The Opposite of a Direckshun Thread

[patteeu]

Consider this chart from powerlineblog.com. The left bar is what has been described by Obama's supporters as a "huge recovery". They generally don't talk about the right bar.

(Brevity brought to you by the Stop Direckshun Before He Uses Up All The Internet's Ink Committee).

[vailpass]

Does the "Not In labor Force" column include those who have run out of unemployment benefits and are no longer measurable in that way?

I wonder if there is any way to quantify those who are now working a job that pays much lower than a job they had earlier within the measured period, or those that must now work two jobs where they used to work one?

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Does the "Not In labor Force" column include those who have run out of unemployment benefits and are no longer measurable in that way?

I wonder if there is any way to quantify those who are now working a job that pays much lower than a job they had earlier within the measured period, or those that must now work two jobs where they used to work one?

Not in labor force includes retired, discouraged, in school, etc workers.

Underemployed workers represent those who are part time but desire full time employment.

[vailpass]

Thanks. What's a 'discouraged' and how do they measure that?

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Thanks. What's a 'discouraged' and how do they measure that?

unemployed and no longer actively looking for employment

[A Salt Weapon]

I love this committee, great name.
Posted via Mobile Device

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by vailpass

Thanks. What's a 'discouraged' and how do they measure that?

typically after a year. However there are some statistics involved there in the demographics.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/03/news....htm?iid=HP_LN

For instance, 38% not in labor force are over the age of 65. 15% were 55-64, and 20% were 16-24.

**edit**
2011 breakdown

[qabbaan]

Anytime you hear Obama or his sycophants talking about "new jobs" or "created jobs" they are intentionally only giving you half of a meaningful figure, and they aren't even broaching this.

I hope that Romney is ready to hammer this nail down in one swing anytime Obama tries to claim he has made progress on jobs.

[WoodDraw]

Is 2009 really a fair baseline?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by WoodDraw

Is 2009 really a fair baseline?

If we gave him a year grace period, and I'm not sure we should, the left bar probably would be the same and the right bar would probably be somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3rds as high.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by patteeu

If we gave him a year grace period, and I'm not sure we should, the left bar probably would be the same and the right bar would probably be somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3rds as high.

Wouldn't want that would we?

[KC native]

We are going to see declining labor force participation rates for the foreseeable future due to the increasing amount of boomers (worst generation ever) actually retiring.

This is a demographic trend that no president can stop. Carry on with thinking you've made a salient point though.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by KC native

We are going to see declining labor force participation rates for the foreseeable future due to the increasing amount of boomers (worst generation ever) actually retiring.

This is a demographic trend that no president can stop. Carry on with thinking you've made a salient point though.

I've tried (half heartedly ) to find the numbers of non labor force participation in 1999 and the demographics on that. The thing being , the only relative numbers in the non labor force participation are from the demographics of 25-55. 55-65 includes a retirement age, as well as 65+, and 16-24 is very volatile, with so many more going to college, not having to work at 16, etc.

[HonestChieffan]

Many "retired boomers" are finding new jobs or other ways that keep them in the workforce. The traditional retirement is a thing of the past. Demographers are struggling to deal with this within the statistics as we cannot really compare "retired" in 1965 to retired today.

People are living longer, are far more active at 60 to 70 than we used to be. Second careers are not uncommon at all. Add to that that we have regulations that eliminated forced retirements and an economy that sucks. Many employers have learned that with the big chunk of retirements they see in this time period they are losing a great deal of knowledge and experience that they hire back through part time, reduced time or consulting agreements. You cannot replace a 30 year worker who retires with a new grad who has no experience.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Many "retired boomers" are finding new jobs or other ways that keep them in the workforce. The traditional retirement is a thing of the past. Demographers are struggling to deal with this within the statistics as we cannot really compare "retired" in 1965 to retired today.

People are living longer, are far more active at 60 to 70 than we used to be. Second careers are not uncommon at all. Add to that that we have regulations that eliminated forced retirements and an economy that sucks. Many employers have learned that with the big chunk of retirements they see in this time period they are losing a great deal of knowledge and experience that they hire back through part time, reduced time or consulting agreements. You cannot replace a 30 year worker who retires with a new grad who has no experience.

That's a nice theory except it's just speculation. I have found nothing that backs your claim.