Let's talk labor participation rates

2001400ex

Here's another way your news source is lying to you. How many times have I heard that labor participation rates are at levels back in the 70s and therefore unemployment is way higher than quoted, and therefore or economy is shitty.



http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2014/mobile/ted_20140106.htm

This is from sane source that others have quoted for that stat. So yes it's true that 25-54 year olds the labor percentage has decreased. But look at 55 plus, every category is higher. Do you think that factors into it? Then do you want to discuss why labor participation is higher in those age groups?

whatshouldicareabout

2001400ex said:

Here's another way your news source is lying to you. How many times have I heard that labor participation rates are at levels back in the 70s and therefore unemployment is way higher than quoted, and therefore or economy is shitty.



http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2014/mobile/ted_20140106.htm

This is from sane source that others have quoted for that stat. So yes it's true that 25-54 year olds the labor percentage has decreased. But look at 55 plus, every category is higher. Do you think that factors into it? Then do you want to discuss why labor participation is higher in those age groups?

It means people aren't able to retire anymore and need to continue to work, while cashing in social security checks, to stay alive.

This isn't a good thing.

2001400ex

whatshouldicareabout said:

2001400ex said:

Here's another way your news source is lying to you. How many times have I heard that labor participation rates are at levels back in the 70s and therefore unemployment is way higher than quoted, and therefore or economy is shitty.



http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2014/mobile/ted_20140106.htm

This is from sane source that others have quoted for that stat. So yes it's true that 25-54 year olds the labor percentage has decreased. But look at 55 plus, every category is higher. Do you think that factors into it? Then do you want to discuss why labor participation is higher in those age groups?

It means people aren't able to retire anymore and need to continue to work, while cashing in social security checks, to stay alive.

This isn't a good thing.

Agreed, and what are the root causes of that.

HoustonHusky

Still bringing up topics you don't understand the info on. A couple other graphs:

Series Id: LNS12300060
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio - 25-54 yrs.
Labor force status: Employment-population ratio
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 25 to 54 years







(male participation rate now lowest in history of the data)


Robust recovery we got going on there...

Start *gurgling*

Fire_Marshall_Bill

2001400ex said:

whatshouldicareabout said:

2001400ex said:

Here's another way your news source is lying to you. How many times have I heard that labor participation rates are at levels back in the 70s and therefore unemployment is way higher than quoted, and therefore or economy is shitty.



http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2014/mobile/ted_20140106.htm

This is from sane source that others have quoted for that stat. So yes it's true that 25-54 year olds the labor percentage has decreased. But look at 55 plus, every category is higher. Do you think that factors into it? Then do you want to discuss why labor participation is higher in those age groups?

It means people aren't able to retire anymore and need to continue to work, while cashing in social security checks, to stay alive.

This isn't a good thing.

Agreed, and what are the root causes of that.

Decreasing wages, exponentially higher healthscare costs

2001400ex

HoustonHusky said:

Still bringing up topics you don't understand the info on. A couple other graphs:

Series Id: LNS12300060
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio - 25-54 yrs.
Labor force status: Employment-population ratio
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 25 to 54 years







(male participation rate now lowest in history of the data)


Robust recovery we got going on there...

Start *gurgling*

Yes, there are more Suzy home bitches now than there were 50 years ago.

Again, use meaningful data, not just cherry pick 25-54 years old. For fucks sake.

whatshouldicareabout

2001400ex said:

whatshouldicareabout said:

2001400ex said:

Here's another way your news source is lying to you. How many times have I heard that labor participation rates are at levels back in the 70s and therefore unemployment is way higher than quoted, and therefore or economy is shitty.



http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2014/mobile/ted_20140106.htm

This is from sane source that others have quoted for that stat. So yes it's true that 25-54 year olds the labor percentage has decreased. But look at 55 plus, every category is higher. Do you think that factors into it? Then do you want to discuss why labor participation is higher in those age groups?

It means people aren't able to retire anymore and need to continue to work, while cashing in social security checks, to stay alive.

This isn't a good thing.

Agreed, and what are the root causes of that.

Obama.

Duh.

2001400ex

Fire_Marshall_Bill said:

2001400ex said:

whatshouldicareabout said:

2001400ex said:

Here's another way your news source is lying to you. How many times have I heard that labor participation rates are at levels back in the 70s and therefore unemployment is way higher than quoted, and therefore or economy is shitty.



http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2014/mobile/ted_20140106.htm

This is from sane source that others have quoted for that stat. So yes it's true that 25-54 year olds the labor percentage has decreased. But look at 55 plus, every category is higher. Do you think that factors into it? Then do you want to discuss why labor participation is higher in those age groups?

It means people aren't able to retire anymore and need to continue to work, while cashing in social security checks, to stay alive.

This isn't a good thing.

Agreed, and what are the root causes of that.

Decreasing wages, exponentially higher healthscare costs

It's been a while since I took a college stats class, but this growth does not appear to be exponential.

http://m.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/09/05/chart-week-health-care-costs-rising-exceptionally-slow-rates

d2d

2001400ex said:

Fire_Marshall_Bill said:

2001400ex said:

whatshouldicareabout said:

2001400ex said:

Here's another way your news source is lying to you. How many times have I heard that labor participation rates are at levels back in the 70s and therefore unemployment is way higher than quoted, and therefore or economy is shitty.



http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2014/mobile/ted_20140106.htm

This is from sane source that others have quoted for that stat. So yes it's true that 25-54 year olds the labor percentage has decreased. But look at 55 plus, every category is higher. Do you think that factors into it? Then do you want to discuss why labor participation is higher in those age groups?

It means people aren't able to retire anymore and need to continue to work, while cashing in social security checks, to stay alive.

This isn't a good thing.

Agreed, and what are the root causes of that.

Decreasing wages, exponentially higher healthscare costs

It's been a while since I took a college stats class, but this growth does not appear to be exponential.

Yep. You couldn't calculate a standard deviation if it bit you in the ass.

2001400ex

d2d said:

2001400ex said:

Fire_Marshall_Bill said:

2001400ex said:

whatshouldicareabout said:

2001400ex said:

Here's another way your news source is lying to you. How many times have I heard that labor participation rates are at levels back in the 70s and therefore unemployment is way higher than quoted, and therefore or economy is shitty.



http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2014/mobile/ted_20140106.htm

This is from sane source that others have quoted for that stat. So yes it's true that 25-54 year olds the labor percentage has decreased. But look at 55 plus, every category is higher. Do you think that factors into it? Then do you want to discuss why labor participation is higher in those age groups?

It means people aren't able to retire anymore and need to continue to work, while cashing in social security checks, to stay alive.

This isn't a good thing.

Agreed, and what are the root causes of that.

Decreasing wages, exponentially higher healthscare costs

It's been a while since I took a college stats class, but this growth does not appear to be exponential.

Yep. You couldn't calculate a standard deviation if it bit you in the ass.

Nice work.

greenblood

2001400ex said:

HoustonHusky said:

Still bringing up topics you don't understand the info on. A couple other graphs:

Series Id: LNS12300060
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio - 25-54 yrs.
Labor force status: Employment-population ratio
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 25 to 54 years







(male participation rate now lowest in history of the data)


Robust recovery we got going on there...

Start *gurgling*

Yes, there are more Suzy home bitches now than there were 50 years ago.

Again, use meaningful data, not just cherry pick 25-54 years old. For fucks sake.

Cherry pick 25-54 year olds? Are we to think that a rise in employment of 55+ year olds is good for the economy? I'm sorry, but more people saying "hello" to me when I walk into Walmart and Costco doesn't move the needle much.

The biggest problem is the incentive to work. 25-54 year olds are working less and less, because they don't have to. Through "Entitlement", the government has made it easier and easier for lazy people to make a living staying at home and pumping out kids. But no worries, in America it's socially acceptable for people who want to make something of themselves and work 60 hour weeks to support these morons. Heaven forbid Leroy and Charlene don't get their monthly welfare (errrrrrrrrrrrr) easily convertible beer and smokes money.

HoustonHusky

Yeah, ignore the bulk of the work force to comment on kids that have to stay in school and run up debt because there are no jobs for them (i.e. won't show up in the stats you showed) along with people 55+ that either can't now afford to retire or have to come back into the workforce because the economy has been crappy (hey, look old people working is going up...you should gurgle Obama some more).

But hey, I heard Walmart greeters are getting a pay raise so maybe median income won't continue to fall under Obama?

Keep *Gurgling*

whatshouldicareabout

2001400ex said:

Fire_Marshall_Bill said:

Decreasing wages, exponentially higher healthscare costs

It's been a while since I took a college stats class, but this growth does not appear to be exponential.

http://m.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/09/05/chart-week-health-care-costs-rising-exceptionally-slow-rates

The chart does a good job of showing how Medicare costs are decreasing by comparing it to private payors, but it is missing the third major payor in the US: Medicaid. Medicaid represents 15.5% of all US health care costs and has been steadily increasing since 1980 (vs Medicare which is 20.5% and private insurance which is 32.8%).

One of the biggest changes with the ACA is how CMS restructured payments to hospitals and forced hospitals to modernize and improve coordinating services to improve health outcomes. One of the most notable changes is reducing the amount of payment a hospital receives if a patient is readmitted within 30 days of discharge and other important quality measures. This helps explain why there is such a significant deviation from the private payors from about 2011 onward. However, one of the things to consider with this chart is that it does not capture costs associated with other health insurances (Medicare C, Medicaid), out-of-pocket spending, or long-term care (only the first 100 days after hospital discharge) in these populations.

Overall US health care costs (as well as health outcomes) would be more appropriate and interesting to look at.