Economy

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)

8. But those numbers are influenced by retirements!

Sat Jun 8, 2013, 01:06 PM

Jun 2013

Your points are all valid, but even if we had a riproaring economy, we would still have a declining participation rate. Demographics force that to be so.

If you were born in 1946, you're 67. And if you were born in 1947, you are 66 this year. The huge numbers of people who retire between 62 and now 66 mean that participation rates must decrease.

It is true that but for retirements and disability retirements, the unemployment rate would be very high, but there's no way that the economy can pick up speed very quickly under these circs.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Washington�s Literal Sinkhole, and Our Idiotic Fixation on Deficits [View all] eridani May 2013 OP

Simple Keynsean economics. Laelth May 2013 #1

I don't disagree with you at all, but... JayhawkSD May 2013 #2

Good point, and I do not know the answer. Laelth May 2013 #3

We are in a recovery, just a very flat one Yo_Mama May 2013 #4

A "flat recovery" is a contradiction in terms. n/t JayhawkSD Jun 2013 #5

You can see from the graphs Yo_Mama Jun 2013 #6

It's still a contradiction in terms. JayhawkSD Jun 2013 #7

But those numbers are influenced by retirements! Yo_Mama Jun 2013 #8

Not based on how the work force is defined JayhawkSD Jun 2013 #9

Labor force is all those above 16 who are either working or seeking a job or have recently Yo_Mama Jun 2013 #10

Not a soul alive can argue that we are in anything but poor shape as a country. mbperrin Jun 2013 #11