patrick.net

The failing here, is not working towards a 20 HOUR WORK WEEK!

Productivity is high, we should all be reaping the benefits of that.

However under capitalism they'd rather whip as few strong young bucks as possible. Lower overhead.

It's all Obama's fault!!!

Oilwelldoctor says

33% of Americans out of workforce, highest rate since 1978

Baby boomers drove the numbers way up when they going into working age, the baby boomers kept the numbers up when they were all working age, now it's baby boomers driving the numbers way down as they are retiring/dying.

Too bad CIC can't comprehend demographics. The baby boomers are retiring in large numbers is the biggest part of lowering the participation rate. The leading edge boomers are almost 70 and the big bulge is between 60-65 so it's going to continue. Even the original article said so. Here's a much better analysis. http://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-the-truth-behind-it/ Not that CIC will read it or be able to understand it. A better way to see this is to look at the working age population rather than total. The participation rate only drops from 66% to 64% 2008-2014 for working age.

The one thing everyone missed totally is the rise of the 2 earner households in the 70's and 80's driving the participation rate up. Boomers are retiring in couples driving it down just as fast.

Call it Crazy says

So, let's zoom in for a closer look at that graph:

*



*

Looks a bit different.... After the recession hit in the beginning of his first term, the previous GOP President was able to not only stop the drop, but increased the participation rate. The current Dem President, at the same point in his second term, not so much..

The greatest real estate/credit boom in history along with 2 wars fought on credit and the participation rate went up a whole 1% bottom to peak. That's impressive. Not very. Bush actually probably did worse by this metric. Not that Obama doesn't suck.

* the participation rate of 55+ is 40%. If that demographic increase due to sheer size, it brings down the overall #. duh.

* the participation rate of 25-54 is already stabilized. 83% to 81% is not a huge dropoff and that trend already stopped. 81% participation rate is frankly as high as any in the world.

* 20-24 year old are staying in school longer.

The scary open question is what might happen if a third President Bush takes office in 2017.

finehoe says

what might happen if a third President Bush takes office in 2017.

Jeb would be a much better president that Obama (or Bush#2).

bob2356 says

The one thing everyone missed totally is the rise of the 2 earner households in the 70's and 80's driving the participation rate up. Boomers are retiring in couples driving it down just as fast.

What if instead of a crisis of capitalism, this is a just another adjustment? More stay at homes perhaps?

Usually the SIGNPOSTS LEADING TO APOCALYPSE are a big disappointment.

zzyzzx says

Jeb would be a much better president that Obama (or Bush#2).

Jeb Bush is rigid, unwavering even when presented with facts, and will force facts to fit his own predetermined outcomes. This isn't speculation: it's history.

Wait a minute. American aged 16 and older not participating in the labor market? Not participating? You interpret to mean that there is less job out there or bad economy? My kids and my friend's kids are not looking for a job. After i read you guys' comments, I am confused. I need to go check my eyes. No matter how many times I read, it looks like 16 to me. This is a classic omission of information to mislead the readers into thinking something more sinister is going on. Before making a judgement, do your own diligence.

Think no matter how you slice it, the America and the lifestyle afforded I knew as a kid in the 60's is gone. On my street in small town America, all the men were employed and if by chance, one wasn't there was lots of embarrassment and gossip. Women stayed at home to mind the kids (yes, how sexist!).

I suppose improvements in lifestyle are partially to blame, automation, slave labor from abroad, the internet revolution, etc. Perhaps just a natural progression.

But what to do with the excess people displaced in our modern world?

sbh says

It begs the question whether we should even listen to idiot racists who think any president is responsible for 40 year demographic trends, and the aging of population cohorts.

This is highly offensive.

It should read "It leads to the question whether we should even listen to idiot racists who think ..." - the rest of the sentence is correct as-is.

"Begs the question" means someone actually asked the question, and that the answer given has failed to address the question.

Oilwelldoctor says

But what to do with the excess people displaced in our modern world?

This is a difficult question. We just can't have a leisure welfare state since after 30-40 years of that we'd have way too many mouths to feed for free.

The key fix I see is to keep much more of what people spend on their personal consumption going to the actual service providers, instead of the trillions each year leaking out to China, landlords, and corporations. All that money is leaving the paycheck economy and not coming back into it as wages.

The main reason we have two-income households is that it in the 1970-80s we had an "arms race" where married working couples could buy a better house than just one income, so now it takes two incomes to be the top bidder.
Over time though this just reset the base price valuation of housing, since due to supply limitations the price is set at what the top bidder is able to borrow from the bank.

Housing and healthcare each are a two trillion per year industries but very little of that is actual 'consumption'

shows what's been going on. Blue and red are housing and health care expenditures, green is food.

Now food, we consume. You buy a steak at the store for $10, there was a long line of workers necessary to get that to you, each taking their cut of that $10. And when you leave the store, the steak is no longer there.

You pay $2,000 per month for an apartment though, and that same dynamic is no longer present. Most of that money is instantly bled off into the rent-seeking economy.

The apartment would have been there whether or not the renter paid the rent that month; the renter is really buying the right to keep the #2 bidder from taking over his lease.

I.e. other than wear and tear, there's no actual consumption going on!

Same thing with a $1,000 hospital visit. Relatively few high-skilled rent-seekers protected by guildism, taking their rents.

We could have a sustainable middle class economy again if we fixed these three things: our $500B/yr trade deficit, and the $2T/yr expenses in housing and healthcare.

Then we could move to a 20hr workweek, so people have a bit more leisure and the freedom to work part time jobs.

Never going to happen though. Corporate America has us by the balls, and ~40% of the electorate we call conservatives is boosting for more capture of our economy by the "job creators"

sbh says

HEY NIGGER, FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're confused again. HydroCabron isn't a nigro, he's a pendejo. Get your terminology straight.

sbh says

Methinks you miss the dynamic at work here.

yeah i was trying to figure out who was calling whom a nigro.

It's interesting to observe how even on forums, certain cliques form. Kind of an us against them dynamic.