Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
1. Employment for those over 55 is not at a record high in the sense meant
Tue Jun 5, 2012, 02:48 PM
Jun 2012

I hate this kind of "fun with numbers"

The thesis implied is that the entire unemployment problem is concentrated among the young and that things are pretty much okay for older people.
__________

At it's peak, the unemployment rate for workers under 25 was 19.6 percent, the highest since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking unemployment in 1947.

Okay, that's a percentage.

Meanwhile, employment for those 55 and over in absolute numbers is at a record high, having been climbing continuously for almost 20 years. There are more older workers, and they're far less likely to be unemployed.

Whoops, now we are using "absolute numbers"... well geez, in absolute numbers employment during the great depression was probably a lot higher than in 1910, due to population growth.

The proportion of individuals who continue to work after age 55 reached a record high this year. Some 40.2 percent of Americans age 55 and older participated in the labor force in 2010, a number than has increased steadily since 1993 when just 29.4 percent of older Americans worked, according to an Employee Benefit Research Institute analysis of Census Bureau data.

Okay, now we are using the fact that people cannot retire because their retirement saving were wiped out to show that old people have it easier than young people. The higher participation rate of folks over 55 is not an indicator that jobs are plentiful for them. That is a nobody-can-retire number.


Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Employment for those 55 a...»Reply #1