...and I haven't even started on Hillary yet

[glenn1]

Okay, that was pretty damned funny. 😀

Should have been dubbed with this instead of the dog barking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04

 

[SP33Demon]

I still laugh at people who think one person is going to fix their woes. Nope. It's not going to happen. You are the only person who has the control to put your life in a better position.

Let's look at the economy. Do you really think you'll see a fatter bank account if Donald or Hillary gets into office? Many people are fools. It should be expected since many Americans have a difficult time with that little word called RESPONSIBILITY!

Its when you look at your bank account and you only have a few hundred dollars. You could say...

"Oh crap. I need more money. It's my responsibility to make more money. Maybe I should stop watching Netflix, playing video games, or stop posting on ATOT."

Instead, many people say...

"It's those god damn Mexicans who are stealing all the jobs! Let's get rid of them all. They are the reason why my bank account sucks."

That's not the issue. I love talking with wealthy people. You know. The people that many on ATOT despise. The one constant that they have told me over and over is there is so much money that you could make $100m and no one would ever notice.

Stop looking for an easy fix people. Trump ain't gonna save you. Hillary ain't either. Only you can do that. You either make the life you want, or you become a slave and make someone else's dreams a reality.

Decent message, and luckily that holds true today but probably won't hold in the future as tech automation replaces every sector one by one. I'm in discussions to open a few small side businesses myself and working on a patent that could turn into a nice product once the prototype is done. Once automation hits, you want your kids to be in a legacy of owning/managing businesses, not selling the worker bee climb-the-corporate-ladder mantra. There will be much less worker bee type jobs in the future yet people will always be buying from businesses with their gov handout money. In essence, you want that gov money to be transferred from others to your bank account if you want to get ahead of every Joe Schmoe on welfare. Solid goods like liquor stores, rental properties, restaurants, and groceries will always be in demand for the peasants to spend their handout money on.

 

[Mai72]

BLS population stats say otherwise. The prime working age (25-54) pool isn't declining at all, in fact its numbers have increased since the Baby Boomer generation:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat03.htm

2015 stats for total Labor Force -
Millennials 25-34: 34,647
35-44: 32,603
45-54: 33,902
Baby boomer age 55-64: 25,954

Now look at the unemployed numbers:
Millennials 25-34: 1,905
35-44: 1,351
45-54: 1,259
Baby boomer age 55-64: 978

One other number that caught my eye.
Age 25-64 out of the labor force: 23957+8511=32,468
Age 65+ out of the labor force: 37,708

So people of working age 25-64 out of the labor force almost = as many senior citizens 65+ out of the labor force. That is fucked up.

It's also disturbing that almost Millennials 25-34 are unemployed at a 1/3~ higher rate relative to the other 3 working age cohorts. And this isn't even including the 16-24 group which would equate to another 2,100 unemployed. Adding them together, the 16-34 age group has 4,372 unemployed which represents 52.7% (4372/8296) of all unemployed in the country among all ages. That's a pretty high rate of unemployment for these young folk.

Furthermore, Census projects that we'll continue to experience a population increase that holds steady through 2050. So this will only get worse if the trend of young people not being able to find work holds:

Hence why we are seeing younger people going for Sanders/Trump more, many don't have a job and/or are just sitting at home so may as well hope for free shit or more jobs. To make matters worse, half of baby boomers are reluctant to retire which are preventing the other cohorts from advancing into those baby boomer positions which would open more jobs for the 16-34 cohort. Not to mention people of working age sitting at home as if they're already senior citizens. This economy is only going to get worse unless we can coax more jobs to the states, or increase welfare dramatically for everyone. I'd rather try to get companies to come to the states before the welfare option, and if we do increase welfare make it EITC based so people have more incentive to actually work.

You are fine with creating more welfare? Are you nuts. I don't know where you live. In NJ, welfare is rampant. Along with welfare comes drugs, especially heroin. We just had 4 stores robbed last week. All because of the heroin use that has been going on in our county.

The issue is this. Many young people are allegeric to work. They don't want to work because they'd rather get high and hang out playing their consoles. Yea, I know it's a generalization but there is some truth to what I'm saying.

You want a job? Go get it. There are plenty of $10 an hour manual labor jobs out there. It's funny that I will see 8 Mexicans crammed into a van on their way to work, while many native born Americans are home and sleeping.

They deserve what they get. It's only going to get worse. I can't wait until the government starts severly cutting back on welfare. It's going to happen. It's only a matter of when...

 

[fskimospy]

BLS population stats say otherwise. The prime working age (25-54) pool isn't declining at all, in fact its numbers have increased since the Baby Boomer generation:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat03.htm

2015 stats for total Labor Force -
Millennials 25-34: 34,647
35-44: 32,603
45-54: 33,902
Baby boomer age 55-64: 25,954

lolwut? Why are you quoting raw numbers instead of percentages? Do you know how this stuff works?

Now look at the unemployed numbers:
Millennials 25-34: 1,905
35-44: 1,351
45-54: 1,259
Baby boomer age 55-64: 978

One other number that caught my eye.
Age 25-64 out of the labor force: 23957+8511=32,468
Age 65+ out of the labor force: 37,708

So people of working age 25-64 out of the labor force almost = as many senior citizens 65+ out of the labor force. That is fucked up.

Those numbers are completely meaningless unless you look at what percentage of the population each group makes up. How would you not know this? You should probably put these numbers down before you hurt yourself, haha.

It's also disturbing that almost Millennials 25-34 are unemployed at a 1/3~ higher rate relative to the other 3 working age cohorts. And this isn't even including the 16-24 group which would equate to another 2,100 unemployed. Adding them together, the 16-34 age group has 4,372 unemployed which represents 52.7% (4372/8296) of all unemployed in the country among all ages. That's a pretty high rate of unemployment for these young folk.

Furthermore, Census projects that we'll continue to experience a population increase that holds steady through 2050. So this will only get worse if the trend of young people not being able to find work holds:

Again, pointless raw numbers.

Hence why we are seeing younger people going for Sanders/Trump more, many don't have a job and/or are just sitting at home so may as well hope for free shit or more jobs. To make matters worse, half of baby boomers are reluctant to retire which are preventing the other cohorts from advancing into those baby boomer positions which would open more jobs for the 16-34 cohort. Not to mention people of working age sitting at home as if they're already senior citizens. This economy is only going to get worse unless we can coax more jobs to the states, or increase welfare dramatically for everyone. I'd rather try to get companies to come to the states before the welfare option, and if we do increase welfare make it EITC based so people have more incentive to actually work.

Actually Trump supporters skew older than average so the reality is exactly the opposite of what you say. Trump's strongest groups are the elderly and people with less education. Polls clearly show this.

 

[Mai72]

lolwut? Why are you quoting raw numbers instead of percentages? Do you know how this stuff works?



Those numbers are completely meaningless unless you look at what percentage of the population each group makes up. How would you not know this? You should probably put these numbers down before you hurt yourself, haha.



Again, pointless raw numbers.



Actually Trump supporters skew older than average so the reality is exactly the opposite of what you say. Trump's strongest groups are the elderly and people with less education. Polls clearly show this.

And white.

Let's not forget that.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

But let's not forget this as well.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000373

 

[SP33Demon]

You are fine with creating more welfare? Are you nuts. I don't know where you live. In NJ, welfare is rampant. Along with welfare comes drugs, especially heroin. We just had 4 stores robbed last week. All because of the heroin use that has been going on in our county.

The issue is this. Many young people are allegeric to work. They don't want to work because they'd rather get high and hang out playing their consoles. Yea, I know it's a generalization but there is some truth to what I'm saying.

You want a job? Go get it. There are plenty of $10 an hour manual labor jobs out there. It's funny that I will see 8 Mexicans crammed into a van on their way to work, while many native born Americans are home and sleeping.

They deserve what they get. It's only going to get worse. I can't wait until the government starts severly cutting back on welfare. It's going to happen. It's only a matter of when...

Well when I said welfare I meant EITC, or Earned Income Tax Credits. Basically gives people a nice deduction if they don't make much while working. The kicker is that you have to actually be working and have an income. Most economists agree it's better than a minimum wage hike since it partly pays for itself and the employer doesn't have to directly eat the cost.

The direct fiscal cost of the EITC may be partially offset by two factors: any new taxes (such as payroll taxes paid by employers) generated by new workers drawn by the EITC into the labor force; and taxes generated on additional spending done by families receiving earned income tax credit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit#Cost

 

[Pardus]

Peter: Okay…so..she’s a dog.

Great video!!

 

[SP33Demon]

lolwut? Why are you quoting raw numbers instead of percentages? Do you know how this stuff works?



Those numbers are completely meaningless unless you look at what percentage of the population each group makes up. How would you not know this? You should probably put these numbers down before you hurt yourself, haha.



Again, pointless raw numbers.



Actually Trump supporters skew older than average so the reality is exactly the opposite of what you say. Trump's strongest groups are the elderly and people with less education. Polls clearly show this.

Someone doesn't know how to read a chart. Cumulative numbers matter, that's what a population pyramid is - CUMULATIVE. Seriously, there is no need to have a debate with you anymore if you cannot grasp simple concepts like why cumulative numbers for a population pyramid are important (clue - they increase the total worker pool for things like Soc Sec).

Go back to the website, it has the percentages. The age groups have very similar percentages which doesn't jive with what you claimed. You are dismissing it because you are wrong as usual. 55-64 only comprise 63.1% of their labor force population. The working age isn't declining despite what you say. It has increased.

Guys, let's spoon feed him with numbers he can understand:
25-34 - 81.0%
35-44 - 82.1%
45-54 - 79.1%
55-64 - 63.1%

Does that look like a decline to you? No, more people are working per age group. The problem is that cumulatively, the people who are of working age (25-64) and out of the work force almost equal retired/disabled senior citizens 65+. That's a major problem and why we are at 1978-level of total people employed in this country. People are getting lazier and lazier and don't want to work. We have 6% less people employed than the 1999 tech boom and with a lower level expanding population pyramid to boot (i.e. larger pool of workers cumulatively). We clearly need to create more jobs somehow, even if it's half the level of the tech boom. Welfare isn't the answer until we first try different ways to create jobs before full automation hits in 100 years (assuming we even reach that level by then when the "free shit!" movement reaches the point of no return).

 

[SP33Demon]

But let's not forget this as well.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289614000373

:thumbsup: This concept is evident in certain posts.

 

[ivwshane]

:thumbsup: This concept is evident in certain posts.

And contradicted in others😉

 

[waggy]

hehe

it's a boob.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Oh, I know. No disagreement on that one.

Clinton / Trump. Two people who have no clue on how to manage their perception.

I don't love Hillary and you're totally right that she would be an unpopular general election candidate as compared to the historical average.

Guess who she's much, much more popular than though? Donald Trump.

 

[flexy]

I seem to be the only one thinking this "ad" is silly/idiotic and seems to be made to "target" an audience with less mental capacity of that of pre-schoolers/Kindergartners.

If that's all that Trump has to offer to "attack" Clinton, then good night. Like there are not countless actual things he could attack - but making a Kindergarten level video with her barking? Sorry it's a while ago I attended Kindergarten, so this video is, uhm, let's put it that way, "less than impressive".

Edit: "Stupid", that's the best fitting term for this video.

 

[fskimospy]

Someone doesn't know how to read a chart. Cumulative numbers matter, that's what a population pyramid is - CUMULATIVE. Seriously, there is no need to have a debate with you anymore if you cannot grasp simple concepts like why cumulative numbers for a population pyramid are important (clue - they increase the total worker pool for things like Soc Sec).

Guess what? That is totally meaningless. The raw numbers of workers is only relevant as it compares to the number of retirees. Again, I think you should stop trying to use sources you don't understand because you're just making yourself look foolish.

Go back to the website, it has the percentages. The age groups have very similar percentages which doesn't jive with what you claimed. You are dismissing it because you are wrong as usual. 55-64 only comprise 63.1% of their labor force population. The working age isn't declining despite what you say. It has increased.

Guys, let's spoon feed him with numbers he can understand:
25-34 - 81.0%
35-44 - 82.1%
45-54 - 79.1%
55-64 - 63.1%

Yes, exactly. The average age of our work force is increasing which leads to a larger proportion of our work force outside of prime earning years. This will lead to a natural trend of decreased labor force participation rate. You have not quoted a single number that speaks to this, instead quoting random percentages and meaningless raw numbers. Hell, even percentages aren't useful by themselves as the meaningful metric is change over time.

Your arguments here are so bad that I am genuinely somewhat at a loss to even decipher what you think you might be proving. It's just babbling nonsense from someone who clearly doesn't understand what he's reading. Again I'm going to recommend you put the numbers down before you hurt yourself.

Does that look like a decline to you? No, more people are working per age group. The problem is that cumulatively, the people who are of working age (25-64) and out of the work force almost equal retired/disabled senior citizens 65+. That's a major problem and why we are at 1978-level of total people employed in this country. People are getting lazier and lazier and don't want to work. We have 6% less people employed than the 1999 tech boom and with a lower level expanding population pyramid to boot (i.e. larger pool of workers cumulatively). We clearly need to create more jobs somehow, even if it's half the level of the tech boom. Welfare isn't the answer until we first try different ways to create jobs before full automation hits in 100 years (assuming we even reach that level by then when the "free shit!" movement reaches the point of no return).

I don't even know what you're trying to say here and I doubt you do either.

 

[SP33Demon]

Guess what? That is totally meaningless. The raw numbers of workers is only relevant as it compares to the number of retirees. Again, I think you should stop trying to use sources you don't understand because you're just making yourself look foolish.

Yes, exactly. The average age of our work force is increasing which leads to a larger proportion of our work force outside of prime earning years. This will lead to a natural trend of decreased labor force participation rate. You have not quoted a single number that speaks to this, instead quoting random percentages and meaningless raw numbers. Hell, even percentages aren't useful by themselves as the meaningful metric is change over time.

Your arguments here are so bad that I am genuinely somewhat at a loss to even decipher what you think you might be proving. It's just babbling nonsense from someone who clearly doesn't understand what he's reading. Again I'm going to recommend you put the numbers down before you hurt yourself.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here and I doubt you do either.

More people are being born than dying as the population pyramid shows. That is the definition of cumulative numbers in a population pyramid. Yet you are too dense to know how a bottom heavy pyramid translates to soc security and the job market.

I called you out on your stupid statement that "the percentage of Americans of prime working age has been steadily declining in the past 15 years" as you claimed here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38104861&postcount=58

The prime working age percentages have been increasing/holding steady across all age cohorts. The only cohort with less than 80%~ labor participation rate is 55-64. Does this look like it's been declining for the past 15 years?

In fact, the prime working age population percentages are predicted for growth:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/08/demographics-prime-working-age.html

The prime working age population peaked in 2007, and appears to have bottomed at the end of 2012. The good news is the prime working age group has started to grow again, and should be growing solidly by 2020 - and this should boost economic activity in the years ahead.

Nobody is talking about "decreased labor participation rate", that was already evident from my previously posted graph, duh. Try to keep up, we know that employment levels are at 1978 levels (despite prime working age percentages increasing/holding steady):

Surprise, surprise - all of a sudden 2015 Bureau of Labor and Statistics aren't good enough. Of course - when they prove that you're a liar re: prime working age. You've truly gone off the deep end when BLS labor force statistics are "random percentages and meaningless numbers". Out of curiosity, where did you go to college?

 

[fskimospy]

More people are being born than dying as the population pyramid shows. That is the definition of cumulative numbers in a population pyramid. Yet you are too dense to know how a bottom heavy pyramid translates to soc security and the job market.

I called you out on your stupid statement that "the percentage of Americans of prime working age has been steadily declining in the past 15 years" as you claimed here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38104861&postcount=58

The prime working age percentages have been increasing/holding steady across all age cohorts. The only cohort with less than 80%~ labor participation rate is 55-64. Does this look like it's been declining for the past 15 years?

Do you seriously not understand what you're getting wrong here? You cannot say that a percentage is not declining by using raw numbers. If we had 8 working people out of 10 last year and then we had 9 working people out of 20 this year, the raw number has increased while the percentage declined. That's why you can't use raw numbers to refute percentages.

How do you not know or understand this? I'm baffled.

In fact, the prime working age population percentages are predicted for growth:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/08/demographics-prime-working-age.html

Thank you for quoting a source that supported my point. Excellent self ownage.

Nobody is talking about "decreased labor participation rate", that was already evident from my previously posted graph, duh. Try to keep up, we know that employment levels are at 1978 levels (despite prime working age percentages increasing/holding steady):

Surprise, surprise - all of a sudden 2015 Bureau of Labor and Statistics aren't good enough. Of course - when they prove that you're a liar re: prime working age. You've truly gone off the deep end when BLS labor force statistics are "random percentages and meaningless numbers". Out of curiosity, where did you go to college?

The BLS is a great source, you are just totally incompetent at using their numbers. Seriously, the mistakes you are making aren't even stats 101 mistakes, they are high school math mistakes. Employment to population ratio is strongly affected by demographics, which was the original point that you don't seem to be able to grasp.

Funny you mention college, you mentioned in an earlier thread that you were the 'most educated person in it'. I've asked you repeatedly for your impressive educational credentials but you never answered. Now's your chance! I want to know what universities to tell people to avoid like the plague, haha.

 

[fskimospy]

And by the way, since you now apparently love the BLS, here's some analysis from them as to the causes in the decline of the labor force participation rate (and this relates directly to the % employed to population ratio)

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/ar...orce-participation-rate-continues-to-fall.htm

As the baby-boom cohort has aged and moved from the prime age to the older age groups, the overall labor force participation rate has declined. In 2012, the baby-boom cohort was 48 to 66 years of age. In 2022, they will be 58 to 76 years old and the entire cohort will be in the 55-years-and-older age group, with much lower participation rates. In 2012, the participation rate of the prime age group consisting of 25-to-54-year-olds was 81.4 percent whereas the participation rate of those 55 years and older was 40.5 percent, less than half that of the prime age group. The movement of roughly 76.4 million baby boomers from participation rates above 80.0 percent to rates below 40.0 percent, typical of older age groups, will exert heavy pressure on the overall participation rate.10 BLS projects that, as a result of this demographic shift of baby boomers to older age groups, the labor force participation rate will continue to decline over the next 10 years.

As your population gets older a smaller percentage of your overall population works. I don't know why this is a complicated thing for you to understand.

I also encourage you to look at the charts the BLS provided but which I can't link here for some reason. Specifically, I would look at the % change over time for various age groups, not the raw numbers.

 

[SP33Demon]

Do you seriously not understand what you're getting wrong here? You cannot say that a percentage is not declining by using raw numbers. If we had 8 working people out of 10 last year and then we had 9 working people out of 20 this year, the raw number has increased while the percentage declined. That's why you can't use raw numbers to refute percentages.

How do you not know or understand this? I'm baffled.

Thank you for quoting a source that supported my point.

The BLS is a great source, you are just totally incompetent at using their numbers. Seriously, the mistakes you are making aren't even stats 101 mistakes, they are high school math mistakes. Employment to population ratio is strongly affected by demographics, which was the original point that you don't seem to be able to grasp.

Funny you mention college, you mentioned in an earlier thread that you were the 'most educated person in it'. I've asked you repeatedly for your impressive educational credentials but you never answered. Now's your chance! I want to know what universities to tell people to avoid like the plague, haha.

Oh now the troll admits that BLS stats = "a great source" when your other post said they were "random percentages and meaningless numbers". Nice.

I'm showing you how stupid your statement was that the "percentage of Americans of prime working age has been steadily declining in the past 15 years". Prime working age percentages have only declined during the subprime crisis. Now you are switching your argument to total employment participation which we've already shown a million times (https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/kbgeg.png) = 1978-like levels. Trying to move the goalposts to proportional labor participation rate when called out on prime working age percentages shows utter lack of understanding of your original claim.

Yes, where did you go to college? We are all ears. Don't try to make it about me. I'm asking you a question, you can either answer it or go hide in your basement. Your lack of understanding about the unemployment rate, U3, U6, prime working age, and population pyramids really makes me wonder about where you got a degree (and if you even have one). Maybe you should ask for your money back, lol.

 

[ivwshane]

Wow! You are an even bigger idiot than I thought!

 

[fskimospy]

Oh now the troll admits that BLS stats = "a great source" when your other post said they were "random percentages and meaningless numbers". Nice.

The BLS's numbers have always been great. Your use of them was completely incompetent though. The BLS is not to blame for your stupidity.

I'm showing you how stupid your statement was that the "percentage of Americans of prime working age has been steadily declining in the past 15 years". Prime working age percentages have only declined during the subprime crisis. Now you are switching your argument to total employment participation which we've already shown a million times (https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/kbgeg.png) = 1978-like levels. Trying to move the goalposts to proportional labor participation rate when called out on prime working age percentages shows utter lack of understanding of your original claim.

I have no idea what you think you called me out on, but I did find it amusing that you included a link that supported my argument. As a personal tip, you should really read things before you link to them to make sure they aren't refuting your argument, haha.

As best as I can tell now your argument is 'prime working age Americans haven't been declining for 15 years, they've only been declining for 9!' then.. uhmm.... okay. lol. That's about as total an admission of defeat as I think you're capable of making.

Yes, where did you go to college? We are all ears. Don't try to make it about me. I'm asking you a question, you can either answer it or go hide in your basement. Your lack of understanding about the unemployment rate, U3, U6, prime working age, and population pyramids really makes me wonder about where you got a degree (and if you even have one). Maybe you should ask for your money back, lol.

I've never boasted about my educational credentials that I can remember, unlike you. I also have no need to prove myself to someone as stupid as you are. I don't know why you continue with these childish boasts and attempts to needle me as they aren't going to be any more effective now than they have ever been. You can't make me angry so why do you try?

So again, since you seem to think you have impressive educational credentials why won't you share them?

 

[SP33Demon]

And by the way, since you now apparently love the BLS, here's some analysis from them as to the causes in the decline of the labor force participation rate (and this relates directly to the % employed to population ratio)

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/ar...orce-participation-rate-continues-to-fall.htm

As your population gets older a smaller percentage of your overall population works. I don't know why this is a complicated thing for you to understand.

I also encourage you to look at the charts the BLS provided but which I can't link here for some reason. Specifically, I would look at the % change over time for various age groups, not the raw numbers.

Labor participation rates were summed up 40~ posts ago (post #53):
https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/kbgeg.png

That is why population pyramids are so important, more cumulative young people being born and entering the workforce has to outpace oldies who retire and die and the age cohorts also matter. If you take the rate at which people are dying vs born through 2060 then it shows we will have growth. Labor participation rates are anyone's guess at this point (which will obviously be driven by fiscal policy) through 2060. Hence the previous discussion in this thread that more jobs need to be created to drive that fiscal policy, otherwise we are going to be stuck at 1978-like employment levels.

The first step is to help the 25-34 cohort where over 1 in 3 are unemployed as I showed via BLS stats. They simply cannot find jobs, so the solution is not to give young people more "free shit", it's to give them more honest jobs so their labor participation rate can go up. We need to do everything we can to entice corporations and small business to prosper here, not elsewhere. That is the crux of the problem, not more "free shit" (welfare).

 

[zinfamous]

This should appeal to his poorly-educated supporters. :thumbsup:

oh look it only took like, 3 or 4 posts. 😀

 

[sandorski]

RE: Labour Participation Rate

This isn't something that happened because of Obama or even the 2008 Recession. It is a phenomena that has been predicted to happen since the 1980's, because of the aging Baby Boomers. Even Reagan enacted Policy to deal with it.