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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

dmallind

(10,437 posts)

15. Well yes and no

Reply to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 12:36 PM

Apr 2013

Certainly retirement factors into it, but I question the impact. Boomer rates were much higher it's true, but pure count not so much. As it happens the number of people born in the year that turns 65 this year - 1948, was identical to that which turns 18 - 1995, at 3.5M. Surely fewer of the latter have died than the former. Now not everyone retires at 65 or works at 18 I know, but they are fairly standard benchmarks. Choosing realistic alternatives doesn't make much difference anyway.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

23 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

People Not In Labor Force Soar By 663,000 To 90 Million, Labor Force Participation Rate At 1979 Leve [View all] Jim.Rob58 Apr 2013 OP

no surprise, since the republicans have been blocking every jobs program proposed still_one Apr 2013 #1

Wow! You can see when George Bush Junior became president on that graph. loudsue Apr 2013 #2

Welcome to DU, Jim Rob alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #3

Mucho's Gracis, Amigo! n/t Jim.Rob58 Apr 2013 #5

I don't know who this "Mucho" might be, or why he possesses a "Gracis" alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #6

LOL. n/t Jim.Rob58 Apr 2013 #10

Talk of cuts to Social Security won't help. earthside Apr 2013 #4

I largely agree with you. Jim.Rob58 Apr 2013 #7

What impact does baby boomer retirements have on labor force participation rates? denverbill Apr 2013 #8

None, nor should they. Jim.Rob58 Apr 2013 #9

That's absolutely false alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #13

Well yes and no dmallind Apr 2013 #15

There are certainly interpretations to be made regarding the number...I was addressing the poster's alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #16

We have less people working now than in 1980... lib2DaBone Apr 2013 #11

maybe the sequester will help Enrique Apr 2013 #12

Only 6M of whom want a job, and only 3M of whom have looked ONCE in a year. dmallind Apr 2013 #14

Baby Boomer here. I dropped out... I retired OKNancy Apr 2013 #17

It's those lazy worker's fault that there are no jobs librechik Apr 2013 #18

K&R DeSwiss Apr 2013 #19

the private sector is doing fine. quadrature Apr 2013 #20

You're kidding Right? Munificence Apr 2013 #21

The private sector is doing fine? OhioChick Apr 2013 #22

Locking, sorry, this is a duplicate. Please continue discussion and post updates here: Rhiannon12866 Apr 2013 #23