in the rate from the middle of 2009 until the present.  "

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The 55 and over trend has been flat since 2007 (article was written in 2011).  That's not the same as baby boomers retiring - in fact, it supports the idea that baby boomers retiring is the number one factor.  Baby boomers were entering that 55+ demographic for the first time in the late 90s.  So if it flat-lined a decade later, and the younger baby boomers are still entering that demographic, then they must be offset by the older boomers retiring.  

    [/QUOTE]

    How does that inform the decline in workforce participation rate under Obama? The workforce is growing, is it not?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

    Congratulations ... you've found the needle in the haystack ... the one statistic which has been in decline for close to 15 yrs ... the one statistic out of dozens of measures for the employment situation that has not turned around since Obama took office.


    Once again you've proven that ideology drives your cynicism and that you rely on misplaced emotions and conveniently ignore every other positive employment metric ... metrics that ya'll previously used when measuring past economic conditions.


    So give yourself a gold star ... bullheadeness like that is truly amazing.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well, the other thread on GDP has run it's course. Thought I might start a new, related thread here on one of the key arguments, that the workforce participation rate is all Bush's fault. Now, I am no defender of Bush, as he folded like a deck chair with TARP, but the idea that the decline in the workforce participation rate is due to his policies has been found to be bogus. Read this:

     

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/

     

    Best parts, for the google-challenged:

     

    "Importantly, the decline has nothing to do with “retiring baby boomers.” That trend line has been flat since President Obama took office. "

     

    "But what the graph shows is more important than the start and end points, because it depicts a relatively flat Labor Force Participation Rate from late 2003 through late 2008, at least when compared to the accelerated rate of decline in the rate from the middle of 2009 until the present.  "

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The 55 and over trend has been flat since 2007 (article was written in 2011).  That's not the same as baby boomers retiring - in fact, it supports the idea that baby boomers retiring is the number one factor.  Baby boomers were entering that 55+ demographic for the first time in the late 90s.  So if it flat-lined a decade later, and the younger baby boomers are still entering that demographic, then they must be offset by the older boomers retiring.  

    [/QUOTE]

    How does that inform the decline in workforce participation rate under Obama? The workforce is growing, is it not?

    [/QUOTE]

    The workforce is growing now, but remember that employment catastrophe Obama started about a year before he took office?  When all is said and done the workforce is about the same size as it was seven years ago, when the first of the baby boomers were reaching their 60s.  Even then, workforce participation had been declining for about four years.

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

    Must be organized labor's fault .

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

     

    we can go thru all the battles over the coz of the Great Recession, the seeds were born under Clinton, Reno como etc. We then had Barney Frank protecting Fannie and Freddie with his boy friend, Jamie gorlick and that other fraud making millions. and btw O had his hand in it too when he came to DC to lobby for lax loan regs. He did it with protzker of Hyatt wealth and is now part of his admin

    w realized it was bad but he never made a point of it in his state of the unions. Another dumb move, and a reason I detest Rove

     tarp wasn't a bad idea, just how they did it. I have a bro who was president of a brand name company who was very profitable and cash positive. But they had to go every nite to roll over their current short term debt, believe me we neeeded Tarp for that. And half was left over from Bush to O

     

    No president was going to have it easy, the rock finally came to the end in the gully, What is sad is that the Os stimulus plan, Ocare and now thousands of regulations from  Ocare, Dodd frank and the EPA are killing us.

    add to it a horrible tax structure not geared for growth and the economy is still on life support, thanks to the FED, no one knows if what they did will work, but they rolled the dice and it has kept us in front of land slide. The jury is still out, but I am hoping

     

    my 55plus friends cannot find a job, make that 50plus, and are taking early SSS, except for engineer types it is bleak.

    Millenials are the next road sign bomb, they are way underemployed. They have huge college debt and that will be a slow cancer thru our economy for years, starting with a weakened housing market

    So it isn't just the low participation rate , it's also the number of part time jobs.

    We need an optimization of the tax code(O acknowledged that lore cap gains meant more rev to the treasury, but he turns it down coz it's not fair)"but it is also about capital not returning to the USA.We need to unleash our Energy resources, and stop this regulation madness, I mean the Feds even now control kids bake sales. 

    a proper tax and reg system will increase ,

    more peoples wealth and provide more dollars and possibilities for the indigent. Welfare last

    But we are caught in class welfare wars instead

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well, the other thread on GDP has run it's course. Thought I might start a new, related thread here on one of the key arguments, that the workforce participation rate is all Bush's fault. Now, I am no defender of Bush, as he folded like a deck chair with TARP, but the idea that the decline in the workforce participation rate is due to his policies has been found to be bogus. Read this:

     

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/

     

    Best parts, for the google-challenged:

     

    "Importantly, the decline has nothing to do with “retiring baby boomers.” That trend line has been flat since President Obama took office. "

     

    "But what the graph shows is more important than the start and end points, because it depicts a relatively flat Labor Force Participation Rate from late 2003 through late 2008, at least when compared to the accelerated rate of decline in the rate from the middle of 2009 until the present.  "

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The 55 and over trend has been flat since 2007 (article was written in 2011).  That's not the same as baby boomers retiring - in fact, it supports the idea that baby boomers retiring is the number one factor.  Baby boomers were entering that 55+ demographic for the first time in the late 90s.  So if it flat-lined a decade later, and the younger baby boomers are still entering that demographic, then they must be offset by the older boomers retiring.  

    [/QUOTE]

    How does that inform the decline in workforce participation rate under Obama? The workforce is growing, is it not?

    [/QUOTE]

    The workforce is growing now, but remember that employment catastrophe Obama started about a year before he took office?  When all is said and done the workforce is about the same size as it was seven years ago, when the first of the baby boomers were reaching their 60s.  Even then, workforce participation had been declining for about four years.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, no.  There are something like 11 million fewer people working, and the population growing. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Must be organized labor's fault .

    [/QUOTE]
     

    You must be desperate to steer blame from Obama to throw in that chestnut.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

    In response to slomag's comment:


    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Well, the other thread on GDP has run it's course. Thought I might start a new, related thread here on one of the key arguments, that the workforce participation rate is all Bush's fault. Now, I am no defender of Bush, as he folded like a deck chair with TARP, but the idea that the decline in the workforce participation rate is due to his policies has been found to be bogus. Read this:


     


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/


     


    Best parts, for the google-challenged:


     


    "Importantly, the decline has nothing to do with “retiring baby boomers.” That trend line has been flat since President Obama took office. "


     


    "But what the graph shows is more important than the start and end points, because it depicts a relatively flat Labor Force Participation Rate from late 2003 through late 2008, at least when compared to the accelerated rate of decline in the rate from the middle of 2009 until the present.  "


     


     




    The 55 and over trend has been flat since 2007 (article was written in 2011).  That's not the same as baby boomers retiring - in fact, it supports the idea that baby boomers retiring is the number one factor.  Baby boomers were entering that 55+ demographic for the first time in the late 90s.  So if it flat-lined a decade later, and the younger baby boomers are still entering that demographic, then they must be offset by the older boomers retiring.  


    [/QUOTE]

    How does that inform the decline in workforce participation rate under Obama? The workforce is growing, is it not?


    [/QUOTE]

    The workforce is growing now, but remember that employment catastrophe Obama started about a year before he took office?  When all is said and done the workforce is about the same size as it was seven years ago, when the first of the baby boomers were reaching their 60s.  Even then, workforce participation had been declining for about four years.


     


     


    [/QUOTE]

    You ever notice how progressives are completely unable to discuss this without inserting and blaming Bush?


    it's six years later dude.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

    ron...eeter and you don't think the Romney's of this country way of running a company by outsourcing jobs to other countries (to maximize profits) that were once Americans jobs and both parties not working together in DC to come up with a Jobs Bill has anything to do with the decline of America's workforce participation ?


     


     And from the bottom of my heart ... Enjoy your "Made in America" day .


     


    Semper Fi !

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    ron...eeter and you don't think the Romney's of this country way of running a company by outsourcing jobs to other countries (to maximize profits) that were once Americans jobs and both parties not working together in DC to come up with a Jobs Bill has anything to do with the decline of America's workforce participation ?

     

     

     

     And from the bottom of my heart ... Enjoy your "Made in America" day .

     

     

     

    Semper Fi !

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, no. The sad truth is that the leftist democrats and the not quite as left republicans are both trying to undermine the average worker. Here's something to consider.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101890969" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnbc.com/id/101890969#.

    Key for the linked challenged:

    The total number of working-age (16 to 65) immigrants (legal and illegal) holding a job in Tennessee increased by 94,000 from the first quarter of 2000 to the first quarter of 2014, while the number of working-age native-born Americans with a job declined 47,000 over the same time.
    The fact that all the long-term net gain in employment among the working-age went to immigrants is striking because the native-born accounted for 60 percent of the increase in the total size of the state's working-age population.
    In the first quarter of this year, only 66 percent of working-age natives in the state held a job. As recently as 2000, 72 percent of working-age natives in Tennessee were working.
    Because the native-born population in Tennessee grew significantly, but the percentage working fell, there were nearly 300,000 more working-age natives not working in the first quarter of 2014 than in 2000.
    There exists a very large supply of potential workers in Tennessee; in the first quarter of 2014, 1.3 million working-age natives were not working (unemployed or entirely out of the labor market) as were 90,000 working-age immigrants.
    While the share of working-age natives holding a job has improved in Tennessee somewhat since the jobs recovery began in 2010, the share working showed no improvement in the last year.
    Relative to other states, Tennessee ranked 30th in the nation in terms of the share of working-age natives holding a job in the first quarter of 2014.
    In terms of the labor-force participation rate (share working or looking for work) among working-age natives, the state ranked 35th in the nation.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:

     


    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Well, the other thread on GDP has run it's course. Thought I might start a new, related thread here on one of the key arguments, that the workforce participation rate is all Bush's fault. Now, I am no defender of Bush, as he folded like a deck chair with TARP, but the idea that the decline in the workforce participation rate is due to his policies has been found to be bogus. Read this:


     


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/


     


    Best parts, for the google-challenged:


     


    "Importantly, the decline has nothing to do with “retiring baby boomers.” That trend line has been flat since President Obama took office. "


     


    "But what the graph shows is more important than the start and end points, because it depicts a relatively flat Labor Force Participation Rate from late 2003 through late 2008, at least when compared to the accelerated rate of decline in the rate from the middle of 2009 until the present.  "


     


     


     



    The 55 and over trend has been flat since 2007 (article was written in 2011).  That's not the same as baby boomers retiring - in fact, it supports the idea that baby boomers retiring is the number one factor.  Baby boomers were entering that 55+ demographic for the first time in the late 90s.  So if it flat-lined a decade later, and the younger baby boomers are still entering that demographic, then they must be offset by the older boomers retiring.  

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    How does that inform the decline in workforce participation rate under Obama? The workforce is growing, is it not?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The workforce is growing now, but remember that employment catastrophe Obama started about a year before he took office?  When all is said and done the workforce is about the same size as it was seven years ago, when the first of the baby boomers were reaching their 60s.  Even then, workforce participation had been declining for about four years.

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You ever notice how progressives are completely unable to discuss this without inserting and blaming Bush?

     

    it's six years later dude.

    [/QUOTE]


    yeah and Bush inHeritied Fannie and Freddie, a Stock Bubble collapse, the fnanie & freddie pacman and 9/11

    And all that means squat to all of us now

     

    The question is what policies will do the most good?

    In the end it is all about Wealth Creation and there is no way to Central plan to get there-

    No matter how smart someone thinks they are.

     

    Jobs programs sound good but they are just hallucinations - They have never worked going back to lbj's Great Society with CETA. In the end it is cheaper just to give !oooS of dollars away. Instead its a jobs program for the Gov to get bigger.

    We need good Tax policy - not no taxes, We need good Regulations - not no regulations. We need policies that attract Captial to the Usa not drive it away. WE need Welfare last, not first. WE need to stop spending at 25% of GDP. We need to understand that the highest level of Tax Revenue is limitted to a tthe very best 18-20% o GDP

    There are always going to be the rich , always, but the gov cannot decide who it is and how much is enuf- Partially because no matter what it all ends up in the Politicians pockets - The left isnt agaisnt big business it is for coopting big business and putting it under their thumb, and then the people under their thumb. With the end game

    Power Corrupts and Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely

    Detroit is Example # 1

     

    Dealing with Progressives is like Isreal dealing with Hamas

    They choose to be ignorant, they choose to be stupid, they choose to be righteous  and they choose to be condescending.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

    In response to high-road's comment:


    Congratulations ... you've found the needle in the haystack ... the one statistic which has been in decline for close to 15 yrs ... the one statistic out of dozens of measures for the employment situation that has not turned around since Obama took office.


     


    ... bullheadeness like that is truly amazing.





    yes, someone is bullheaded, alright. The recession ended in 2009, yet the pathetic anemic recovery and bad economy have persisted throughout Obama's tenure. Worst recovery from a recession since WW2.


    WSJ:


    In a recent interview with the Economist, President Barack Obama made the following statement: “I think you’d have to say that we’ve managed the economy pretty well and business has done okay.” He said: “Since I have come into office, there’s almost no economic metric by which you couldn’t say that the U.S. economy is better and that corporate bottom lines are better. None.”


    Wrong. Since Mr. Obama took office, the median family income rate has continued to decline, according to Census Bureau data through 2012.


    Another measure that does not point to an improving economy is enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps. Even though the recession officially ended in mid-2009, the number of people collecting food stamps continued to climb until recent months, and participation in the program remains far higher than any other point over the past 30 years. Close to 50 million !


     The poverty rate has climbed since Mr. Obama took office. Through 2012, the most recent year available, the number of people in poverty had risen by 2.9 million.Studying presidents by their job creation record, also places Mr. Obama near the bottom of the pack. Since the presidency of Harry Truman, only three presidents have seen the level of employment grow by a smaller percent than Mr. Obama: the brief presidency of Gerald Ford, the one-term presidency of George H.W. Bush, and that of his son, George W. Bush which ended in the recession.


    As we know, the unemployment rate as calculated is a fraud; the true chart that should be displayed is the number of FULLTIME jobs created, which would show Obama in a dismal position since this administration is the king of part-time jobs. Obama is not good for the economy. Period.


    The total federal debt of the U.S. government has now increased more than $7 trillion during the slightly more than five and a half years Barack Obama has been president.That is more than the debt increased under all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton combined, and it is more debt than was accumulated in the first 227 years of this nation's existence--from 1776 through 2003.....


    The claims of the deficit being 'cut" and spending under control are nohing but spin.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">//]



    yeah and Bush inHeritied Fannie and Freddie, a Stock Bubble collapse, the fnanie & freddie pacman and 9/11

    And all that means squat to all of us now

     

    The question is what policies will do the most good?

    In the end it is all about Wealth Creation and there is no way to Central plan to get there-

    No matter how smart someone thinks they are.

     

    Jobs programs sound good but they are just hallucinations - They have never worked going back to lbj's Great Society with CETA. In the end it is cheaper just to give !oooS of dollars away. Instead its a jobs program for the Gov to get bigger.

    We need good Tax policy - not no taxes, We need good Regulations - not no regulations. We need policies that attract Captial to the Usa not drive it away. WE need Welfare last, not first. WE need to stop spending at 25% of GDP. We need to understand that the highest level of Tax Revenue is limitted to a tthe very best 18-20% o GDP

    There are always going to be the rich , always, but the gov cannot decide who it is and how much is enuf- Partially because no matter what it all ends up in the Politicians pockets - The left isnt agaisnt big business it is for coopting big business and putting it under their thumb, and then the people under their thumb. With the end game

    Power Corrupts and Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely

    Detroit is Example # 1

     

    Dealing with Progressives is like Isreal dealing with Hamas

    They choose to be ignorant, they choose to be stupid, they choose to be righteous  and they choose to be condescending.

    [/QUOTE]

    I guess you could say they are pro-choice.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to high-road's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Congratulations ... you've found the needle in the haystack ... the one statistic which has been in decline for close to 15 yrs ... the one statistic out of dozens of measures for the employment situation that has not turned around since Obama took office.

     

     

     

    ... bullheadeness like that is truly amazing.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    yes, someone is bullheaded, alright. The recession ended in 2009, yet the pathetic anemic recovery and bad economy have persisted throughout Obama's tenure. Worst recovery from a recession since WW2.

     

     

    WSJ:

     

    In a recent interview with the Economist, President Barack Obama made the following statement: “I think you’d have to say that we’ve managed the economy pretty well and business has done okay.” He said: “Since I have come into office, there’s almost no economic metric by which you couldn’t say that the U.S. economy is better and that corporate bottom lines are better. None.”

     

    Wrong. Since Mr. Obama took office, the median family income rate has continued to decline, according to Census Bureau data through 2012.

     

    Another measure that does not point to an improving economy is enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps. Even though the recession officially ended in mid-2009, the number of people collecting food stamps continued to climb until recent months, and participation in the program remains far higher than any other point over the past 30 years. Close to 50 million !

     

     The poverty rate has climbed since Mr. Obama took office. Through 2012, the most recent year available, the number of people in poverty had risen by 2.9 million.Studying presidents by their job creation record, also places Mr. Obama near the bottom of the pack. Since the presidency of Harry Truman, only three presidents have seen the level of employment grow by a smaller percent than Mr. Obama: the brief presidency of Gerald Ford, the one-term presidency of George H.W. Bush, and that of his son, George W. Bush which ended in the recession.

     

    As we know, the unemployment rate as calculated is a fraud; the true chart that should be displayed is the number of FULLTIME jobs created, which would show Obama in a dismal position since this administration is the king of part-time jobs. Obama is not good for the economy. Period.

     

    The total federal debt of the U.S. government has now increased more than $7 trillion during the slightly more than five and a half years Barack Obama has been president.That is more than the debt increased under all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton combined, and it is more debt than was accumulated in the first 227 years of this nation's existence--from 1776 through 2003.....

     

    The claims of the deficit being 'cut" and spending under control are nohing but spin.

    [/QUOTE]

    He was talking to his base, the progressive elite. They are doing well in the Obama economy.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well, the other thread on GDP has run it's course. Thought I might start a new, related thread here on one of the key arguments, that the workforce participation rate is all Bush's fault. Now, I am no defender of Bush, as he folded like a deck chair with TARP, but the idea that the decline in the workforce participation rate is due to his policies has been found to be bogus. Read this:

     

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/

     

    Best parts, for the google-challenged:

     

    "Importantly, the decline has nothing to do with “retiring baby boomers.” That trend line has been flat since President Obama took office. "

     

    "But what the graph shows is more important than the start and end points, because it depicts a relatively flat Labor Force Participation Rate from late 2003 through late 2008, at least when compared to the accelerated rate of decline in the rate from the middle of 2009 until the present.  "

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The 55 and over trend has been flat since 2007 (article was written in 2011).  That's not the same as baby boomers retiring - in fact, it supports the idea that baby boomers retiring is the number one factor.  Baby boomers were entering that 55+ demographic for the first time in the late 90s.  So if it flat-lined a decade later, and the younger baby boomers are still entering that demographic, then they must be offset by the older boomers retiring.  

    [/QUOTE]

    How does that inform the decline in workforce participation rate under Obama? The workforce is growing, is it not?

    [/QUOTE]

    The workforce is growing now, but remember that employment catastrophe Obama started about a year before he took office?  When all is said and done the workforce is about the same size as it was seven years ago, when the first of the baby boomers were reaching their 60s.  Even then, workforce participation had been declining for about four years.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, no.  There are something like 11 million fewer people working, and the population growing. 

    [/QUOTE]

    There aren't 11 million fewer people working - there are 11 million more people not working.  The total number of jobs is equivalent to 2007 levels.  So the only question is are they not working by choice, and I think the answer is mostly yes, as the U-6 number continues to decline.

    This has the potential for a good discussion.  I don't put much blame on Bush for the economy of the 2000s.  The internet bubble had popped and the world was becoming very small very quickly.  But we can't discuss anything if you continue to pretend the world started in January 2009.  The workforce participation rate began to decline in 2004.  I'm not blaming Bush - just the opposite - I'm suggesting no matter how good or bad the economy is, the workforce participation rate will continue to fall for the next 10 - 15 years.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    ron...eeter and you don't think the Romney's of this country way of running a company by outsourcing jobs to other countries (to maximize profits) that were once Americans jobs and both parties not working together in DC to come up with a Jobs Bill has anything to do with the decline of America's workforce participation ?

     

     

     

     And from the bottom of my heart ... Enjoy your "Made in America" day .

     

     

     

    Semper Fi !

    [/QUOTE]


    Say semper fi to Obama's commerce Secretary!

    To protect her family's multibillion-dollar fortune, Penny Pritzker's enterprises park their money in the very same kind of offshore trusts Obama attacked GOP rival Mitt Romney over. But Obama lapped up nearly $800 million in campaign and inaugural funding raised by Pritzker. A former Pritzker tax lawyer pioneered tax-avoidance strategies for the family, which allowed them to pay $9 million in taxes instead of $150 million in estate taxes after patriarch A.N. Pritzker died. As Forbes notes: "There are now 11 Pritzkers on the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans." Nice lawyering if you can get it.

    Exempted from Obama's poisonous class-warfare demagoguery, Pritzker also chaired Chicago's failed Olympic Village Subcommittee while serving as president of Pritzker Realty Group, a top Illinois mega-developer that would have reaped untold millions in project work if then Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley and the White House had secured the 2016 Olympic bid.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

    Or maybe labor is less rewarding these days.   One would expect that if a given person's talents are less valuable in the labor market then that person would supply less labor.  A predictable result of severing the link between increases in productivity and increases in wages.

    Or maybe public investment in projects is lacking.

    Or maybe advances in technology are rapidly reducing the labor component needed for goods and services.

    Or maybe the stock market and housing gains have been enough to push boomers into retirement.

    Or maybe easier access to healthcare has freed up people to do things they want rather than being permanently tethered to a miserable job that provides it.

     

     

    Naaaaa...Its the all the new free stuff that Obama is giving out by executive order.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:


    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    ron...eeter and you don't think the Romney's of this country way of running a company by outsourcing jobs to other countries (to maximize profits) that were once Americans jobs and both parties not working together in DC to come up with a Jobs Bill has anything to do with the decline of America's workforce participation ?


     


     


     


     And from the bottom of my heart ... Enjoy your "Made in America" day .


     


     


     


    Semper Fi !





    Say semper fi to Obama's commerce Secretary!


    To protect her family's multibillion-dollar fortune, Penny Pritzker's enterprises park their money in the very same kind of offshore trusts Obama attacked GOP rival Mitt Romney over. But Obama lapped up nearly $800 million in campaign and inaugural funding raised by Pritzker. A former Pritzker tax lawyer pioneered tax-avoidance strategies for the family, which allowed them to pay $9 million in taxes instead of $150 million in estate taxes after patriarch A.N. Pritzker died. As Forbes notes: "There are now 11 Pritzkers on the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans." Nice lawyering if you can get it.


    Exempted from Obama's poisonous class-warfare demagoguery, Pritzker also chaired Chicago's failed Olympic Village Subcommittee while serving as president of Pritzker Realty Group, a top Illinois mega-developer that would have reaped untold millions in project work if then Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley and the White House had secured the 2016 Olympic bid.


    [/QUOTE]


    The one and the same that flew O and all the chicago dems into


    lobby for the reduction of Credit standards & the Fanny and Freddie mess


    AS i said its is not about anything but POWER


    Pat's Fan lost in Jet Land

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Or maybe labor is less rewarding these days.   One would expect that if a given person's talents are less valuable in the labor market then that person would supply less labor.  A predictable result of severing the link between increases in productivity and increases in wages.

    Or maybe public investment in projects is lacking.

    Or maybe advances in technology are rapidly reducing the labor component needed for goods and services.

    Or maybe the stock market and housing gains have been enough to push boomers into retirement.

    Or maybe easier access to healthcare has freed up people to do things they want rather than being permanently tethered to a miserable job that provides it.

     

     

    Naaaaa...Its the all the new free stuff that Obama is giving out by executive order.

    [/QUOTE]

    Or maybe the futile search for a decent job at a decent wage has crushed their souls.

    http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/05/news/economy/longterm-unemployed-depression/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/05/news/economy/longterm-unemployed-depression/index.html

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Workforce participation rate decline worse under Obama

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Or maybe labor is less rewarding these days.   One would expect that if a given person's talents are less valuable in the labor market then that person would supply less labor.  A predictable result of severing the link between increases in productivity and increases in wages.

    Or maybe public investment in projects is lacking.

    Or maybe advances in technology are rapidly reducing the labor component needed for goods and services.

    Or maybe the stock market and housing gains have been enough to push boomers into retirement.

    Or maybe easier access to healthcare has freed up people to do things they want rather than being permanently tethered to a miserable job that provides it.

     

     

    Naaaaa...Its the all the new free stuff that Obama is giving out by executive order.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, we are only speaking truth to power.  Funny how when it is a democrat in charge, that's all of a sudden impolite.

     

Share