August Jobs Report Shows Shrinking Workforce

BravoWhiskey5280

BravoWhiskey5280

Active member
U.S. employers added a paltry 96,000 jobs last month, yet the unemployment rate fell to 8.1 percent, according to the latest BLS Jobs Report. The number of unemployed persons “was little changed” at 12.5 million, while the workforce shrank by 368,000.How does the unemployment rate improve but the number of unemployed persons stays the same? Simple –the labor force participation rate (63.5 percent) declined in August. That marks a new 30-year low in the civilian participation rate.[/b][/i]Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey points out that, “if we had the same level of civilian participation as we did at the beginning of the recovery in June 2009 (65.7%), we’d be looking at a jobless rate of well over 10%.”Not only does this months jobs report look bad, the revisions to reports from the last two months now make the situation even worse: June’s job numbers fell from 64,000 to a revised 45,000, and July’s numbers were revised from 163,000 to 141,000.Reuters reports that this dismal jobs report could spark the fed to take action.Jobs growth slowed more than expected in August, setting the stage for the Federal Reserve to pump additional money into the sluggish economy next week and dealing a blow to President Obama as he seeks reelection in November.”Expect President Obama to point out that unemployment fell by .2 percent without mentioning that the workforce shrank to hit a new 30-year low, because that’s the easiest way to make this dismal report look better.[/i]
 
But John Stewart and MSNBC say the economy is getting better. Stop using these actual facts, they're getting in the way.
 
You do know that the life expectancy has been increasing over the last 30 years right?

meaning that retirees over 65 are living for like 30-40 years? 30 years ago there were far from as many people living as long.

So, if the senior population increases, so goes with it the percentage of participating workforce, since they aren't fucking working. Fucking maths, bro.

 
You're explaining it by claiming the life expectancy is going up? Wow, that's on a whole new level of liberal bullshit.
 
It's far from the entire explanation... there are heaps of other factors involved (I didn't even get into the illegal immigrant population workforce, since their contribution to the workforce isn't properly included in this statistic) but to outright deny that FACT would be downright batshit retarded.

if 30 years ago, only 25% of the population was retired, and now 33% of the population is retired, that would probably cause an impact to the overall participating workforce now wouldn't it?

 
mostly unskilled labor jobs. these people should have studied harder in school. maybe then they woudln't be poor and out of a job; voting for mitt romney.

 
3 threads in a half hour. All about politics. I understand it's close to election but for all of our sake, just stop. How about you make one thread, called "REASONS OBAMA SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT" and post all of this there. Its cool you dont like him. I'm not a huge fan. But your to the point of spam.
 
2763702.jpg

 
True, but can't that be negated by the exponentially increasing population, and thus, younger workforce?
 
I don't exactly know the numbers on this... but people aren't exactly having kids at the rate of the 1940's and 1950's right now. The amount of retirees coming from the baby boomer generation is massive.

That's part of the reason Social Security is having a ton of issues, because there is a smaller workforce in the USA paying into it now (not to mention, the amount being paid into SS isn't really on par with the percentage that folks from the 60's were paying into it), than there are folks retiring, or having been retired from the workforce taking on their social security.

So yeah. It would be negated if there was an exponentially increasing population, with exponentially increasing education standards, with exponentially increasing available jobs... but that's not the case, because this is a global economy in a system that requires constant growth, and something's gotta give.

 
You are 100% right about the increasing number of retirees in this country. What you are not right about is that the shrinking of the workforce is the direct result of this. Sure, it may be a factor, but I can think of several more that are much more significant. For example, the median age for low income jobs in this country is much higher than it used to be. This means that jobs that had been previously occupied by say the 18-24 year olds, are now being occupied by people who are of a much higher age because the availability of the people under this higher age group is constantly increasing as more and more of these people loose their jobs. Employers now have the option of if the want to hire a.) a 20 year old with little to no experience, or b.) a 30 year old with a full resume. 9 out of 10 times the employer is going to choose the 30 year old for logical reasons which is why we are in turn seeing a shrinkage of the workforce, us young guns don't have the opportunities that people once had when they were our age.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top