Reply With Quote
How much of that new population enter the job market though?
Babies don't work, IIRC.
Why do some people get confused so easy with simple math? Bet you had a liberal pundit point this out.
Your 2009 to 2011 jobs were a growth of 1.26%. That's a bit shy of the 1.87% population growth.
If we use the population growth between the 2000 and 2010 census, we grew at a rate of 0.931% annually. We can assume with these numbers a 1.87% increase in population between 2009 and 2011. If we take the 2009 number and increase it by 1.87%, we get 131,927,428. Therefore jobs grew slower than population. These simple facts matter.
How much of that new population enter the job market though?
Babies don't work, IIRC.
Job bailouts aren't possible. Sure, we can in the short term, but unless we actually make a way for jobs to stop being exported and return to America, we are doomed anyway. Why do you want to take everyone down on a sinking ship? There are only so many life rafts on this anic problem.
What do you think extending unemployment is?
dumb . the number of first-time people entering the job market more or less matches the number of babies born, then throw in all the legal and illegal immigrants.
You mean an insurance with a limited period?
It's a bailout once you extend it. Besides I said "Sure, we can in the short term..."
Question becomes, what good is it to do so if we have no jobs for them to go to? We cannot keep redistributing wealth indefinably at these levels.
dumb , I doubt people from the 2000-2010 census is entering the job market. He would have a stronger point picking the population growth rate from the 1980-1990 census, or arguably the 1990-2000 census.
I mean unemployment benefits. How many times have they been extended now?
The whole point I made was that population growth is greater than job growth, and this matters. The annual average for the 1990 to 2000 population increase was 1.24%, or 2.5% for the two year span. This would be closer to the people entering the job market, but not all in the job market are new babies. We have immigration too, and people in their teens entering the job market.
I knew when I posted this, the older numbers are better. however, I took the lesser one since it still shows a deficit in job growth vs. population growth.
I don't know. Lost count.
Do you think we can keep this spending up is we can't put people back to work in good paying jobs?
Sure it matters. That said, scott is right that more jobs where created in 2011 than in 2009, and that obviously helps reduce unemployment numbers.
Not sure how 'adjusting for population growth' changes that fact.
I think that if there would be good paying jobs, they wouldn't need to be in the unemployment benefits program. Evidently, those good paying jobs aren't there. I would guess they're in India now.
Not sure?
In reality, less a percentage of the population has jobs. Yes, technically more people have jobs than before, but technically, even more people don't! When you apply the same standard, it's still a loss of employment per capita.
So I ask again. How long can we sustain these expenditures? When will the war on poverty be won?
"we sustain these expenditures"
and you exclude the $80B just approved for NatSec, and $7T+ for next 10 years of MIC spending, the $Ts for the wars and maintaining USA's global hegemony?
But your contention was the unemployment was reduced. Your claim was that's because of people stopping to look for work. Another reason is that jobs were created. That's a fact too.
What "war on poverty"?
How long? Well, as long as the guys in DC decide to keep extending it, I guess.
Just wanted to briefly chime in to let you folks know the BLS already provides the info you are trying to get at - working age population statistics:
http://www.bls.gov/fls/flscomparelf/...n.htm#table4_1 (You can download more detailed info in the spreadsheet link provided).
A few quick factors to take into account are:
This is an estimate of everyone in the US over the age of 16. That means a 95 year old counts the same as a 25 year old in terms of a "person who can work". Where this is of note is that we have a growing elderly population that traditional does not participate in the labor force (though it is worth noting that a 65 year old today is almost 50% more likely to participate in the labor force than one 20 years ago, either by virtue of needing the job or our old folks being more able to work - here are some demographics on our elderly: http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/11s0034.pdf).
Of note, the working age population growth rate in 2009 and 2010 (versus their previous year) are at the lowest levels ever recorded (since the statistic started being officially recorded by the BLS in 1970).
Anyway, you did have a valid point originally that labor force participation rates are at low levels not seen since the mid-80s. Interestingly, it's men who are the ones dropping out of the labor force, women are near their historic norm and now comprise the largest % of the workforce ever seen. My comment was in response to:
Which is not completely honest. The correct statement would have been:
We all know the unemployment rate has decreased, but that's because more people are employed, labor force participation is way down, we have an increased elderly population, and working age population growth since 2008 has been at historically low levels.
"interestingly, it's men who are the ones dropping out of the labor force"
for the same job, women are paid 30% less than men, so businesses will layoff and not hire men ahead of women, except at the top, where the male clubbiness keeps women out.
the labor force participation is down, no mystery at all, not because people (esp men, blacks, young) can afford not to work, but because there are not enough jobs.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-11-2011 at 05:49 AM.
Yet the per capita jobs are less than before.
I know you want to rapidly move the goalposts, but he didn't list per capita, but overall number of jobs.
Yes, and I pointed out that was an incorrect way to gauge things since population also increases.
Is that too hard to comprehend?
But it isn't incorrect. There's nothing incorrect about it.
BTW, nobody said you were wrong. Just that you were overlooking other things, like actual job increase.
Barry sends his jobs/stimulus bill to Congress today.
How quickly will the Repugs gut or block it?
Faster than you can say "Russian Breadlines".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions