Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by mminnick 11 years, 10 months ago
    Given the numbers in the article, there are approximately 246.7 M in the workforce. This, I'm assuming, is the 16+ yea old cound. I also assume there is some upper age limit that is not counted.
    I could not quickly find the comparable numbers for 1978 only percentages. The thing about percentages is that they some the data and hide some of the real numbers. This percentage for 2013 or today is 91.8 million people. Let me repeat 91.8 million people have exited the workforce. Using some off the top of my head numbers this is the entire population of California pluse Texas and one or two smaller states. The politicians of this country and the government in general seem to be OK with this. The people of the country seem to be OK with it or at least they haven't raised their voices and demanded something be done to correct the problems.
    The Democrates want to esxtend unemployment, the Republicans agree but only if it is paid for by cuts some where.
    Why can't tcongress, the admidistration et al get togethere and dosomething constructive? They don't want to. They see no penalty for doing nothing so that's what they do.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 11 years, 10 months ago
    When will people finally grow tired of this. Obama's economic policies are not working and yet we are told to be patient. Three more years of this is going to be brutal.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Commander 11 years, 10 months ago
    Hmmmm...91.8M of 320-odd M.
    Children, retired, welfare..to include unemployment, those without trackability (illegals and natural born without SSN)...and...some dead! Makes sense to me!

    15 years ago ran across the same thing in a newspaper. News claimed "x"number of welfare recipients by demographic. My friend's sister worked for the "State". He acquired statistics and then ran comparison against the papers claims......resulting in 103% of population on welfare. I never knew 100% could be exceeded! LOL
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by khalling 11 years, 10 months ago
      ok, the first number represents all in the workforce-16+ yrs of age eligible to work. this figure includes "unemployed"
      the second figure is the number of people not in the workforce: 16+ who are disabled, retired, in the military, institutionalized.
      The 30 million increase is somewhat due to baby boomer retirees, but what is telling is the first number dropped 7% and those people have to go somewhere into the next category or die. the number of people turning 16 also might decrease. 30 million more people are disabled, retired etc since just 1990. that is a huge jump out of the workforce. Big alarms should be going off everywhere and especially to the validity of a drop in unemployment rate. Either there is massive fraud or something....
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by Commander 11 years, 10 months ago
        I was being facetious. Dude needs to give sources for his raw data and how he extrapolates. I see this kind of expletive everywhere I look. If I ran my business on this kind of fiction.....I'd be broke or a Banker!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by khalling 11 years, 10 months ago
          They are standard government statistics that are compiled and followed monthly. He is referring to these:
          http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS113000...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by straightlinelogic 11 years, 10 months ago
            I've been following zerohedge for years, and its sources are almost always documented. It is an invaluable site for anyone who wants to get behind the BS that passes for economics and financial news in the MSM. The site has its biases: free markets, gold, government and banker conspiracies, but through the years I've seen stuff that only became "news" months later in the MSM. It also has a lot of good stuff from off the beaten track sources, which the reader is always free to verify on his own.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by Commander 11 years, 10 months ago
            Thank you for the data. My derision is aimed at the format of the article. Apologies toward your intent. Expressed earlier this week "Would not be the last time I 'missed' something".

            The baby boom bubble will rise and fall over the next thirty years. SSI will be "taxed" to breaking. The lack of saving of the "generation" will force extended family households. My sister and I have been planning on this, on behalf of our parents, for the last ten years.

            Do you think this might be causal in all the "amnesty" toward illegal immigration? We need a younger, larger workforce to pay for the financial inequities of the "system" and our lack of foresight as a nation.. Law of unintended consequences...we have no work...minimum wage and general tax rates preclude hiring and development.

            "Future Shock, what is it? The premature coming of the future. And for those not prepared...the effects will be devastating." (Toeffler) I was nine years old when I saw the film....Psyche has been tuned ever since.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 8 months ago
    Interesting labor statistics that I would like to see are a) the number of producers having left NY and CA, b) the number of producers having moved to states with no income tax, c) the number of producers who have gone Galt, etc.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo