Jobs: Someone FINALLY mentions the elephant in the room

[Guest]

For the first time, something that I suspected was affecting the unemployment rate has been mentioned:

Boomer retirements color jobless rate (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-05-06/jobs-boomer-retirement/54791590/1)

One of the reasons we no longer have the annual Social Security surplus that used to mask our deficit is that the baby boomers have started retiring (being born in 1946, 1945 + 9 months, means you would be turning 65 last year)

I had a feeling that the increased number of retirements would affect unemployment and now it seems someone has finally said so.

[Guest]

For the first time, something that I suspected was affecting the unemployment rate has been mentioned:

Boomer retirements color jobless rate (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-05-06/jobs-boomer-retirement/54791590/1)

One of the reasons we no longer have the annual Social Security surplus that used to mask our deficit is that the baby boomers have started retiring (being born in 1946, 1945 + 9 months, means you would be turning 65 last year)

I had a feeling that the increased number of retirements would affect unemployment and now it seems someone has finally said so.

A bit out of my element here, but you are making a good point.

Would it, could it, not also effect the "jobs created" number as well, for those legitimate retirees where a replacement is made ?

[Guest]

I tend to look at it that the unemployed population is the unemployed population; those retiring out of the job population do not affect those in the unemployed group.

btk

[Guest]

For the first time, something that I suspected was affecting the unemployment rate has been mentioned:

Boomer retirements color jobless rate (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-05-06/jobs-boomer-retirement/54791590/1)

One of the reasons we no longer have the annual Social Security surplus that used to mask our deficit is that the baby boomers have started retiring (being born in 1946, 1945 + 9 months, means you would be turning 65 last year)

I had a feeling that the increased number of retirements would affect unemployment and now it seems someone has finally said so.

Wow! Does this mean that all those who blame the unemployment issues on Obama should now direct their wrath to Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. I personally prefer George W. as the culprit but what do I know as I was only a baby in 1945.

[Guest]

The Obama camp has got to find a way to negate the high unemployment figures began their meddling and viola! now its baby boomers. Gimme a break

[Guest]

Why would you count retirees as "unemployed and looking for work" when they're not looking for work????

Looks like more excuses while doing nothing but spend money this nation does not have.

[Guest]

Why would you count retirees as "unemployed and looking for work" when they're not looking for work????

Looks like more excuses while doing nothing but spend money this nation does not have.

This is something that happened to me and everyone I know which might explain the 'no longer looking'. People age 60 who lose their jobs and collect unemployment are counted as unemployed. After the unemployment runs out, people who can't find another job at age 60+ have to live off their savings until social security kicks in at age 62, and therefore are counted as 'no longer looking' or retired.

[Guest]

This is something that happened to me and everyone I know which might explain the 'no longer looking'. People age 60 who lose their jobs and collect unemployment are counted as unemployed. After the unemployment runs out, people who can't find another job at age 60+ have to live off their savings until social security kicks in at age 62, and therefore are counted as 'no longer looking' or retired.


Math never was my strong suit in school BUT if a person loses their job at age 60, collects unemployment until it runs out and then has to live off their savings until Social Security kicks in at age 62 - just does not make mathematical sense as a major complaint.

I thought unemployment had been extended for up to 99 weeks. 2 years (from age 60 to 62) equals 104 weeks. That means a person would have to live off their savings for 5 weeks? Those 5 weeks count as the "no longer looking"?

[Guest]

My advice might be instead of making things up to read the link below which tell you EXACTLY how the unemployment number is arrived at. This is from that link.

"Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work."

Certainly not enough and if you are going to discuss it, I STRONGLY recommend reading how the number is arrived at...It is not a simple formula

How the Government Measures Unemployment (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed)

[Guest]

The gentleman who wrote the supplied link was the thus not a political hack.....

"The unemployment rate is the most widely used and reported indicator of the health of labor markets in the United States and around the world. It has, however, very significant and well-known limitations that have never been clearer than they are now. Despite its decline, we have not made significant progress towards a healthy labor market and may have a long, long road ahead to a full recovery."

"April was a great illustration of what has happened in the labor market over the past couple years. In October of 2009, the unemployment rate peaked at 10 percent. If you noticed that the unemployment rate has improved significantly since then—falling to its current 8.1 percent—and saw that nearly 3.5 million jobs have been created, you might conclude that we've had significant economic recovery since then. You would be wrong."

" Due to this disengagement, the slight drop in the unemployment rate from 8.2 percent to 8.1 percent was actually a false signal. It was more bad news rather than good. To understand this, you need to first understand how the unemployment rate is calculated.

If you worked even one hour, and received any pay at all, you are considered employed. If you aren't employed, but available to work, and have attempted to get a job over the prior four weeks, you are considered unemployed. If neither of these applies, you are not considered part of the labor force, and are not counted in the unemployment rate. No matter how much you want to work or how hard you've tried to find a job, if you stopped searching in the past four weeks for any reason, then you weren't one of April's 8.1 percent unemployed. This explains why a lower unemployment rate doesn't necessarily mean there are more people employed."

Latest Jobs Reports Shows U.S. Economy Is Barely Treading Water - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com) (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/05/07/latest-jobs-reports-shows-us-economy-is-barely-treading-water)

[Guest]

You can see the Obama administration doing more promoting of the number of jobs created as opposed to the unemployment rate.

[Guest]

You can see the Obama administration doing more promoting of the number of jobs created as opposed to the unemployment rate.

And of course that has gone down !!!

Trust me, I wish this would go up, even risking that Obama might get reelected as a result !!!

[Guest]

Private jobs increase more with democrats in the White House. Liberals like full employment, conservatives don't.


Read all about it.Private Jobs Increase More With Democrats in White House - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-08/private-jobs-increase-more-with-democrats-in-white-house.html)

[Guest]

Private jobs increase more with democrats in the White House. Liberals like full employment, conservatives don't.


Read all about it.Private Jobs Increase More With Democrats in White House - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-08/private-jobs-increase-more-with-democrats-in-white-house.html)

Could be..wont argue...your link is about the last 50 years or so. I am interested in jobs now and I said in another post that I hope it goes up even if it reelects Obama...we need jobs now..not talk about the future anymore !

I have no idea whether Romney will do better....you will never hear me say that....I just wish you that those who are so politically partisan would just see the big picture on things instead of just saying whatever some blogger says (like the Romney thing about signing same sex marriage into law)

Trust me...I am an american before any party or political idealogy. The fact that I oppose Obama in such huge terms as nothing to do with party but a simple investigation by me on his background and how bad he is for this country. His waivering on, and in my opinion, using Biden to "try it out" is typical of this man.....he will do what he thinks is POLITICALLY the right thing to do and not just the right thing to do.

I want jobs now.....I do not care to keep score on which party, etc. It makes no difference to anyone who is unemployed because it is history.

Thus I just do not understand posts like this because I am not sure what purpose it serves.

[Guest]

Call your congressman and senators and tell them to pass President Obama's Jobs Bill.

[Guest]

Call your congressman and senators and tell them to pass President Obama's Jobs Bill.

Do you have a bill number on the jobs bill you refer to ?

Actually, that is nt fair...there is NO jobs bill per se.

He is pushing for some economic reforms and I am afraid that he will probably going to get the same answer as the Republicans get about the many (over 30 I think) bills to create jobs that have been passed by the house and the senate refuses to even bring to the floor.