Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Baldy wrote: Participation rate fell to 62.4% from 62.4%.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Baldy wrote: Participation rate fell to 62.4% from 62.4%.

93henfan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Btw, it was 62.6% last month, so I think he fatfingered it. As you can see below, it's been nothing but downhill under 7 years of Obama.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

CAA Flagship wrote:

93henfan wrote:


Btw, it was 62.6% last month, so I think he fatfingered it. As you can see below, it's been nothing but downhill under 7 years of Obama.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

But, but, but.....the unemployment rate.

However, this may not be all that surprising, given the depth of the recession, which was preceded by the worst financial panic in nearly a century. And since 2010 the number of discouraged workers has been declining, a sign that the ongoing improvement in the economy is beginning to coax more workers back into employment.

Here’s another sign of that. Let’s look at the employment-to-population ratio. This is simply the share of the civilian population who have jobs. (As a reminder, labor-force participation is the share of the population who have jobs or are actively looking.) If you look at the overall data—the sixth chart—the falloff looks pretty drastic and the recovery pretty anemic.

But now let’s look at the same data, but confine it to just people in their prime working years, aged 25 to 54—the seventh chart. This helps us strip out the surging ranks of older baby-boomers. It also strips out the ranks of those between the ages of 16 and 24, where increasing college attendance has been decreasing employment participation fairly steadily for at least 15 years. Both those groups can skew the numbers.

So when you look at this prime working-age population, you can see that, after the sharp collapse back in 2008, things have been improving steadily over the last few years, though there’s clearly still a way to go.

Now, even if the US economy continues improving—as most expect—it doesn’t mean that labor-force participation will rebound. Rather, it’s likely to keep declining for at least the next 10 years, as the baby-boomers continue to age out of the workforce. (CBO estimates that labor force participation will be at 60.8% in 2024.)

Without another giant baby boom, it will most likely never to return to the peaks seen during the late 1990s, no matter what political party is in charge. As a measure of whether Americans who should be working are working, the employment-to-population ratio for people of prime working age is much more useful.
In other words, you should stop talking about labor-force participation. After all, Obama’s conservative critics will do just that if one of their own takes over the White House in 2016.

Ivytalk wrote:kalm stepping into the shoes of SmellyBelly, who is licking his wounds from the Bama thread, as Resident CS Graphmeister!

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:kalm stepping into the shoes of SmellyBelly, who is licking his wounds from the Bama thread, as Resident CS Graphmeister!

1) Yeah, I fully acknowledged that so thanks for noticing

2) Go ahead and dispute the article. I'm keeping an open mind.

Cluck U wrote:

kalm wrote:
1) Yeah, I fully acknowledged that so thanks for noticing

2) Go ahead and dispute the article. I'm keeping an open mind.

Well, while keeping an open mind, you might want to consider that the author might be skewing the stats to his liking.

1) Why would you leave out older workers? I thought most economists agree that older people need to keep working longer before retiring because those darned coots keep living longer and their medical costs continue to grow. If so, how does that jive with taking the older population out of the statistics?

2) I thought more younger people were going to college, and staying in longer, in order to avoid working because good jobs were not available (good jobs having been replaced by part-time and bad jobs). So how does that jive with taking out the stats of the younger workforce unless it is a sign of a bad economy?

CAA Flagship wrote:All I see is another chart that proves that Reagan was a great President.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:kalm stepping into the shoes of SmellyBelly, who is licking his wounds from the Bama thread, as Resident CS Graphmeister!

1) Yeah, I fully acknowledged that so thanks for noticing

2) Go ahead and dispute the article. I'm keeping an open mind.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
1) Yeah, I fully acknowledged that so thanks for noticing

2) Go ahead and dispute the article. I'm keeping an open mind.

I don't know what that means.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:

I don't know what that means.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:

Oh it's quite clear you don't know what it means....but thanks for pointing it out.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:kalm stepping into the shoes of SmellyBelly, who is licking his wounds from the Bama thread, as Resident CS Graphmeister!

1) Yeah, I fully acknowledged that so thanks for noticing

2) Go ahead and dispute the article. I'm keeping an open mind.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Baldy wrote: Participation rate fell to 62.4% from 62.4%.

93henfan wrote:

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
1) Yeah, I fully acknowledged that so thanks for noticing

2) Go ahead and dispute the article. I'm keeping an open mind.

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content ... chool-5431

kalm wrote:

Cluck U wrote:



Well, while keeping an open mind, you might want to consider that the author might be skewing the stats to his liking.

1) Why would you leave out older workers? I thought most economists agree that older people need to keep working longer before retiring because those darned coots keep living longer and their medical costs continue to grow. If so, how does that jive with taking the older population out of the statistics?

2) I thought more younger people were going to college, and staying in longer, in order to avoid working because good jobs were not available (good jobs having been replaced by part-time and bad jobs). So how does that jive with taking out the stats of the younger workforce unless it is a sign of a bad economy?

Yeah...the article splains that.

Cluck U wrote:

kalm wrote:
Yeah...the article splains that.

No, it doesn't.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
No, it doesn't.

I must admit, he got me on that one though. I actually went back and REread the article just to be sure I hadn't missed something...and I hadn't. It doesn't explain that.