I talked to some guys the other day looking for work for their lawn mowing and yard care service. Painted on the side of their truck, "we are yard mens".

I asked how things were going and the guy said, "tough, too many geologists competing for the same work these days."

(11-04-2016 02:06 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 12:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Jobs are jobs whether they be part time or otherwise. Whatever helps pays the bills is good.

When jobs came back under Reagan, they were lampooned as "McJobs". Under Obama? It's significantly worse under Reagan's job gains yet everyone brags about how great the economy is. If you click the link in my earlier post, you'll see how the labor participation rate has fell from a decade ago. That more than wipes out the "job gains" under the Idiot in Chief.

I'd love for people that cite the labor participation rate to have a real discussion on what it actually means. I've seen breakdowns of why we are seeing declining labor participation and most of them are structural in nature- (1) a much higher percentage of the population is at retirement age and (2) younger people are staying in school longer and (3) families having a parent stay at home. When you use those three factors it explains pretty clearly the decline in labor force participation, none of that is necessarily bad for the economy. Though the first two are big reasons immigration is so essential to the future of this country. We have a ton of people reaching retirement age and people are having less kids. Immigration has allowed and will continue allow for our economy to keep pace with demands of a retiring population. BTW early on when the economy was bad there was certainly an element of discouraged workers, but that issue is going away as the economy has continued to rebound and wages are actually increasing among all groups.

Here's something from last year on declining labor participation (been happening since about 2000 for those structural reasons).

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declini...ion-rates/

(11-04-2016 02:06 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 12:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Jobs are jobs whether they be part time or otherwise. Whatever helps pays the bills is good.

When jobs came back under Reagan, they were lampooned as "McJobs". Under Obama? It's significantly worse under Reagan's job gains yet everyone brags about how great the economy is. If you click the link in my earlier post, you'll see how the labor participation rate has fell from a decade ago. That more than wipes out the "job gains" under the Idiot in Chief.

No one I know is bragging about the economy. It's the opposite.

People are saying that not one single job has been created. That unemployment is really 20%. etc. etc.

If anyone is exaggerating here, it's those people who keep claiming that the sky is falling.

(11-04-2016 11:07 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  2009: 9.3%
2010: 9.6%
2011: 8.9%
2012: 8.1%
2013: 7.4%
2014: 6.2%
2015: 5.3%
2016: 4.9%





Quality of jobs? Pay? Temporality?

Just Just throwing the out for yall

The unemployment rate in Houston was over 13% in 1986. Its estimated 1 in 4 people lost their jobs that year. By 1989 everything was back to normal with no trillion dollar stimulus. It took Obama 4 years and a trillion dollars just to get from 9.3 to 7.4.

(11-07-2016 04:41 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 02:06 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 12:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Jobs are jobs whether they be part time or otherwise. Whatever helps pays the bills is good.

When jobs came back under Reagan, they were lampooned as "McJobs". Under Obama? It's significantly worse under Reagan's job gains yet everyone brags about how great the economy is. If you click the link in my earlier post, you'll see how the labor participation rate has fell from a decade ago. That more than wipes out the "job gains" under the Idiot in Chief.

I'd love for people that cite the labor participation rate to have a real discussion on what it actually means. I've seen breakdowns of why we are seeing declining labor participation and most of them are structural in nature- (1) a much higher percentage of the population is at retirement age and (2) younger people are staying in school longer and (3) families having a parent stay at home. When you use those three factors it explains pretty clearly the decline in labor force participation, none of that is necessarily bad for the economy. Though the first two are big reasons immigration is so essential to the future of this country. We have a ton of people reaching retirement age and people are having less kids. Immigration has allowed and will continue allow for our economy to keep pace with demands of a retiring population. BTW early on when the economy was bad there was certainly an element of discouraged workers, but that issue is going away as the economy has continued to rebound and wages are actually increasing among all groups.

Here's something from last year on declining labor participation (been happening since about 2000 for those structural reasons).

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declini...ion-rates/

Your 3) is a reflection of the bad job market, low wages and high taxes.

(11-04-2016 11:07 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  2009: 9.3%
2010: 9.6%
2011: 8.9%
2012: 8.1%
2013: 7.4%
2014: 6.2%
2015: 5.3%
2016: 4.9%





Quality of jobs? Pay? Temporality?

Just Just throwing the out for yall

Wal Mart and McDonalds to the rescue!!!!!!!

(11-07-2016 05:16 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 11:07 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  2009: 9.3%
2010: 9.6%
2011: 8.9%
2012: 8.1%
2013: 7.4%
2014: 6.2%
2015: 5.3%
2016: 4.9%





Quality of jobs? Pay? Temporality?

Just Just throwing the out for yall

Wal Mart and McDonalds to the rescue!!!!!!!

#EggMcMuffinsMatter

(11-07-2016 04:41 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 02:06 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 12:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Jobs are jobs whether they be part time or otherwise. Whatever helps pays the bills is good.

When jobs came back under Reagan, they were lampooned as "McJobs". Under Obama? It's significantly worse under Reagan's job gains yet everyone brags about how great the economy is. If you click the link in my earlier post, you'll see how the labor participation rate has fell from a decade ago. That more than wipes out the "job gains" under the Idiot in Chief.

I'd love for people that cite the labor participation rate to have a real discussion on what it actually means. I've seen breakdowns of why we are seeing declining labor participation and most of them are structural in nature- (1) a much higher percentage of the population is at retirement age and (2) younger people are staying in school longer and (3) families having a parent stay at home. When you use those three factors it explains pretty clearly the decline in labor force participation, none of that is necessarily bad for the economy. Though the first two are big reasons immigration is so essential to the future of this country. We have a ton of people reaching retirement age and people are having less kids. Immigration has allowed and will continue allow for our economy to keep pace with demands of a retiring population. BTW early on when the economy was bad there was certainly an element of discouraged workers, but that issue is going away as the economy has continued to rebound and wages are actually increasing among all groups.

Here's something from last year on declining labor participation (been happening since about 2000 for those structural reasons).

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declini...ion-rates/

I agree with #1. However, #2 and #3 are likely based on structural changes to the economy as a result of the recession, and arguably as early as 2006 give or take. The growing wage rates are being fueled by higher minimum wage laws coupled with larger costs for healthcare plans that are making workers more expensive. This drives more technology driven solutions that in turn cause more structural employment problems. An aging population explains a part of the issue, and yes immigration will help that. However, other facets that I addressed in this post are the other factors that are causing problems. Kids are staying in school longer because the good quality jobs are no longer there upon graduation to the levels seen historically.

The fact that 94.5 million are "out of the workforce" kind of makes those statistics completely moot.

(11-07-2016 05:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 04:41 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 02:06 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 12:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Jobs are jobs whether they be part time or otherwise. Whatever helps pays the bills is good.

When jobs came back under Reagan, they were lampooned as "McJobs". Under Obama? It's significantly worse under Reagan's job gains yet everyone brags about how great the economy is. If you click the link in my earlier post, you'll see how the labor participation rate has fell from a decade ago. That more than wipes out the "job gains" under the Idiot in Chief.

I'd love for people that cite the labor participation rate to have a real discussion on what it actually means. I've seen breakdowns of why we are seeing declining labor participation and most of them are structural in nature- (1) a much higher percentage of the population is at retirement age and (2) younger people are staying in school longer and (3) families having a parent stay at home. When you use those three factors it explains pretty clearly the decline in labor force participation, none of that is necessarily bad for the economy. Though the first two are big reasons immigration is so essential to the future of this country. We have a ton of people reaching retirement age and people are having less kids. Immigration has allowed and will continue allow for our economy to keep pace with demands of a retiring population. BTW early on when the economy was bad there was certainly an element of discouraged workers, but that issue is going away as the economy has continued to rebound and wages are actually increasing among all groups.

Here's something from last year on declining labor participation (been happening since about 2000 for those structural reasons).

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declini...ion-rates/

Your 3) is a reflection of the bad job market, low wages and high taxes.

Perhaps, but I'd say a big cause is also the outrageous cost of child care.

My friend was paying $2000/mo for his two kids to be in day care. His wife was only netting about $800/mo of her salary after daycare costs. She was considering just quitting her job and staying home with the kids because that isn't really worth working 40 hours a week for, but they had one kid going to kindergarten this year, so she decided to stick it out because the cost would be cut in half soon and she didn't want to have to find a new job less than a year later.

I have multiple friends even my age doing well enough that one parent chooses to stay home despite making decent money prior. There is more to labor participation than people have just given up. Nobody has shown me data to support that our decline in workforce participation is in fact a negative and a result of a bad economy.

(11-08-2016 11:50 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I have multiple friends even my age doing well enough that one parent chooses to stay home despite making decent money prior. There is more to labor participation than people have just given up. Nobody has shown me data to support that our decline in workforce participation is in fact a negative and a result of a bad economy.

I hope you treat the 'employment' numbers with the same attitude. If you do, no problem... but about 90% of the population talking about them don't.

One could just as easily say that with the proliferation of McJobs and the focus recently on the minimum wage, that even making decent money isn't worth the extra pressure now for middle managers to perform (in order to absorb the reduction in numbers or increased wages, OR their spouse simply picking up more pressure) relative to what you have to pay to have someone else take care of your kids... (get them off of 'support' as well).

I suspect there are people in every imaginable situation with regard to the issue... but whether the employment rate declines because people can't find work, or simply stop working for their own reasons doesn't detract from the fact that despite what appears to be low unemployment, there are fewer people working.

The idea of a low employment rate USED to be an indicator of upward pressure on wages. That is not the case with these numbers.