Faked census to show higher employer data pre election 2012

[snapper]

Well let me explain why clearly - all your "boomer population" suddenly retired between 2008 and 2010. This according to you is the reason why no stimulus has actually worked. Because it's 'natural'.

Look suppose we switch the coin and talk about employment rates as opposed to unemployment rates. There are still nigh on 5 million less people working the US now than in 2008. All are "boomer population"? How convenient. :confu:

One could go on to ask about the reality of the 'recovery' given that less people are working.

[astralis]

snapper,

all your "boomer population" suddenly retired between 2008 and 2010. This according to you is the reason why no stimulus has actually worked. Because it's 'natural'.

i'll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth.

note that i DID NOT say that "all the boomer population suddenly retired between 2008 and 2010".

note that i DID NOT say that "this is the reason why no stimulus has actually worked".

note that i DID NOT say that "5 million less people working in the US now than in 2008" and that i DID NOT say that this is all from the boomers.

i'm more than happy to debate with you. you seem much more interested in debating strawmen that you assert are my positions.

READ MY POST, and address it point by point. i mentioned FIVE FACTORS in the lowering of the participation rate and you focus on ONE.

[bfng3569]

bfng,



i posted something about this a while back with snapper, but i can't find it now. a bit of google-fu later:

The U.S. labor force is still shrinking. Here’s why.



either way, natural demographics DOES have an effect, and this effect will certainly accelerate over the next 10 years.



of course, this is natural in a recession and its aftermath. not only will older folks just decide to give it up and retire, but if you're young and graduate into a recession, you will naturally have a harder time finding work, with implications that last through decades. employers don't like to see gaping holes in a resume, where the young person either cannot find employment or is forced to go into menial labor/unrelated work just to survive.

thus, given this and the demographics issue i noted, the new normal for a labor force participation rate will be lower today/in the future than it was in 2008. again, this is how unemployment numbers can go down while the labor force participation rate stagnates. (that's not saying all is well.)

to look at it from another angle, say shortly after inauguration in 2009, obama waves a wand (you can pick between Keynes and Ayn Rand, it doesn't matter for the sake of this example) and the recession ends. he waves the wand again and employment starts picking up, miraculously going back to 2007 job employment numbers within a month.

that labor force participation rate will still have declined, from approximately 65.5% to approximately 64.5-65.0%. and that's assuming god-like powers...

I think you either missed my point or doesn't seem you took it into account, which is the issue I have with some of these charts.

this 'natural recession and its aftermath' you mention, was not at all natural.

I posted, and I really don't know what your response above has to do with it, a lot of older people that did retire around the time frame in question and after did not have a choice.

it was that or unemployment.

and that is what I do not see accounted for in any of these fancy charta comparing labor participations rates and unemployment and retires....

[astralis]

bfng,

this 'natural recession and its aftermath' you mention, was not at all natural.

i did not say "natural recession".

note what i wrote.

of course, this is natural in a recession and its aftermath. not only will older folks just decide to give it up and retire, but if you're young and graduate into a recession, you will naturally have a harder time finding work, with implications that last through decades.

as in, over the course of a recession, relatively old people may decide to retire early, either voluntarily or not. this happens in every recession.

this is a different idea than a "natural recession".

it was that or unemployment.

and that is what I do not see accounted for in any of these fancy charta comparing labor participations rates and unemployment and retires....

it's accounted for; that's why labor participation rate declined.

if your issue is the fact that volutary retirements and involuntary retirements are conflated in the labor participation rate, that is true.

however, one cannot simply assume that everyone whom retired between 2008 and now did it because they had no choice. moreover, what i was getting at in my response is that demographics plays a huge role in the labor participation rate, and that regardless of this debate about voluntary/involutary retirements, you'll see a decline anyway over the next few years. just because there is no recession doesn't mean people will stop aging and retiring.

in fact, to balance out the people involuntarily retiring, there are people whom will delay retirement as they attempt to rebuild their savings/401ks.

[DOR]

snapper,

You want to talk about employment, instead of unemployment? Fine.

* Civilian employment has been rising, year on year, for the past 12 quarters.

* The maximum civilian employment in US history was in the fourth quarter of 2007, at 146.26 million. 2013 Q-3’s 144.25 mn was 2.01 million below that, not 5 million.

* The maximum private sector employment in US history was in the fourth quarter of 2007, at 115.67 million. 2013 Q-3’s 114.34 mn was 1.34 million below that, not 5 million.

* The maximum number of manufacturing jobs was in June 1979 (19.55 mn); and the maximum number of service sector jobs was in . . . October 2013 (117.85 mn).


= = = = =

I’m amazed to see people can still think of 2007+ as a “recession.”

We had a depression.

If you think of it as if it was a recession, you'll advocate the wrong policy responses and expect the wrong outcomes. Once you realize that it wasn't a recession, and begin to think about what a depression is and how it has been dealt with in the past, then an entirely new set of policy instruments are needed, and an entirely new timeframe for recovery is to be expected.

Think of Japan, 1990s and not the US, 1990s.

[snapper]

note that i DID NOT say that "all the boomer population suddenly retired between 2008 and 2010".

Indeed but you did say that even had there been no recession employment would be lower due to boomer retirement. According to you the stimulus should have raised the employment levels - it clearly hasn't and that's why US employment statistics are deceptive at best. All they really say is that you more people getting into more debt or living on benefits and living from the black market since despite a growing population employment to population ratios have not risen since 2008-10. Stimulus - both fiscal and monetary - fail.

Happy Thanksgiving stuff :)

[astralis]

snapper,

Indeed but you did say that even had there been no recession employment would be lower due to boomer retirement. According to you the stimulus should have raised the employment levels -

i fail to see why this concept is so hard to understand. the labor participation rate would have been lower partly due to boomer retirement, to the factors i listed above, and to the great recession. on the other hand, stimulus HAS increased employment, but not enough to erase all the effects of the recession, let alone all the other factors i've discussed.

the stimulus was some $787 billion. all the QEs added up equals some $3.7 trillion (not the same effect as direct fiscal stimulus). the great recession involved trillions of dollars getting wiped out. note that US household net worth fell $15 trillion between 2007-2009.

so yes, both of these things can be true at the same time. neither stimulus nor QE was meant to be a cure-all. at best, one could say "it could have been worse". and it would have been, looking back at it. even the IMF, which pooh-poohed stimulus at first, eventually came to admit that assessment as a mistake.

anyway, a happy thanksgiving to you too. hope you participate in black friday and contribute to a bit of, ah, stimulus in your own country. :)

[snapper]

I see... despite any evidence that stimulus has worked the situation 'would have been worse' without it. Perhaps more stimulus is needed? More debt or higher tax and spend? More devaluation? More impoverishment of normal people? Because if it didn't work first time it must mean 'moar' is needed right?