Labor Participation Rate

[2centsworth]

You can blame the KKK or Soviets, but fact remains employment situation looks like crap.

http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/graphs/2013/03/participation-rate.gif

[boutons_deux]

Repugs have put forth 30+ abortion/vagina bills after winning House majority, but not a single jobs bill.

Ryan's magic ridiculous budget, repeated for the 3rd time, does nothing for jobs, but $Bs for 1% and corps.

[Nbadan]

Well, one graph says it all...not....

What if wages in the U.S. were forced to keep up with worker productivity increases..I wonder what the minimum wage would be here...


The Center for Economic and Policy Research’s John Dewitt looked at what the minimum wage would be if it simply rose with productivity — that is, if workers were actually paid for the increasing amount of output — since 1968, and found that it would be almost 3 times what it is now:

Since 1968, however, productivity growth has far outpaced the minimum wage. If the minimum wage had continued to move with average productivity after1968, it would have reached $21.72 per hour in 2012 – a rate well above the average production worker wage. If minimum-wage workers received only half of the productivity gains over the period, the federal minimum would be $15.34.

http://boldprogressives.org/the-minimum-wage-would-be-21-72-per-hour-if-it-rose-with-productivity-since-1968/

So, people are working harder, true there are fewer people working, but what is the incentive for hiring more people if you can just get the employees you have now to be more efficient and work harder for much less?

[Wild Cobra]

What if wages in the U.S. were forced to keep up with worker productivity increases..I wonder what the minimum wage would be here...

I'll bet we would have an endless cycle of inflation, and lose even more exports. Imports would increase, and we would lose more jobs yet.

[ElNono]

You can blame the KKK or Soviets, but fact remains employment situation looks like crap.

http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/graphs/2013/03/participation-rate.gif

At first sight, a ~4 point swing wouldn't appear to be majorly significant.

I'm not sure I understand the economic impact. Explain?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol hyperinflation.

[boutons_deux]

Well, one graph says it all...not....

What if wages in the U.S. were forced to keep up with worker productivity increases.



If median income were had been keeping pace with GDP, median income would be $92K, not $52K.

The VRWC/1%/UCA strategy is to suck up all the wealth, GAMEOVER!, which then doesn't recirculate in the Real Economy because they hyper-wealthy simply can't spend it all.

The Class War of Wealthy vs the non-Wealthy is over, won't be restarted, as seen in the enormous inequality of US wealth and loss of social/economic mobility.

The American Dream, if it were anything but a myth, has gone poof.

[Pickle]

At first sight, a ~4 point swing wouldn't appear to be majorly significant.

I'm not sure I understand the economic impact. Explain?

The economic impact of the rate of employment going down? The more people who are employed, the more goods and services being produced, the more GDP growth, the more wealth in the country. You can get GDP growth through technological advances, or through a better(more skilled)/bigger workforce. a shrinking workforce will stunt GDP.

[Pickle]

and labor participation rate and unemployment are correlated in this case because people are getting desperate and just giving up, dropping out of the workforce.

[boutons_deux]

The economic impact of the rate of employment going down? The more people who are employed, the more goods and services being produced, the more GDP growth, the more wealth in the country. You can get GDP growth through technological advances, or through a better(more skilled)/bigger workforce. a shrinking workforce will stunt GDP.

... more income/sales tax revenues reduces local/state/federal deficits, and reduces cuts in infrastructure, schools, etc.

... less poverty reduces govt aid to the poor (reduces govt spending)

... less residential/commercial property stress

etc, etc.

That Congress, esp the Repugs, is NOT PRIORITIZING economic stimulation and job creation to reduce the deficit shows how fucked up Congress is, esp the Repugs who are only interested in enriching/protecting the corps and wealthy, while screwing the 99%.

For serious budget proposal, see the one from the Congressional Progresssive Caucus.

[Th'Pusher]

Baby boomers are retiring. Expect that number to continue to trend down.

[ElNono]

The economic impact of the rate of employment going down? The more people who are employed, the more goods and services being produced, the more GDP growth, the more wealth in the country. You can get GDP growth through technological advances, or through a better(more skilled)/bigger workforce. a shrinking workforce will stunt GDP.

Thanks, perhaps I should've been more clear. I understand the overall impact of jobs as you've described. What I don't understand is what kind of economic impact a relatively meager(?) 4 point swing has.

[Pickle]

a pretty good amount, because as population is growing exponentially, less people in proportion to population are even looking for work, and even less are actually working. that means for every person retiring, less are replacing them in the workforce to put money into SS, medicare, etc. it's a big problem in a world where population is growing and people are living longer, we need as close to full employment as we can get or there will start to be huge repercussions. we're already feeling them but it can get worse.

[ElNono]

a pretty good amount, because as population is growing exponentially, less people in proportion to population are even looking for work, and even less are actually working. that means for every person retiring, less are replacing them in the workforce to put money into SS, medicare, etc. it's a big problem in a world where population is growing and people are living longer, we need as close to full employment as we can get or there will start to be huge repercussions. we're already feeling them but it can get worse.

Thanks. I thought people not actively looking for work are not counted on the Participation Rate, but I could be wrong.

[Pickle]

The labor force participation rate is the ratio between the labor force and the overall size of their cohort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generational_cohorts) (national population of the same age range). In the West (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_World) during the later half of the 20th century, the labor force participation rate increased significantly, largely due to the increasing number of women entering the workplace.

(# of people working or looking for work in age group A) divided by (# of people in age group A)

[Pickle]

normally, the labor force of a country (or other geographic entity) consists of everyone of working age, typically above a certain age (around 14 to 16) and below retirement (around 65) who are participating workers, that is people actively employed (either part-time or full-time) or people actively seeking employment.

[ElNono]

^ Right, and after that:

However, for the purposes of the labor force participation rate, the labor force does not have an upper age limit in the United States although it does for other countries.

and

Discouraged workers who want to work, but cannot find work and have thus stopped looking for work for at least a month are not included in the labor force in most countries, including the United States.

[Pickle]

right, they drop out of the labor force but they are still counted when calculating the labor participation rate

labor force/total population

[ElNono]

right, they drop out of the labor force but they are still counted when calculating the labor participation rate

labor force/total population

I see, thanks

[angrydude]

Our rich bastard overlords allow us to fight over irrelevant social issues like gay marriage and abortion since sex is the only thing the average american is capable of understanding.

and the money machine rolls on

[boutons_deux]

Our rich bastard overlords allow us to fight over irrelevant social issues like gay marriage and abortion since sex is the only thing the average american is capable of understanding.

"allow" isn't the right word.

The VRWC/Repugs figured out how God, guns, gays, vaginas, bad n!gg@/Messican topics could create/maintain an "emotional" base of bubbas, "Christians", gun fellators, etc voting against their best economic interests (eg, right-to-work states are generally much poorer and lower wage than blue state), and are extremely motivated to use Orwellian language to spew lies non-stop from their stink tanks and right-wing hate media, while protecting/enriching the corps, 1%, financial sector.

[2centsworth]

Thanks, perhaps I should've been more clear. I understand the overall impact of jobs as you've described. What I don't understand is what kind of economic impact a relatively meager(?) 4 point swing has.

I believe that works out to 14mm people.

[ElNono]

I believe that works out to 14mm people.

There it is. Thanks!

[2centsworth]

There it is. Thanks!

do you still consider 14mm meager? IMO 4% is huge when talking about large numbers. I would love 4% growth, 4% less unemployment, 4% interest on income investments and the country would be better off too, no?

[Nbadan]

we're already feeling them but it can get worse.

we're not 'feeling repercussions' because of Social Security...that has it's own trust fund...we are feeling repercussions because government income, i.e. taxes, took a nose-dive when 20 million people lost their jobs and the home equity racket crashed and neither have fully recovered...we have a spending problem because we have an income problem, not the other way around..

[ElNono]

do you still consider 14mm meager? IMO 4% is huge when talking about large numbers. I would love 4% growth, 4% less unemployment, 4% interest on income investments and the country would be better off too, no?

There's no doubt that we all would take the 'better' number, but for one reason or another, that isn't always available. When you have to dance with the shitty partner, then it becomes 'how shitty is it?'. That's what I was trying to quantify. The 4% didn't look necessarily significant as a percentage point on it's own. Once quantified in amount of people affected, then it becomes clear the actual impact is pretty big.

[Wild Cobra]

we're not 'feeling repercussions' because of Social Security...that has it's own trust fund...we are feeling repercussions because government income, i.e. taxes, took a nose-dive when 20 million people lost their jobs and the home equity racket crashed and neither have fully recovered...we have a spending problem because we have an income problem, not the other way around..
Where do you get the 20 million job loss from?

And... there is no SS trust fund. Congress has always raided that money. It is all spent.

[Winehole23]

Where do you get the 20 million job loss from?









Household Survey Data



The unemployment rate edged down to 7.7 percent in February but has shown little movement, on net, since September 2012. The number of unemployed persons, at 12.0 million, also edged lower in February. (See table A-1.)



Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for whites (6.8 percent) declined in February while the rates for adult men (7.1 percent), adult wo

men (7.0 percent), teenagers (25.1 percent), blacks (13.8 percent), and Hispanics (9.6 percent) showed little or no change. The jobless rate for Asians was 6.1 percent (not seasonally adjusted),

little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)




In February, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was about

unchanged at 4.8 million. These individuals accounted for 40.2 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)


The employment-population ratio held at 58.6 percent in February. The civilian labor force participation rate, at 63.5 percent, changed little. (See table A-1.)



The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons, at 8.0 million, was essentially

unchanged in February. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back

or because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)



In February, 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, the same as a year

earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)



Among the marginally attached, there were 885,000 discouraged workers in February, down slightly from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not

currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them.

The remaining 1.7 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in February had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasonssuch as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table

A-16.)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

[Winehole23]

(generally cited BLS figures for job losses in 2008 and 2009 are in the 8.5M to 8.8M range)

[Winehole23]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/20305/real-unemployment-rate-u3-drops-to-7-7-u6-drops-to-14-4-in-november-jobs-report

[Winehole23]

so then, the U-6 figure is probably somewhere around 20M right now. attributing all of that to the Panic of 2008 is fudging, tbh.

[Wild Cobra]

20 million people didn't just lose their jobs. Around a 5% unemployment rate is considered normal and we have always had unemployed. To say 20 million lost their jobs is saying 13% lost their jobs.

[Winehole23]

just guessing here, if you add the those working part time for economic reasons to the ~9M who lost their jobs in the recession, then figure in the discouraged and others not counted by the survey, the figure might be be somewhere around 20M. be interesting to hear from Dan how he figured it.

[boutons_deux]

"jobs" number is of course very uninformative, since many who lost jobs 2007-2010 got "jobs" but which are much lower in pay, dropping them from comfortable to week-to-week near-poverty.

[Winehole23]

unemployment stats don't count that for a good reason: you're not unemployed if you have a job. if Dan wants to talk about underemployment and and poverty let him talk about that, but don't see how fudging unemployment numbers helps him out, tbh.

[2centsworth]

we're not 'feeling repercussions' because of Social Security...that has it's own trust fund...we are feeling repercussions because government income, i.e. taxes, took a nose-dive when 20 million people lost their jobs and the home equity racket crashed and neither have fully recovered...we have a spending problem because we have an income problem, not the other way around..

the facts don't support your argument. 2013 federal tax receipts, i.e. government income, is projected to be $400 billion times more than in 2008. However, we are still projected to have nearly a $1 trillion deficit. In 2017 the federal government is projected to receive $1.5 trillion more in tax revenue than in 2008, a 60% increase, and we're still projected to have a $600 billion deficit.

Brookings Institution (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200)

[Wild Cobra]

It seems to me that Dan's unsupported facts might be the total unemployed, not the net change.

[boutons_deux]

the facts don't support your argument. 2013 federal tax receipts, i.e. government income, is projected to be $400 billion times more than in 2008. However, we are still projected to have nearly a $1 trillion deficit. In 2017 the federal government is projected to receive $1.5 trillion more in tax revenue than in 2008, a 60% increase, and we're still projected to have a $600 billion deficit.

Brookings Institution (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200)

Historical Amount of Revenue by Sourcehttp://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203


That's only federal. state and municipal tax receipts were and still are way down

"Deficits Don't Matter"

-- dickhead

[Th'Pusher]

the facts don't support your argument. 2013 federal tax receipts, i.e. government income, is projected to be $400 billion times more than in 2008. However, we are still projected to have nearly a $1 trillion deficit. In 2017 the federal government is projected to receive $1.5 trillion more in tax revenue than in 2008, a 60% increase, and we're still projected to have a $600 billion deficit.

Brookings Institution (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200)
Glad to see Barry is working to reduce that deficit.

[2centsworth]

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203


That's only federal. state and municipal tax receipts were and still are way down

"Deficits Don't Matter"

-- dickhead

you're off on a tangent. Dan Argued that the lack of government income compared to 2008 was the direct source of our fiscal problems. I provided facts that show he's dead wrong on his assumptions. Now you're arguing, besides deficits don't matter, that State & Local Taxes are "way" down. My source, Brookings Institution (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=525), shows that even State & Local Taxes have essentially evened out.

Now deficits don't matter theory is another story, but the question is what are we receiving for these deficits? Lower Labor Participation Rates, high unemployment, high underemployment. I don't think we are getting a good return on our money.

[boutons_deux]

you're off on a tangent. Dan Argued that the lack of government income compared to 2008 was the direct source of our fiscal problems. I provided facts that show he's dead wrong on his assumptions. Now you're arguing, besides deficits don't matter, that State & Local Taxes are "way" down. My source, Brookings Institution (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=525), shows that even State & Local Taxes have essentially evened out.

Now deficits don't matter theory is another story, but the question is what are we receiving for these deficits? Lower Labor Participation Rates, high unemployment, high underemployment. I don't think we are getting a good return on our money.

The Banksters Great Depression caused a huge spike in costs Medicaid (many newly qualified), unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc. Much of that continues.

The deficit doesn't buy or obtain or cause "high unemployment, high underemployment.", so the idea that those two are a poor ROI of deficit spending is beyond stupid.

However, right-wingers will certainly obtain huge spikes in deficits and unemployment with the austerity of Ryan's ridiculous budget.

[2centsworth]

The deficit doesn't buy or obtain or cause "high unemployment, high underemployment.", so the idea that those two are a poor ROI of deficit spending is beyond stupid.

However, right-wingers will certainly obtain huge spikes in deficits and unemployment with the austerity of Ryan's ridiculous budget.

so contradicting yourself is smart?

[Winehole23]

nothing left to do but change the subject or move the goal posts, once called out on it. boutons never admits an error.

[boutons_deux]

nothing left to do but change the subject or move the goal posts, once called out on it. boutons never admits an error.

The Great Boutons Abides

[Wild Cobra]

---wrong thread---

[Wild Cobra]

---wrong thread---

[Wild Cobra]

"Deficits Don't Matter"

-- dickhead
Context please...

It was proved that the deficit didn't matter to the voters. Time and again they elect presidents and congress that spends, spends, spends.

[TeyshaBlue]

The Great Boutons Abides

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/Lebowski.jpg

[Nbadan]

Where do you get the 20 million job loss from?

And... there is no SS trust fund. Congress has always raided that money. It is all spent.

I got the 20 million figure from a conglomeration of bad conservative policy which led to either direct job loss or increases in the labor market dropout rate or the underemployed and part-time employed rate..the count of the unemployed and the unemployment rate is NOT a count of those receiving unemployment benefits, nor is unemployment benefit receiver status factored at all into any of the official unemployment rate statistics (U3, U4, U5, U6, etc.). Rather, the unemployment rate is based on a survey of 60,000 households chosen at random. See: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm or Google: "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey"...many people wanted better jobs, but just couldn't find them or found shitty part time jobs..

[Nbadan]

dp

[Nbadan]

When you account for the U6 rate, the underemployed and part-time employed numbers, you get an unemployment rate of 15% peaking at just under 20% after the Bush recession

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/content/2012/023-paperecon/11649388-1-eng-US/023-paperecon_full_600.jpg
Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over

[Wild Cobra]

Dan...

It's still only about a 12% net change, so saying a group caused 20% is ridiculous.

I do find it highly coincidental that unemployment was going down, until democrats won the majority in 2006...

[Nbadan]

It's still only about a 12% net change, so saying a group caused 20% is ridiculous.

I never claimed it to be 20%, that's ludicrous, I said 20 million people lost jobs during the Bush Recession..

[Wild Cobra]

I never claimed it to be 20%, that's ludicrous, I said 20 million people lost jobs during the Bush Recession..
OK, I stand corrected on that. Still, doesn't U6 cover more than just unemployed who want jobs?

[Nbadan]

Still, doesn't U6 cover more than just unemployed who want jobs?

The U6 covers the underemployed and part-time workers who want a full time job but don't..it's the figure regularly thrown around by conservative commentators...as I posted before, some of these workers could be working as few as one hour and be considered employed by the U3.....

[Wild Cobra]

The U6 covers the underemployed and part-time workers who want a full time job but don't..it's the figure regularly thrown around by conservative commentators...as I posted before, some of these workers could be working as few as one hour and be considered employed by the U3.....
Good.

I see you now acknowledge your comment, "20 million people lost their jobs," as a lie or deception.