In the disappointing jobs report, the most important statistic may have been the 63.6% labor...


In the disappointing jobs report, the most important statistic may have been the 63.6% labor participation rate, a 30-year low. Critics of the Obama administration are quick to seize on this as the “real” reason for the falling unemployment rate, but the downward trend has been happening for more than a decade as baby boomers have been retiring.

Comments (55)
  • CautiousInvestor
    , contributor
    Comments (3090) | Send Message
     
    The reason cited for the secular trend towards lower participation rates is politically palatable but a detailed analysis is needed to validate the thesis. Until we see the hard data, I'm inclined to believe that the reasons for lower participation stem from broader demographics than baby boomers along with a failed educational system that routinely graduates illiterates and a complex of social safety nets which have evolved into social hammocks.
    5 May 2012, 08:43 AM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10775) | Send Message
     
    Cautious. You are absolutely correct. The Baby Boomer mantra is bogus. During the last 5 years, WFP by the over 65 crowd has increased from 16% to 18%. Me thinks the elderly are not in a position to retire as only 17% of those retiring have more than $250,000 in assets in addition to their primary residence. Fully 60% of those retiring have less than......$50,000. Who can afford to retire on SS alone?

     

    The WFP data is all available at the FRED site:

     

    http://bit.ly/IFfulw

     

    If you want an eye opener, look at the first two charts on participation of men and women. Here is a demographic question that we should spend some time discussing.
    6 May 2012, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3527) | Send Message
     
    Mark, how much of the over 65 crowd in the work force is the result of full social security not kicking in until 67?
    6 May 2012, 11:34 AM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10775) | Send Message
     
    I don't think they give us the data to tell.

     

    Here is the NILF men and women over 65 with no disability. It's climbing.
    http://bit.ly/IOasWg

     

    Here is NILF men over 65 with a disability.
    http://bit.ly/KAU1qn

     

    You would think it would contribute giving the "terror" one should be feeling about retiring right now.
    6 May 2012, 11:59 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    I don't think anyone can retire on SS alone so people keep on working and then one has challenges with working and accepting SS at the same time. I cannot remember the rules around income so someone please add to this comment.

     

    Larger question is that if life expectancy is 75 and 80 years old for a US men and women then essentially multiple decades of SSA taxes are collected for very little payback. That is fraud. Black people have shorter life expectancy so this is institutionalized racism intentional or not.

     

    If people cannot retire until 8 years before they die on average then retirement really is just a dream. Forget the golden years story it is mostly just a lie.
    8 May 2012, 10:04 AM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3527) | Send Message
     
    "Larger question is that if life expectancy is 75 and 80 years old for a US men and women then essentially multiple decades of SSA taxes are collected for very little payback. That is fraud."

     

    No it's not fraud, it's government incompetence. The government determines the taxes necessary for the benefit payout but the actuarial tables are influenced by politics and so are much different than the annuity actuarial payouts prepared by private companies.

     

    As far as earning rules, after 67 there is no reduction in S.S. benefits for earned wages so Uncle Warren can draw his full Social Security. However, eighty five per cent of his Social Security will be included in his taxable income. Since Social Security tax is based on pre-tax income, this amounts to double taxation on those taxpayers with over $35,000 annually (the rich).
    8 May 2012, 04:00 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Poor Texan:

     

    Thanks for the tax insight. Just another sucker punch for the working man.

     

    So I understand your point on incompetence and I believe that to be an explanation. But if government is accepting money and changing actuarial tables with the knowledge they are not going to pay many people any or much of their benefits then that is by definition fraud. Knowledge and intent are present. We should sue just to make the point and name congressmen who are responsible for the tables.

     

    I can see our society descending into chaos because of these unacceptable practices.
    8 May 2012, 08:55 PM Reply Like
  • Economic Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (3573) | Send Message
     
    One possible factor in the increase in numbers of folks working past 65 is the fact that there are more folks in the just over 65 group now as the first Baby Boomers enter that age group and they are the ones at the front of the demographic curve who are most likely to still have jobs.

     

    Perhaps of more concern should be those in the 2nd half of the Baby Boomers, born after the peak in '52 for whom the rules of the road changed in the early '70's who are still waiting in line behind the first half of the Boomers who got pretty much the same deal as their parents.

     

    The folks who are 45-55 who have been behind the power curve their entire working life and are past the typical peak earning years and still have a decade or more to go in what is a persistently difficult job market.

     

    The folks in the younger Boomers as a group are faced with what are possibly greater challenges that will persist for years to come.
    24 May 2012, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2278) | Send Message
     
    SA, I am very disappointed to see the likes of Rush Limbaugh cited in a discussion on economics, as he has absolutely no credentials on the subject.

     

    The WSJ, which still has some credibility despite its current owner, has a perfectly good opinion piece on the subject, that is sufficiently anti-Obama even for you:
    http://on.wsj.com/LeBcP2
    5 May 2012, 09:01 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    "I am very disappointed to see the likes of Rush Limbaugh cited in a discussion on economics, as he has absolutely no credentials on the subject."

     

    Really, then evidently you have not listened to him because you are willing to discount his opinion without any discussion of the underlying facts. That is a tactic that is only used when people don't want to discuss or hear the truth. Instead why don't you point out why you think his opinion is wrong? Oh yeah, that would be getting to reality and ignoring theoretical feel-good ideology.
    5 May 2012, 09:42 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2278) | Send Message
     
    I didn't say he was wrong, I said he has no credibility -- in particular, he is a pundit who clings to HIS (and your) "theoretical feel-good ideology".

     

    If Bernie Madoff gave you investment news, you wouldn't listen to him -- you have every reason to believe he's lying and just pumping his own portfolio (fake or otherwise). But if that investment news was confirmed by reputable source, then it's worth hearing.

     

    If Rush published a piece on the business of talk radio, I'd give it a lot of weight, even as much as I hate the guy, because he has a lot of credibility in that field. But public policy and macroeconomics? Not so much.

     

    Would SA like to link to a literally random person's facebook page too? Because it would deserve about the same amount of credence in economics as Rush's show.
    5 May 2012, 10:04 AM Reply Like
  • phxcrane
    , contributor
    Comments (744) | Send Message
     
    Wouldn't Obama fall into this category since he had no prior experience in government.
    5 May 2012, 10:17 AM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1199) | Send Message
     
    @Virginia
    Personally, I am taking no investment advices from Rush and feel sorry

     

    for you whose investor's focus was diverted by Rush from disappointing

     

    job situation in our country to Rush
    5 May 2012, 10:29 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    "I didn't say he was wrong, I said he has no credibility -- in particular, he is a pundit who clings to HIS (and your) "theoretical feel-good ideology"."

     

    So if you don't know if he was wrong or not, then how can you say he is clinging to any ideology (in spite of the facts) or is not qualified.

     

    Clinging to an ideology means expressing or taking the wrong position in spite of the reality of the situation. For you to logically believe Rush is only an ideologue, you have to believe he is wrong. Of course for an emotional belief that he is only an ideologue, no logic is required.

     

    Being right when so may others are wrong would mean he was qualified to discuss the situation. Further, to believe that Rush is not qualified is to believe that Obama is not qualified to run the country. Obama was nothing more that university professor and evidently a bad one at that. Obama had/has no foreign or economic experience.

     

    So the reality is that you do (at least based on the logic presented here) believe Rush is wrong, but refuse to discuss the issues themselves. Or your only responding emotionally to what your peers and friends expect and have no idea what Rush really stands for.

     

    Its time we stop attacking the messenger and start discussing the issues.
    5 May 2012, 11:13 AM Reply Like
  • DianeLee
    , contributor
    Comments (368) | Send Message
     
    Absolutely agree. My personal rules: always consider the source, and if substantial point is made, research further on that subject. The source isn't an automatic disqualifier, might present a different facet, but is far from the sole source. Simply attacking the messenger is the easy out, and far too common for incurious (started to say "lazy") thinkers.
    5 May 2012, 12:23 PM Reply Like
  • Storm Warning
    , contributor
    Comments (173) | Send Message
     
    You would be wrong, Obama was a senator.

     

    And how much "prior experience in government" does Romney have?

     

    Oh, right. No federal experience at all. He did server as Governor of Massachusetts once, which hardly counts, a state which doesn't even border a foreign country nor can you see Russia from there.
    5 May 2012, 01:48 PM Reply Like
  • DianeLee
    , contributor
    Comments (368) | Send Message
     
    Did you intend to be funny?? Obama voted "present"...how many times? Don't tell anybody from Boston, or Mass. in general, that they hardly count. Surely you jest.
    5 May 2012, 03:41 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10775) | Send Message
     
    Apparently you have not done much Geography on Alaska, as there certainly are places that you can not only see Russia from, but you can actually walk to Russia from during the winter.
    6 May 2012, 11:23 AM Reply Like
  • Boxed Merlot
    , contributor
    Comments (1596) | Send Message
     
    Its time we stop attacking the messenger and start discussing the issues...

     

    The numbers must be held low to prevent automatic extensions from occurring in some places. This is but one of many considerations taken to account by those able to make the rules of what constitutes "not working", and unfortunately they are based on policies, i.e. political expediencies.

     

    This is why the discussion by definition is political in nature.
    6 May 2012, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • BruceInKY
    , contributor
    Comments (444) | Send Message
     
    I understand the data also shows that baby boomers are either not retiring or transitioning to lower-level service jobs, where they compete with less-desirable twenty-somethings for the same employment.
    5 May 2012, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (1427) | Send Message
     
    Bruce, I believe the numbers will bear that out.

     

    Older folks are not leaving the workforce as quickly as some on these boards would like to believe. In fact, the numbers I have seen show that their participation rate in the workforce is actually increasing.
    5 May 2012, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • CautiousInvestor
    , contributor
    Comments (3090) | Send Message
     
    Thanks for the link D Virginia.

     

    The piece contains little criticism of Obama but does conclude "The tragedy of the Obama Administration is that it put the political pursuit of its social welfare agenda above policies to nurture a strong, durable economic expansion. Americans are paying for that mistake in less work and less reward for the work they get. The priority of the next Administration must be to reverse the decline. "

     

    This hardly qualifies as an ad hominem attack on Obama, rather its a statement of fact supported by Obama's less than stellar record. For example, during the depths of the great recession Obama occuppied himself with reinventing healthcare and pretty much delegated the design of the stimulus package to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who, predictably, patched together a massive spending jubilee guided patronage rather than economics.

     

    We are now paying a severe price for his negligence.
    5 May 2012, 09:19 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2278) | Send Message
     
    By the way I agree completely that healthcare reform was very poorly timed and poorly prioritized given the economic situation.

     

    I also agree that the cause of the low labor rate is indeed related to "a failed educational system that routinely graduates illiterates and a complex of social safety nets which have evolved into social hammocks."

     

    However, equally problematic is that I don't see the Tax Cut Team (i.e., Republicans and Tea Partiers) offering any intelligent plans either...
    5 May 2012, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1199) | Send Message
     
    D_Virginia
    By the way I agree completely that healthcare reform was very poorly timed and poorly prioritized given the economic situation.
    ======================...
    It is simply bad product and built on garbage arithmetic. There is no good timing for healthcare malpractice ever
    5 May 2012, 09:54 AM Reply Like
  • CautiousInvestor
    , contributor
    Comments (3090) | Send Message
     
    We may have more in common that realized.

     

    We need tax reform, not tax cuts. With social security on the brink of bankruptcy, its insanity to continue the on again, off again program of reducing social security payroll taxes.

     

    Leave capital gains and dividends alone and concentrate on eliminating the complex web of deductions that permit corporations to pay next to nothing when the highest marginal rate is somewhere close to 38%.

     

    And if somebody lives and votes in this country they should pay something by way of taxes. Currently, close to 50% of all taxpayers pay nothing other than payroll taxes which is really not a tax but a contribution to their retirement account.

     

    To correct this and tax the vast underground economy, we need some form of a national sales tax or VAT to broaden the tax base and target those who pay nothing. Food and other essentials could be exempted to avoid this from becoming overly regressive.

     

    Combined with budget cuts to eliminate wasteful spending, efforts to eliminate agency/department overlap and steps to improve government efficiency, we could vastly improve our immediate fiscal account and buy time to develop carefully reasoned plans to deal with the long term challenges posed by social security, Medicare and Medicaid.

     

    We simply lack the political will to take these needed and obvious steps.
    5 May 2012, 09:57 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4291) | Send Message
     
    Let me give it a try:
    Eliminate all corporate taxes and subsidies,
    Tax all sources of personal income at a flat rate of 10%,
    Phase out all social welfare spending including social security,
    Require everyone to provide for the support of their own families upon penalty of forced removal to work camps until they are reeducated to return to private employment.
    Bring the military home to fight the ensuing civil war.
    5 May 2012, 09:58 AM Reply Like
  • GotLife
    , contributor
    Comments (1376) | Send Message
     
    D_Virginia,

     

    Since your name, image and comments all display a bias, even to the extreme, why attempt to masquerade as an independent thinker or unaligned voter in a comment? Show some credibility and courage in your opinion and views. If they are of value, they will stand on the facts and data of the argument and need little manipulation or charade.
    5 May 2012, 10:03 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4291) | Send Message
     
    Too sensible.
    5 May 2012, 10:04 AM Reply Like
  • Fueled By Randomness
    , contributor
    Comments (300) | Send Message
     
    "Plans" from politicians are worthless. If politicians' machinations could generate a booming economy, we wouldn't be talking about the USSR in the past tense.

     

    How about just getting the government out of the way? That includes the crony capitalists who use political influence to engineer tax breaks for themselves and suppress competition. Let's stop dreaming up reasons to discourage employers from hiring people here (like Obamacare) and hire people in China or India instead. Let's get rid of some of the red tape - people always are harping about us losing manufacturing jobs but it's only slightly less difficult to build a new factory in the US than it is to create a toxic waste dump. There ARE states where jobs are booming and they happen to be the ones where the state and local governments are less inclined to see businesses as people to be "crucified."
    5 May 2012, 10:42 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4498) | Send Message
     
    "By the way I agree completely that healthcare reform was very poorly timed and poorly prioritized given the economic situation."

     

    Here's another quote that should help understand the gangsterism of Chicago. From Rahm: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

     

    Politically, and by that I mean by virtue of the number of democrats in the House and Senate at that particular time, there was a window of opportunity to ram thru Obamacare. It was a straight line partisan vote with two cases of outright bribery in the cases of Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu aka the Louisiana purchase.

     

    Here was the rundown of that notorious vote: "PPACA passed the Senate on December 24, 2009, by a vote of 60–39 with all Democrats and two Independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against.[9] It passed the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, by a vote of 219–212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against the bill."

     

    http://bit.ly/IQ3NnI

     

    You very simply do not pass a bill that socially transforming with a partisan cram down vote replete with political bribery. You do not do it... ever. Except in this administration.

     

    These are not representatives of a Republic. They are gangsters. There was no consensus. It was winner takes all, and damn the consequences of over half the American people.

     

    The only people that liked the bill were a small minority in the low 20 percent! And now it has gotten even lower. I have nothing but contempt for this administration.
    5 May 2012, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • gcrain
    , contributor
    Comments (90) | Send Message
     
    While Pelosi & Reid were pocketing large sums from insider trading.
    " Let them eat cake " .
    5 May 2012, 01:54 PM Reply Like
  • gcrain
    , contributor
    Comments (90) | Send Message
     
    Why isn't sale tax charged on ALL internet purchases ?
    5 May 2012, 01:55 PM Reply Like
  • DianeLee
    , contributor
    Comments (368) | Send Message
     
    Patience. It will happen. Waiting for Federal taxes to be collected on top of State taxes. Question is: will the consumer continue to buy at maybe 20% tax, Fed + State?
    5 May 2012, 03:47 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3527) | Send Message
     
    "Leave capital gains and dividends alone and concentrate on eliminating the complex web of deductions that permit corporations to pay next to nothing when the highest marginal rate is somewhere close to 38%."
    "And if somebody lives and votes in this country they should pay something by way of taxes."

     

    I think you don't see the efficiency of third party tax collections. Just as your employer withholds tax from your earnings and reduces your earnings to cover his payroll tax (and insurance) expense, corporations are the vehicle for passing on tax liability to the general population and raise their prices to cover that cost. Everybody pays but not everybody knows they are paying.
    5 May 2012, 08:11 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10775) | Send Message
     
    Why do we need sales tax on internet purchases. The failure to pay sales tax on internet purchases simply provides additional disposable income for the purchaser to spend in other areas. Sales tax is also state revenue not federal revenue. And....there are many things - at least in my state - that no sales tax is charged on.
    6 May 2012, 11:26 AM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10775) | Send Message
     
    NO, I will not.
    6 May 2012, 11:26 AM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (11195) | Send Message
     
    Psst...it is not as disappointing as people think....but maybe the market
    will sell off some more on it....
    5 May 2012, 09:58 AM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10775) | Send Message
     
    So you don't think the "Plunge" in WFP rate by men is not a harbinger of potential future problems?
    6 May 2012, 11:28 AM Reply Like
  • drekon
    , contributor
    Comments (193) | Send Message
     
    Not sure why we are debating Rush here, but I think Obama defenders need to explain dramatic increases in food stamp and disability participation rates. An independent minded person should examine the policy and implications of Obamacations. You also need to explain 10.3% Hispanic, 13% Black and 24.9% Teen unemployment because they are not Baby Boomers. Please explain Milwaukee's 24% inner city unemployment. Please explain the following before apologizing for this disaster of a President:

     

    "While unemployment among recent college graduates stood at 8.9 percent, the rates were much, much higher among job seekers with less education. Unemployment among those with a recent high school diploma was 22.9 percent, and 31.5 percent of recent high school dropouts were without a job."

     

    It doesn't take a genius to realize these are baby boomers. That excuse is crap.
    5 May 2012, 10:30 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4291) | Send Message
     
    I am not a liberal as that term is presently used and cannot pretend to know how they think. Many seem to be idealistic and compassionate, but would have government, through its taking powers, provide for the common welfare. Others seem more totalitarian in their approach and would deprive the populous of Constitutionally guaranteed Rights to ensure fairness and equality. Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not feel free to pursue happiness with big government intrusion into my life. Then again, I'm not a total parasite yet.
    5 May 2012, 10:45 AM Reply Like
  • GotLife
    , contributor
    Comments (1376) | Send Message
     
    Retirees are not figured in percentage calculations. Can't blame the Boomers for the drop in the rate.

     

    A better participation demographic to examine would be women, married in particular. Qualifying for long-term unemployment is as easy as using your cell phone. Take a second earners wage, subtract Federal and state taxes and day care expenses and compare to UI plus food stamps. Conclusion? Mommy needs along term vacation.

     

    Now, what if you add in a couple of stay at home high school grads, on their dads health insurance till 26, also receiving UI and food stamps. Things might actually be good enough for that Disney vacation, especially if they are not paying the mortgage but still in the dwelling. All these pension eligible government employees need to become a little more critical than just, "Press one if you are still unemployed."
    5 May 2012, 06:48 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10775) | Send Message
     
    Really.....have you looked at the data. The data doesn't support your construct whatsoever. Women are beginning to be the structure holding the workforce up as men have conveniently dropped out of the workforce from about 85% participation in the 1950's to 70%. While women climbed from low 30% rates to nearly 60%. Perhaps we have been putting all those men in prison?

     

    BTW, disability under SS has grown from 9 million in 2007 to 11 million in 2012. At that rate, the whole country will be disabled in about 50 years.
    6 May 2012, 11:32 AM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (11195) | Send Message
     
    It all comes down to Ohio....Romney must win Ohio....and Obama needs to win Ohio....so whoever you are for.... better find an Ohio independent and try and convince them....
    5 May 2012, 10:54 AM Reply Like
  • rpgpa
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    reading the comments here the message is over and over. The financial literacy on seeking alph is about a 1 out of 10...come on people. really. arguing about politics. in relation to the economy. .really ??? come on rookies you should know. Totally irrelevant meaningless fodder..keep wasting your time.. go to zerohedge or something. start reading there and see how much the level of understanding of whats going on goes way up.. geeez.
    5 May 2012, 03:50 PM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (11195) | Send Message
     
    ZeroHedge is the last place you want to go to get correct or balanced data....I suspect you like it because it supports your preconcieved ideas rather
    than having them challenged.
    5 May 2012, 04:04 PM Reply Like
  • DianeLee
    , contributor
    Comments (368) | Send Message
     
    Totally irrelevant post, rpgpa. Was this your political assignment for the day? Let's see. Condesension and insults. You self-identified. Back to my usual position of ignoring people with nothing to say.
    5 May 2012, 04:18 PM Reply Like
  • $CLU
    , contributor
    Comments (254) | Send Message
     
    Wrong headline. Should read:
    "Participation in *Taxable* income generating jobs at all time low."

     

    The underground economy has probably exploded along with a high volume of renters that aren't tax traceable.

     

    The government needs to do something to coax these folks back into paying taxes or get these businesses legal. And no, you can't do that effectively with a sharp stick. They will just hide deeper and possibly start building a culture of tax evasion (i.e. Greece).

     

    What do you think the participation rate in Greece was?
    (54.4% in 2010 according to published stats) And all those people did nothing because they were "unemployed"? Right, just like the US current participation rate. They're all just sitting around.
    5 May 2012, 06:28 PM Reply Like
  • Yokyok
    , contributor
    Comments (327) | Send Message
     
    Republicans would like you to forget the problems are the result of eight years of republican mismanagement. Just imagine what they could do in another four years.
    5 May 2012, 09:14 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    I guess if we are going back over history then let's review Carter's impact to our current situation. If he was not so lame and could have kicked Iran's butt back in the early 80's then maybe we would not have all this trouble in the ME.

     

    The only thing relevant is what the current President has done/not done to understand the problem and fix it. I don't think he really understands it yet so the fix is a long ways off.
    6 May 2012, 12:24 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2636) | Send Message
     
    Yokyok, I am sure you know this already and are just pulling our chain, but its been 6 years since the republican's were in control. In the 2006 midterm election the Dems took control of both houses of Congress. To make sure we are on the same intellectual level, it's Congress that controls spending and laws. In 2008 Obama won the Presidency and for 2 years the Dems controlled everything. Yet no solution from the Dems. In 2010 because of Democratic mismanagement (or no action, call it what you will) the Pubs were able to win back the House.

     

    In 4 years Obama and the Dems have not even provided the constitutionally required budget. I think the facts do not support your opinion. Not that they are required to, but just sayin.
    6 May 2012, 09:46 AM Reply Like
  • KJP712
    , contributor
    Comments (469) | Send Message
     
    For many people who move no forwarding address is left.Some may vanish and no trace can be found.How are these people counted? The U.E. rate is a number plucked out of the air by smiling faces who like to talk and lie at the same time.
    5 May 2012, 09:21 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Allen
    , contributor
    Comments (163) | Send Message
     
    Retirees do not affect the paticipation rate because this rate is calculated as a percentage of people IN THE LABOR FORCE. The labor force excludes retirees and children by definition.
    5 May 2012, 09:59 PM Reply Like
  • Chris Kent
    , contributor
    Comments (276) | Send Message
     
    This is the kind of statistic the government needs to track.
    5 May 2012, 11:33 PM Reply Like
  • jamesb_2A3
    , contributor
    Comments (244) | Send Message
     
    All I know is, that one of the first things Obama did when he took office, was to change the formula used to calculate unemployment. The effect was to produce an unemployment number far lower than it really is, and to keep it below the double-digit threshold, an important psychological barrier. That is a well known fact. If the same formula that was always used for all previous presidents were used today, the real unemployment number would be in the mid-double digits, 11%-as high as 17%. Manipulating the numbers has political benefit, and falls into the same category as a CEO who keeps a double set of books.
    6 May 2012, 07:37 AM Reply Like
  • jamesb_2A3
    , contributor
    Comments (244) | Send Message
     
    Another member pointed out this independent site that has a link to the "USA "REAL" Unemployment Rate", which is currently 16%. http://bit.ly/pqgjCS
    6 May 2012, 08:09 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs