[where I want to]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-are-people-leaving-the-workforce/

Finally the university/think tanks whiz bangs have noticed the shrinking labor force and have recognized its problems for the economy.

And while they're still confused as to why this is happening, it is really pretty simple. People have found out, with increased welfare from food stamps to obamacare subsidies, they can continue life just as well with half the trouble as- gasp- working. Especially with illegal immigration being willing to take up the more unpleasant jobs, so far society is only slowing accomodating itself to the lower living standard.

The problem in the end is that more people on welfare means less taxes and the wage suppression due to a flood of immigrants combined with less native born workers means that it takes increasing taxes from the fewer and fewer workers to keep the whole system limping along. But that increase in taxes means that those workers find it more and more appealing to join the non-workers too.

A downward spiral.

 

[MoonRiver]

Millions of baby boomers started retirement earlier than planned. Some resorted to lax enforcement of disability requirements and used disability as a bridge until they reached Social Security retirement age.

It's not just that these people left the workforce, but that a large number of them are receiving government payments. So the government and social security receive less income and ss taxes and pay out more money.

 

[where I want to]

Millions of baby boomers started retirement earlier than planned. Some resorted to lax enforcement of disability requirements and used disability as a bridge until they reached Social Security retirement age.

It's not just that these people left the workforce, but that a large number of them are receiving government payments. So the government and social security receive less income and ss taxes and pay out more money.

Yes the article pointed out that about half of the decrease is due to retirement- in one form or the other. But the other half of the decline "has experts puzzled." This is an ever increasing percentage of the population that "worries them.

Social Security should have been ok as the reforms done in the early 1980s increased the savings into the trust fund with the knowledge that it would be needed for the baby boomers. But that was of course not what the government did with that money burning a hole in their collective pockets.

 

[Nevada]

What did you think a deep recession would be like?

 

[MO_cows]

Could their be a silver lining? Might help with wage stagnation, employers have to offer more to fill their positions.

And, could it be that couples are trending back to one wage earner? I have wondered for a long time if having both mom and dad in the workforce really paid off. There is a lot of extra expense from childcare, eating out, transportation, clothing, etc. when both mom and dad with younger children are working.

 

[Sawmill Jim]

Also in places only one in 16 can pass a drug test :facepalm:

 

[kycountry]

Millions of baby boomers started retirement earlier than planned. Some resorted to lax enforcement of disability requirements and used disability as a bridge until they reached Social Security retirement age.

It's not just that these people left the workforce, but that a large number of them are receiving government payments. So the government and social security receive less income and ss taxes and pay out more money.

I can't say what's going on elsewhere, but here people are being ran into the ground just trying to survive. Most of the industrial jobs have been relocated over seas leaving the work force to work at minimum wage jobs doing hard manual labor 50+ hours a week.

Now couple that with the high stress and the unavailability of funds for proper healthcare and you too would see a decline of available healthy people to continue in the work force.

Then when you see the youngest generations to reach working age standing in line at the local food stamp office... many of use do indeed throw our hands up in the air and say I QUIT. I quit believing in a system that was meant to protect us in our aging years, but in fact, is teaching the younger generation to walk to the mail box for their pay. When doing so has caused our own government to raise the age limit of when I can start receiving my benefits it I HAVE WORKED MY ENTIRE LIFE to be entitled to..

So, YES, I QUIT feeding the mouth that has bitten me more than once!

 

[MoonRiver]

Could their be a silver lining? Might help with wage stagnation, employers have to offer more to fill their positions.

I doubt it. If jobs are available, many people who retired early or just dropped out will get back in again.

 

[BlackFeather]

Part of the decline in job participation rate is once you exhaust your unemployment insurance, and still can't find a job you are no longer counted as unemployed. It is a government accounting trick to make people think the economy is better than it really is. There are people who want to work but can't find a decent job. Yes all the welfare/ food stamp benefits may contribute, but when you can only get a minimum wage job and you have to pay gas/ child care ect.. to hold the job, you end up taking home so little that the "dole line" looks better (ok "dole line" is British but it applies here) In the end it is the whole free trade agreements instead of tariffs (that protect your workers and your economy by keeping slave labor from competing with a decent paid work force) that's the problem.

 

[where I want to]

What did you think a deep recession would be like?

According to you, we are in a recovery. And have been. Obama agrees with you.

 

[where I want to]

Could their be a silver lining? Might help with wage stagnation, employers have to offer more to fill their positions.

And, could it be that couples are trending back to one wage earner? I have wondered for a long time if having both mom and dad in the workforce really paid off. There is a lot of extra expense from childcare, eating out, transportation, clothing, etc. when both mom and dad with younger children are working.

I agree but unfortunately a sahm does not pay taxes and all levels of government have become very cozy with the idea of ever more taxes and spending.
A whole lot of people not in direct government services also rely on taxes for support.

If wages had increased, there the hope for 1 income middle class life would be nice but wages haven't gone up even before the recession- a decade or two before. I think immigration, especially the illegal kind plus the ability to export jobs is the reason.

 

[Trainwrek]

The whole article is a joke. They are confused about why the numbers say one thing, and the reality points to something else. The reason is that the numbers are phony, they are part of the spin campaign designed to help create the impression of a recovery that doesn't exist. So sure it's confusing when you have the government posting numbers and interpretations that point to upside recovery, but all the realities don't match.

Let's take the very opening statement from the article:

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?

Hard to tell if the author is really that ignorant as to how these numbers are calculated or if he is willfully misrepresenting the reality. Unemployment numbers only count people who are currently collecting unemployment benefits. When enough time passes and your unemployment runs out you don't get counted as unemployed anymore. That doesn't mean you got a job!

So the media spin is the unemployment rates have dropped and we are supposed to interpret that as people are getting jobs. Yet the labor participation rate is dropping and they don't understand why.

The author then goes on to tell us that we gained almost 250k jobs this month. But again they fail to consider how these numbers are calculated or what they really mean. More part time jobs to take the place of full time jobs is not an improvement in the economy. The simple "jobs" numbers make no distinction between full time, part time, low wage, minimum wage, or high wage. When we look a little deeper we find that MOST of the new jobs are part time minimum wage jobs, the true reality of the economy becomes clearer.

The author, and many in the media, government, and even many economists are confused, scratching their heads because their numbers and the media spin aren't matching what we see in the real economy.

 

[Nevada]

According to you, we are in a recovery. And have been. Obama agrees with you.

I never said we are in a recovery. On the contrary, I've been warning of 4 to 5 more years of recession. Where did you get the idea that I thought we were in a recovery?

 

[Evons hubby]

I never said we are in a recovery. On the contrary, I've been warning of 4 to 5 more years of recession. -Where did you get the idea that I thought we were in a recovery?

Just a guess here.... reading your posts in many other threads where you seem to think we are well into the recovery stage? :shrug:

 

[where I want to]

Hard to tell if the author is really that ignorant as to how these numbers are calculated or if he is willfully misrepresenting the reality. Unemployment numbers only count people who are currently collecting unemployment benefits. When enough time passes and your unemployment runs out you don't get counted as unemployed anymore. That doesn't mean you got a job!

So the media spin is the unemployment rates have dropped and we are supposed to interpret that as people are getting jobs. Yet the labor participation rate is dropping and they don't understand why.


The author then goes on to tell us that we gained almost 250k jobs this month. But again they fail to consider how these numbers are calculated or what they really mean. More part time jobs to take the place of full time jobs is not an improvement in the economy. The simple "jobs" numbers make no distinction between full time, part time, low wage, minimum wage, or high wage. When we look a little deeper we find that MOST of the new jobs are part time minimum wage jobs, the true reality of the economy becomes clearer.

The author, and many in the media, government, and even many economists are confused, scratching their heads because their numbers and the media spin aren't matching what we see in the real economy.

But it is progress, if you see a relationship between the economist's thinking and its effect on government policy, that they even mentioned the still dropping percentage figures. Or maybe it's just reporters are now noticing. Either way, it's different to see the issue not simply ignored.

 

[where I want to]

I never said we are in a recovery. On the contrary, I've been warning of 4 to 5 more years of recession. Where did you get the idea that I thought we were in a recovery?

"Of course the president can create jobs. That's what public works programs are all about.-Obama-spends money on a project, even a project you believe is nonsense, someone gets a job. It's called demand-side economics. Why not give it a chance?- Nevada 2012"

The point of the article was the lack of upward trend in the percentage. In every previous recession, there has been a sharp decline in employment followed by a sharp increase, leading to a recovery. That is what I thought a recession looked like. If I thought about how it looked at all.

But this is different. There has been a continuous downward in this stat trend for 15 years. It was exacerbated by the recession but not caused by it- it existed prior to the recession.

My fear is that if the causes of this are not addressed, the every recession will lead to a recovery that rises only to a lower level than previous to the recession.
And that means less opportunity for most, who will only see they continuously have less than the previous generation. And that leads to instablity - even more than normal in life. If not worse.

 

[Evons hubby]

Our socialist leaders want a smaller workforce, and less economic opportunities. Nafta did not happen by accident! The more people they can make dependent upon the government the better they like it. When the masses have no other way to feed themselves they are perfectly willing to vote for the same socialists that created their misery. FDR figured this out nearly ninety years ago.

 

[Trainwrek]

But it is progress, if you see a relationship between the economist's thinking and its effect on government policy, that they even mentioned the still dropping percentage figures. Or maybe it's just reporters are now noticing. Either way, it's different to see the issue not simply ignored.

True, at least they are talking about it but its spun as though its such a mystery nobody can figure this thing out.

It reminds me of back in '07 the reports were that people's confidence in the economy was low, yet all their numbers and models showed that the economy was strong. They were wondering why there was a "disconnect" between what people thought about the economy and what all the data showed.

Of course, the people could feel that the economy was turning, they saw their jobs disappearing and prices rising while wages stayed stagnant. These things are a mystery to people who are only looking at the data and listening to the government upside spin. They're always taken by surprise when things turn south or confused about why the reality doesn't match the numbers. They've got their heads buried in statistics and they only see the statistics that they want.

 

[Jolly]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-are-people-leaving-the-workforce/

Finally the university/think tanks whiz bangs have noticed the shrinking labor force and have recognized its problems for the economy.

And while they're still confused as to why this is happening, it is really pretty simple. People have found out, with increased welfare from food stamps to obamacare subsidies, they can continue life just as well with half the trouble as- gasp- working. Especially with illegal immigration being willing to take up the more unpleasant jobs, so far society is only slowing accomodating itself to the lower living standard.

The problem in the end is that more people on welfare means less taxes and the wage suppression due to a flood of immigrants combined with less native born workers means that it takes increasing taxes from the fewer and fewer workers to keep the whole system limping along. But that increase in taxes means that those workers find it more and more appealing to join the non-workers too.

A downward spiral.

I see another facet to this argument.

I see jobs out there, and no qualified people to fill them.

Companies now seem to want employees ready to go from Day 1. They don't want to invest in training programs and promotion from within the ranks. By doing so, I think they are cutting their own throats.

In WWII, we turned out some pretty decent welders, riveters and even machinists through intensive company training. It might not be the same mix of jobs, but we can still do the same today.

 

[poppy]

The whole article is a joke. They are confused about why the numbers say one thing, and the reality points to something else. The reason is that the numbers are phony, they are part of the spin campaign designed to help create the impression of a recovery that doesn't exist. So sure it's confusing when you have the government posting numbers and interpretations that point to upside recovery, but all the realities don't match.

Let's take the very opening statement from the article:



Hard to tell if the author is really that ignorant as to how these numbers are calculated or if he is willfully misrepresenting the reality. Unemployment numbers only count people who are currently collecting unemployment benefits. When enough time passes and your unemployment runs out you don't get counted as unemployed anymore. That doesn't mean you got a job!

So the media spin is the unemployment rates have dropped and we are supposed to interpret that as people are getting jobs. Yet the labor participation rate is dropping and they don't understand why.

The author then goes on to tell us that we gained almost 250k jobs this month. But again they fail to consider how these numbers are calculated or what they really mean. More part time jobs to take the place of full time jobs is not an improvement in the economy. The simple "jobs" numbers make no distinction between full time, part time, low wage, minimum wage, or high wage. When we look a little deeper we find that MOST of the new jobs are part time minimum wage jobs, the true reality of the economy becomes clearer.

The author, and many in the media, government, and even many economists are confused, scratching their heads because their numbers and the media spin aren't matching what we see in the real economy.

About 80% of the jobs created last month were minimum wage or low wage jobs, or part time. A married woman working for that has nothing left after working expense and child care. She's just as well off staying home. I'd wager most of those low paying, part time jobs were taken by people already working those kinds of jobs and wanting more income and very few unemployed took those jobs. It's easier to be on the dole and the hours are excellent.