General Discussion

bhikkhu

(10,789 posts)

67. If you break down the demographics on that...

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:02 AM

Jul 2014

There had been a long-term increase in labor participation during the baby boom generation years, which has long been predicted to decline when that generation begins to retire, starting about 2007.

That's what actually happened, accelerated by the recession, but looking at the cause its not exactly playing out as predicted. The baby boomers so far have been holding onto their jobs, and the labor participation rate for older workers remains at a record high. That can't go on forever, or even for very many more years.

What has been a bigger driver of the low rate is that there are record numbers of kids going to college rather than entering the workforce. I tend to think that bodes well for the future.

This is a good article on the effect of immigration on US unemployment: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/economic-blame-game-immigration-and-unemployment

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

74 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Study: Falling fertility rates are �demographic time bomb� [View all] LuckyTheDog Jul 2014 OP

The solution to most economic and social problems is a 32 hour work week. lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #1

Some people need to work 60+ hours just to make ends meet davidn3600 Jul 2014 #2

I'm more concerned with the person working zero hours. lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #4

So everybody's standard of living can go down? Travis_0004 Jul 2014 #45

Yup. Just like standard of living went down when FDR signed the 40 hour week. lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #51

They can if they get a living wage for those 32 hours, LWolf Jul 2014 #5

The other solution is higher wages bhikkhu Jul 2014 #6

Higher wages is a consequence of a constrained labor supply lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #16

And a constrained labor supply comes from a declining birth rate. bhikkhu Jul 2014 #27

The US doesn't have a declining population. lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #49

If you break down the demographics on that... bhikkhu Jul 2014 #67

"The baby boomers" lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #69

You probably won't like this site either bhikkhu Jul 2014 #74

Good for many industries, but can be problematic for those positions that require hughee99 Jul 2014 #14

I don't care that finding additional workers "is problematic". lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #18

When labor shortages in the medical industry occur, hughee99 Jul 2014 #22

When labor shortages in ANY industry occur, the industry brings in more workers. lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #48

"Arbitrarily large amounts of education"? hughee99 Jul 2014 #54

How about 20% more med schools? lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #58

Because Cuba spent YEARS building the infrastructure to do this. hughee99 Jul 2014 #60

It would happen overnight if consumer groups were in charge of school accreditation. n/t lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #61

If "consumer groups" (widely renown for their expertise in medical education) gave accreditation hughee99 Jul 2014 #62

Can you give me an example of another occupation... lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #71

How about the legal profession? hughee99 Jul 2014 #73

It is already 35-hour work week yeoman6987 Jul 2014 #29

How does a professor work a 35 hour week? caraher Jul 2014 #56

easier on families - allows women with children to stay in the workforce Iris Jul 2014 #50

When Ehrlich was researching his ideas, the effects of the petrochemicals SoCalDem Jul 2014 #3

The sky is falling either way you look at it bhikkhu Jul 2014 #7

+1 nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #25

the planet would be far better off if there were zero human babies geek tragedy Jul 2014 #8

I am always fascinated econoclast Jul 2014 #11

I am always bored by sophistry. geek tragedy Jul 2014 #12

Not a suggestion econoclast Jul 2014 #13

This message was self-deleted by its author geek tragedy Jul 2014 #17

That is bull betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #19

they also have overwhelming population density geek tragedy Jul 2014 #20

Quite frankly .... You frighten me econoclast Jul 2014 #21

16.5 trillion people on planet earth does not frighten you? geek tragedy Jul 2014 #23

China abandoned its one child policy malaise Jul 2014 #38

Someone bored by sophistry just extrapolated exponential growth 2000 years into the future. mathematic Jul 2014 #39

well, then, we agree that SOMETHING has to rein in the rate of human population growth geek tragedy Jul 2014 #46

"China's "one child policy" will have to be expanded to the entire planet, and ruthlessly enforced" ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2014 #59

maybe a bit of overdramatization. geek tragedy Jul 2014 #63

There are many ways to act, and I think at this point individual decision is best bhikkhu Jul 2014 #28

Oh goodness yeoman6987 Jul 2014 #30

Science. geek tragedy Jul 2014 #32

You don't think we could sustain a 10 billion person World? yeoman6987 Jul 2014 #34

10 billion? I'm talking 90 billion in 1000 years, 16.5 trillion geek tragedy Jul 2014 #35

It's folly to extrapolate the numbers out that far customerserviceguy Jul 2014 #37

the point I'm making is that something has to change that number. geek tragedy Jul 2014 #47

Agreed customerserviceguy Jul 2014 #64

It's already changing; I don't know where you got 1.2%, but that's out of date muriel_volestrangler Jul 2014 #65

Ya. I guess I was seeing the revanchism from the geek tragedy Jul 2014 #68

I admit you are right yeoman6987 Jul 2014 #43

If you are really against pollution, why don't you stop driving a car and heating your home? Squinch Jul 2014 #44

Ah. The moral equivalence of contraception and suicide. Orsino Jul 2014 #72

DU: located at the intersection of nihilism and misanthropy n/t lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #52

and science, and math. nt geek tragedy Jul 2014 #53

When the global population falls to, let's say, LWolf Jul 2014 #9

I think the population drop will be disruptive for a while, but will benefit us in the long term. Brigid Jul 2014 #10

Why nothing will happen to change this. betterdemsonly Jul 2014 #15

The inherent problem: any system predicated on limitless growth ultimately fails. Spider Jerusalem Jul 2014 #24

Tough shit, people of the world. We're past the carrying capacity as it is, need to slow it down. NYC_SKP Jul 2014 #26

Or...they could lead to unprecedented increases in prosperity and technology. Xithras Jul 2014 #31

Please stop spamming your blog. LeftyMom Jul 2014 #33

+1 n/t X_Digger Jul 2014 #57

dont tell China or India angrychair Jul 2014 #36

Not this shit again. nt bemildred Jul 2014 #40

Oh for pete's sake. The Earth now has 7 BILLION people, and climbing. Hekate Jul 2014 #41

Oh, don't worry. Just outlaw female contraceptives. Hekate Jul 2014 #42

I've read that earlier generations had a "village" fried eggs Jul 2014 #55

Sad to see a Harvard professor throwing fearmongering 'time bombs' muriel_volestrangler Jul 2014 #66

bringing our population down gradually to <3B over the long term would be a good thing. Warren Stupidity Jul 2014 #70