Posted on 10/25/2015 8:04:17 AM PDT by Kaslin
Wow, did you see the new jobs numbers? Unemployment is down to 5.1%. In the current definition of full employment (during the 1960’s it was a 4% unemployment rate) we are getting near that point. In fact, the unemployment rate is now lower than it was anytime during the Reagan presidency. We have had 67 consecutive months of job growth. The unemployment rate has dropped almost 5% from the high point of the Obama administration in October 2009. With all this good news why are things so bad?
You may have heard something about a controversy regarding the unemployment numbers. There is focus on such matters as underemployment which for example having someone with a college degree waiting tables or bartending for lack of any quality opportunities for a person with their educational qualifications. Or you may have heard about the many people working part-time jobs due to lack of full-time opportunities or employers attempting to circumvent the rules established by Obamacare which states that a full-time employee reaches that status at 30 hours per week.
What we really need to spotlight is the crushing economic effect of a lower labor participation rate (LPR). There are now 100 million Americans over the age of 16 that are not working. The Obama Administration keeps running out the deceit that this is because of all the baby boomers retiring. The fact is that the labor force participation rate for the age group 16 to 24 is only 55.1%. That is a reduction of over 10% from 66% during the 1990’s. It is also down over 5% (60.8%) from 2005. Sure myopic minimum wage increases are harming the employment of this age group with the least work experience, but that is not the total explanation.
The Obama manipulation gets worse because the LPR is lower for the prime working years of 25-54 years old. In 2000 the LPR for this age group was almost 85%. It was down to 83% when the recession started, but has now plummeted to 80.7%. It is clear the baby boomers are not the only source of reduction in the LPR.
You may wonder why this is such a big deal. The LPR for September 2015 was 62.4%. That is 3.7% less than August, 2005 exactly ten years earlier. One can argue this reduction in rate has to do with the “Great Recession.” Not true. If you review the Dept. of Labor statistics you see virtually unstopped monthly decline in the LPR during the entire Obama Presidency. From the point that the recession was pronounced over the LPR has steadily declined by 3.3%.
As shown above this is not just because of old folks retiring. In fact, more and more seniors are working longer to compensate for inadequate retirement savings or just because they are healthy and want to continue working.
If you calculate what that means in human costs at least 12 million more people would be working today if we had the same LPR as ten years ago. And this rate isn’t even a high-water mark for the American economy.
If you are doing national budgeting that means 12 million less people are paying taxes and 12 million more people are drawing government benefits. Is it now clear why our national deficit has not shrunk to a lower amount than the estimated $439 billion for this fiscal year even though the Obama Administration is touting that as a victory?
Let’s just focus on one of the estimated 100 welfare programs the federal government operates – the food stamp program. One year after the end of the recession – 2010 – there were 40 million recipients of this program. In the latest year available, 2014, there were 46.5 million food stamp recipients. If the economy was improving one would expect the usage rate to plummet. Instead this increase is partially explained by the LPR.
Some who are cynical would say that the fact more people are receiving government benefits is the driver behind the reduction in people participating in the labor force. There was an upswing in hiring when the long-term unemployment benefits were scaled back. Might we find the same result if the food stamp program was tightened up and a few million people were reduced from the rolls?
If we want to cure the ills of this economy and reinvigorate the middle-class the presidential candidates should be focusing on these facts. You will not hear this from Clinton or Sanders. They want to expand the government to provide more drag on the economy. But we have hardly heard anything from the Republicans as they spend time reacting to banalities from Trump.
Republicans have a clear opportunity to retake the White House and restore economic sanity to the country. They need to make the stuttering economy issue number one. We will see whether they are able to do that in this week’s debate
“Smoke and Mirrors”,Anyone????????????????????
That is what it looks like
Takeaway...two words...Government drag
this gub mint led by this poser LIES.
Obammy’s gub mnt is a pathetic joke.
“Republicans have a clear opportunity to retake the White House and restore economic sanity to the country. They need to make the stuttering economy issue number one. We will see whether they are able to do that in this week’s debate.”
You guys can hold your breath if you want; I’m not. So TIRED of Defeat being snatched from the jaws of Victory thanks to The Party of Stoopid.
David Stockman says the real unemployment rate in the United States is now about 42.9 percent
http://www.inquisitr.com/2218523/david-stockman-says-unemployment-is-really-42-9-percent/
Stockman cites the number of 210 million adult Americans, who if they worked 2,000 hours per year, or about 40 hours per week, would deliver 420 million labor hours per year. When compared to the 240 million labor hours per year reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the total workforce of the country is delivering 57.1 percent of those 420 million labor hours, and otherwise stated, 42.9 percent of those hours are not being delivered. Therefore, the calculation of unemployment by this measure is 42.9 percent.
When the number of Americans currently not working, which is reported at 93 million, is compared to that same workforce calculation of 210 million, that calculation of 93 million as a percentage of the 210 million suggests the unemployment rate is 44.29 percent. That calculation is very close to David Stockman’s estimate of the unemployment rate.
Signed:
Winston Smith
So what are you going to do in the primaries, vote for some third party candidate in the primaries, who doesn't have no chance whatsoever. Or sit the general election out because you don't like the republican nominee?
There are lies, then there are damned lies and finally, far beyond the pale, is statistics.
You know, the word “unemployed” has a meaning beyond just “doesn’t hold a job.” It also carries the meaning “would or should have a job if one existed”.
Both Stockman’s calculation and yours fails to consider the fact that a 90-year old retiree is not “unemployed”. He or she is retired, and doesn’t want a job even if one were offered. The 94 million number includes stay-at-home mothers (or fathers), non-working college students, and every voluntarily-retired person in the country who isn’t institutionalized. It’s a nonsense number.
To the credit of the author of the original article, he didn’t reference it. It was an excellent article that pointed out the true problem. People who used to work, and should be working today, aren’t working, for whatever reason. And that’s what’s wrong, not the fact that an 85-year-old widow is no longer working.
One of the most meaningless statistics out there. It counts students, housewives (and husbands), the military and people who are younger than 68 but have retired as "unemployed". Stupid.
Good article, and then he sticks in this loser comment at the end. Too bad. Trump is the only one so far to release detailed plans about taxes/economy.
That said, the part time economy affects the labor participation rate in that workers get counted in the national numbers no matter how much they participate. But that doesn't count if they lose those part time jobs, because if they don't work enough hours or make enough money then they don't qualify for unemployment, depending on their state's rules.
Also, with all the part time workers now compared to decades ago, what would the participation rate look like if it were based on hours instead of individuals?
So it is all working according to plan.
How can a serious author write an entire essay about the “Labor Force Participation Rate” and not even mention the word immigration?
Since the Reagan Amnesty in 1986, we have allowed 40 million LEGAL immigrants to enter the USA.
That massive - and completely artificial - influx of mostly low skill workers has wildly distorted the size of the American labor force and has completely crushed the wage scale for all low skill Americans.
I live in a country where I can no longer trust anything (ANYTHING!!!) the government says.
Of course not. I haven’t missed a single election from Dog Catcher on up since I was 18 years old. I KNOW how to hold my nose and vote. (McCain comes FIRST to mind; I soothe myself by remembering I was voting for Sarah. *HEART*)
Don’t you know plain old FRUSTRATION when you read it? I’d NEVER vote for The Enemy or give them an advantage by my not voting or going Third Party.
I just wish MY party wasn’t such a bunch of p*ssies. I want bloodied knuckles! I want duels at dawn! I want heads on pikes!
I want Hillary in handcuffs! :)
THAT is astonishing data!
I’ve never understood why Government doesn’t do more to get people working - so they can confiscate TAX DOLLARS from us.
It makes no sense to have so many on the dole and so few working because high employment makes SCADS of CASH for Mother Government!
(Well, maybe not from me - I’m pretty good at keeping most of my dimes, LOL!)
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.