What you economic illiterates don't comprehend!

[healthmyths]

Effects of Recent Hurricanes on BLS Data Collection and Reporting
Several U.S. states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands suffered heavy damage from three major hurricanes in late August and September 2017. Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria have affected data collection in many BLS surveys. Here is a summary of those effects. We will continue to update this page as more information becomes available.

Hurricane Harvey first made landfall on Friday, August 25, in Texas and caused catastrophic damage there. After returning to the Gulf of Mexico, Harvey was downgraded to a tropical storm and then made landfall a second time on Wednesday, August 30, in Louisiana.

Before Hurricane Irma hit the lower Florida Keys on Sunday, September 10, Irma already had caused severe damage in St. Thomas and St. John in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico also suffered damage from Irma. After moving north from the Keys, Irma made landfall again later on September 10 on Florida’s southern coast. Irma was a Category 5 hurricane when near the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Irma dropped to a Category 4 when passing through the Florida Keys, then a Category 2 hurricane when hitting mainland Florida.

Hurricane Maria made landfall in St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands and in Puerto Rico on Wednesday, September 20, causing catastrophic damage. These areas already had suffered damage from Hurricane Irma earlier in the month.

Effects of Recent Hurricanes on BLS Data Collection and Reporting : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Oct 2017, Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age: Monthly, Seasonally Adjusted (population data is not adjusted for seasonal variation; not seasonally adjusted version used) | FRED | St. Louis Fed

 

[g5000]

Whose "you guys"? Are you referring to those of us that believe that the federal government needs to spend within its means and not soak the citizenry with excessive taxation? I guess that would make your ilk the completely fiscally irresponsible crowd that wants to tax, borrow, print and spend the nation into the poor house, you geniuses are doing a GREAT job of that so far, unfortunately for you the road is running out for this recklessness.

Except that you guys do it ass-backwards. Look, the thing is, Bill Clinton balanced the budget by making the rich pay their fair share. Obama went form Bush's Trillion Dollar deficits to cutting them to less than 300B a year by - again- making the rich pay their fair share.

Unlike Reagan and the Bush Crime Family who spent, spent spent while giving the tax cuts to the rich.

And Trump is following that script.

NOw here's the thing. I'm all for balanced budgets, but the problem with you guys is that you cut taxes, you really don't cut spending and you cause recessions to boot, but in the process, you make government MORE popular. We get all this stuff, and we don't have to pay for any of it. THAT'S AWESOME.

Really want to make government smaller. Tax enough to cover the deficits and pay back the national debt.

The rest of your post is the usual "fantasy land' shit you guys say all the time when you aren't in power and do nothing about when you are.

Your remark about Clinton is false ..... Clinton balanced the budget by stripping the military. Then, when attacked, Bush was forced to delay response until we could get the military up to speed again.

Maybe you can explain to us how Obama made the "rich pay their fair share". He didn't ---- he one-upped Clinton. He stripped the money AND increased spending in all the other areas. That's why an additional $9 trillion in debt.

The military budget was about the same when Obama left office as it was when he took office.

As for deficits, there was this tremendous economic crash which Bush left Obama. Maybe you heard about it. It was in all the papers.

Funny thing about economic crashes. They have an extremely negative impact on income tax revenues, and thus spike deficits.

However, Obama managed to get the deficit down to less than a third of that spike by 2015.

Don't worry. Trump is on track to spike it again.

 

[g5000]

There's a very simple solution to the Social Security and Medicare financial woes. Very simple.

Raise the eligibility age to 70, and index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors who created SS and Medicare. We should be working longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

 

[HenryBHough]

Two imutables:

1. If your outgo exceeds your income then your upkeep will be your downfall.

2. No liberal can sleep well until all property is owned by government.

 

[g5000]

Effects of Recent Hurricanes on BLS Data Collection and Reporting
Several U.S. states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands suffered heavy damage from three major hurricanes in late August and September 2017. Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria have affected data collection in many BLS surveys. Here is a summary of those effects. We will continue to update this page as more information becomes available.

Hurricane Harvey first made landfall on Friday, August 25, in Texas and caused catastrophic damage there. After returning to the Gulf of Mexico, Harvey was downgraded to a tropical storm and then made landfall a second time on Wednesday, August 30, in Louisiana.

Before Hurricane Irma hit the lower Florida Keys on Sunday, September 10, Irma already had caused severe damage in St. Thomas and St. John in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico also suffered damage from Irma. After moving north from the Keys, Irma made landfall again later on September 10 on Florida’s southern coast. Irma was a Category 5 hurricane when near the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Irma dropped to a Category 4 when passing through the Florida Keys, then a Category 2 hurricane when hitting mainland Florida.

Hurricane Maria made landfall in St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands and in Puerto Rico on Wednesday, September 20, causing catastrophic damage. These areas already had suffered damage from Hurricane Irma earlier in the month.

Effects of Recent Hurricanes on BLS Data Collection and Reporting : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Oct 2017, Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age: Monthly, Seasonally Adjusted (population data is not adjusted for seasonal variation; not seasonally adjusted version used) | FRED | St. Louis Fed
View attachment 160837

I am very happy to see the momentum of the trend which started eight years ago and restored us to normalcy is continuing.

 

[KissMy]

You Lie Again!

It's Simple - Tell Me:
How Many Workers in September?
How Many Workers in October?

Civilian Labor Force
Sept 2017 161,146,000
Oct 2017 - 160,381,000
Jobs Lost . = - 765,000
US population grew 189,000 last month
= 954,000 jobs lost

 

[healthmyths]

You Lie Again!

It's Simple - Tell Me:
How Many Workers in September?
How Many Workers in October?

Civilian Labor Force
Sept 2017 161,146,000
Oct 2017 - 160,381,000
Jobs Lost . = - 765,000
US population grew 189,000 last month
= 954,000 jobs lost

How many of those people were How do we know that the storms played a role? Workers said so themselves. The monthly jobs report is based in part on a survey of roughly 60,000 American households. One question on that survey asks whether people who normally have jobs were not at work because of bad weather.
In a typical September, around 30,000 workers fall into that category; this year, that number was 1.5 million.
Another nearly 3 million people reported working part-time because of the weather.
Jed Kolko, chief economist at Indeed.com, a job-search site, noted that September’s employment declines were concentrated in low-wage industries. Employment in the leisure and hospitality sector, for example, which includes hotels, restaurants and other weather-dependent businesses, was cut by 111,000 jobs in September.
How Hurricanes Skewed September’s Job Numbers

How in the hell is the weather Trump's fault?

 

[The Derp]

There's a very simple solution to the Social Security and Medicare financial woes. Very simple.
Raise the eligibility age to 70, and index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.
We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors who created SS and Medicare. We should be working longer.
Common. Fricking. Sense.

OR - just hear me out - OR we lower the retirement age and expand SS benefits, thus creating vacancies in the job market for Gen Xers and Millennials to advance in their careers, while also reducing the unemployment rate for the youngest of those in the workforce.

We can finance that by removing the cap on taxable Social Security income while capping benefits for high earners.

I think that makes the most sense. Particularly for the largest generation currently in the workforce (Millennials) whose unemployment rate is 9.6%

 

[g5000]

There's a very simple solution to the Social Security and Medicare financial woes. Very simple.
Raise the eligibility age to 70, and index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.
We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors who created SS and Medicare. We should be working longer.
Common. Fricking. Sense.

OR - just hear me out - OR we lower the retirement age and expand SS benefits, thus creating vacancies in the job market for Gen Xers and Millennials to advance in their careers, while also reducing the unemployment rate for the youngest of those in the workforce.

We can finance that by removing the cap on taxable Social Security income while capping benefits for high earners.

I think that makes the most sense. Particularly for the largest generation currently in the workforce (Millennials) whose unemployment rate is 9.6%

Your plan would increase the number of seniors drawing from the Treasury while decreasing the number of taxpayers supporting them.

That's just plain nuts. It accelerates the problem we are having.

As it is, only 5.4 percent of Americans were over the age of 65 when Social Security was enacted.

By the time Medicare was added, 9 percent of Americans were over 65.

Today, 15 percent of Americans are over 65.

We have a larger and larger percentage of Americans being carried by a smaller and smaller percentage.

This is simply unsustainable.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

 

[The Derp]

Your plan would increase the number of seniors drawing from the Treasury while decreasing the number of taxpayers supporting them.

Not necessarily. The Millennials are the largest component of our workforce and currently face an unemployment rate of 9.6%. Since Medicare and Social Security are pay-go, it makes the most sense to employ the workers who are going to be paying for those on the entitlements. So you can't just do this in a vacuum, it also includes raising wages as well, which is an important component. But I believe those wages will go up because of pressure on the job market put upon by the retirement of older workers and their replacement with younger ones.

Basically, we are in a situation right now the opposite of China...we have the largest generation in the workforce (Millennials) who, combined with Gen X, outnumber the number of Boomers and Silents in retirement. So the workers can sustain the entitlements for the retired. China has the problem you're getting at, which is that their workforce is (already) going to be outnumbered by the retirees. So the workers in China won't be able to provide the level of benefits the retirees had previously provided their predecessors. We are in the enviable position of having a workforce that is larger than the retirees.

You need a lower retirement age in order to produce and preserve labor elasticity.

That's just plain nuts. It accelerates the problem we are having.

Not if you remove the cap on taxable income, and cap benefits for high earners. Besides, the old farts need to get out of the labor force so the youngsters can start their careers. If the old farts are holding onto their jobs just to get to the magic retirement age, all that's doing is preventing the younger workers from advancing and growing their wages. Elasticity. That's what it's all about.

The unemployment rate for Baby Boomers is 4.2%. The unemployment rate for Millennials is 9.6%. So Boomers are holding onto jobs that should be going to Millennials. But instead, Millennials are delaying their careers because they can't get good paying jobs. And why? Because the Boomers are holding onto them in order to get max benefits from entitlements. That shouldn't be if we want a strong labor market.

As it is, only 5.4 percent of Americans were over the age of 65 when Social Security was enacted. By the time Medicare was added, 9 percent of Americans were over 65. Today, 15 percent of Americans are over 65. We have a larger and larger percentage of Americans being carried by a smaller and smaller percentage.

Which is simply not true. The Millennial generation is larger than the Boomers. The Millennials + Gen X are larger than the Boomers + Silents. The problem you're describing is what is happening in China where their Millennial and Gen X generations are smaller than their "Boomers" and "Silents". So they're going to run into an entitlement crunch, but we won't. The reason is simply because there are more people in the workforce than those taking entitlements provided by those in the workforce. It's simple math, and no, the forecast isn't dire because people die of old age.

 

[g5000]

Your plan would increase the number of seniors drawing from the Treasury while decreasing the number of taxpayers supporting them.

Not necessarily. The Millennials are the largest component of our workforce and currently face an unemployment rate of 9.6%. Since Medicare and Social Security are pay-go, it makes the most sense to employ the workers who are going to be paying for those on the entitlements. So you can't just do this in a vacuum, it also includes raising wages as well, which is an important component. But I believe those wages will go up because of pressure on the job market put upon by the retirement of older workers and their replacement with younger ones.

Basically, we are in a situation right now the opposite of China...we have the largest generation in the workforce (Millennials) who, combined with Gen X, outnumber the number of Boomers and Silents in retirement. So the workers can sustain the entitlements for the retired. China has the problem you're getting at, which is that their workforce is (already) going to be outnumbered by the retirees. So the workers in China won't be able to provide the level of benefits the retirees had previously provided their predecessors. We are in the enviable position of having a workforce that is larger than the retirees.

You need a lower retirement age in order to produce and preserve labor elasticity.

That's just plain nuts. It accelerates the problem we are having.

Not if you remove the cap on taxable income, and cap benefits for high earners. Besides, the old farts need to get out of the labor force so the youngsters can start their careers. If the old farts are holding onto their jobs just to get to the magic retirement age, all that's doing is preventing the younger workers from advancing and growing their wages. Elasticity. That's what it's all about.

The unemployment rate for Baby Boomers is 4.2%. The unemployment rate for Millennials is 9.6%. So Boomers are holding onto jobs that should be going to Millennials. But instead, Millennials are delaying their careers because they can't get good paying jobs. And why? Because the Boomers are holding onto them in order to get max benefits from entitlements. That shouldn't be if we want a strong labor market.

As it is, only 5.4 percent of Americans were over the age of 65 when Social Security was enacted. By the time Medicare was added, 9 percent of Americans were over 65. Today, 15 percent of Americans are over 65. We have a larger and larger percentage of Americans being carried by a smaller and smaller percentage.

Which is simply not true. The Millennial generation is larger than the Boomers. The Millennials + Gen X are larger than the Boomers + Silents. The problem you're describing is what is happening in China where their Millennial and Gen X generations are smaller than their "Boomers" and "Silents". So they're going to run into an entitlement crunch, but we won't. The reason is simply because there are more people in the workforce than those taking entitlements provided by those in the workforce. It's simple math, and no, the forecast isn't dire because people die of old age.

A Millenial entering the workforce at 18 has 50 years to grow their wage before they hit retirement age.

If we raise the retirement age to 70, we have increased their growth period to 52 years. And it should get even longer if we index the age to 9 percent of the population.

THAT is elasticity.

You cannot wish away the fact an ever increasing percentage of our population is over 65.

That's an ever increasing percentage drawing from the Treasury.

 

[g5000]

So Boomers are holding onto jobs that should be going to Millennials.

This statement has a massive erroneous assumption in it.

The kids of today are not going to be doing their daddy's jobs. Their daddy's jobs are becoming more and more obsolescent through technology.

The Millennials aren't unemployed because old people won't move aside for them. They are unemployed because they have been cheated out of an education which prepares them for the jobs of tomorrow.

 

[The Derp]

A Millenial entering the workforce at 18 has 50 years to grow their wage before they hit retirement age.

Ahh, but here's the thing; you're assuming the Millennial gets a job the moment they enter the workforce at age 18. That isn't the case. Unemployment for Millennials is 9.6%, whereas unemployment for Boomers is 4.2%. And why is the Boomer rate so low? Because they're staying in their jobs as long as they can in order to max benefits. That does nothing for wages or employment. All it does is delay how soon Millennials can start their careers, and we're going to be giving them max benefits anyway if they're staying in their jobs. So you may as well give them max benefits now which will encourage them to leave the workforce and reduce the unemployment rate for Millennials.

No one wants to work when they're 70. That's just absurd. 70 year olds have no place in the workforce. They should be retired so the young people can work and have those jobs. It benefits no one to have a 70 year old working while a capable 21 year old goes unemployed. The only reason anyone would work to 70 is to max benefits. So they're holding onto their jobs for as long as they can, preventing the Millennials from advancing their careers (and Gen Xers too), just to max their benefits for entitlements. So how is that good for the economy? It's not.

THAT is elasticity.ou cannot wish away the fact an ever increasing percentage of our population is over 65.That's an ever increasing percentage drawing from the Treasury.

Sigh...so you're either completely ignoring the demographic numbers or you just don't know them. Currently, there are more Millennials than Boomers (about 1-2 million more). When Millennials are combined with Gen Xers, the two generations in the workforce account for 141,000,000 people. The Boomers + Silents total 103,000,000.

So is 141 million more or less than 103 million?

The answer is why we can definitely expand benefits and lower the retirement age. Did you look at my chart from Pew? What are your thoughts on that? Clearly, it shows the population of Boomers outnumbered already by Millennials, and soon to be outnumbered by Gen Xers in just 10 years.

You're doing that thing Conservatives do when they are given facts that kinda undermine their argument; you double-down and ignore, sticking to dogmatic beliefs. Seriously, dude, you can't be like them. Don't be like them. You're not always going to be right about everything.

 

[g5000]

As it is, only 5.4 percent of Americans were over the age of 65 when Social Security was enacted. By the time Medicare was added, 9 percent of Americans were over 65. Today, 15 percent of Americans are over 65. We have a larger and larger percentage of Americans being carried by a smaller and smaller percentage.

Which is simply not true.

It most certainly is a fact.

The Millennial generation is larger than the Boomers.

Yes, 85 percent is bigger than 15 percent.

You don't get it. I'm talking about the fact that the percentage of over-65s has been steadily increasing due to increases in life expectancy.

This is not going to change. A larger and larger percentage of over-65s is going to crush the smaller and smaller percentage of under-65s.

 

[The Derp]

The kids of today are not going to be doing their daddy's jobs. Their daddy's jobs are becoming more and more obsolescent through technology..

The unemployment rate for Boomers is 4.2%. The unemployment rate for Millennials is 9.6%.

So someone is holding onto someone else's job. You tell me what that is, then, if not what I've been saying.

The Millennials aren't unemployed because old people won't move aside for them. They are unemployed because they have been cheated out of an education which prepares them for the jobs of tomorrow.

Well, it's too late to whine about this now. They're in the workforce, so they need to be employed. Boomers staying in jobs simply to max their benefits does not benefit them, nor does it benefit their employers (who can pay younger workers less money), nor does it benefit the economy. In fact, an older worker is likely to cost employers more on health care because they're, you know, old. Old people tend to be the most expensive when it comes to health care. So companies would benefit by not having to employ workers that cost them so much. There's also the fact that savings rates for the older workers are higher than for the younger ones, which means they don't spend in the economy as much as younger people do, who are less likely to save. Saving doesn't benefit the economy. Spending does. Younger workers are more likely to spend than save, and vice versa for older workers. So that's the economics of it.

This is why benefits should be expanded and the retirement age lowered.

There are 141,000,000 workers between the Gen X and Millennials. There are 103,000,000 people between the Boomers and Silents.

The math indicates that it is possible for the Gen Xers & Millennials to provide entitlements for the Boomers and Gen Xers. There are 38,000,000 more of them.

 

[g5000]

Sigh...so you're either completely ignoring the demographic numbers or you just don't know them. Currently, there are more Millennials than Boomers (about 1-2 million more). When Millennials are combined with Gen Xers, the two generations in the workforce account for 141,000,000 people. The Boomers + Silents total 103,000,000.

So is 141 million more or less than 103 million?

You are proving my point for me and don't even know it.

You have just demonstrated that when the Millennials retire, they will make up an even HIGHER percentage than the current 15 percent of over-65s!

The trend will become even more unsustainable.

 

[g5000]

Another big factor going forward is the obsolescence of jobs via technology.

80 percent of the jobs lost in recent years has been due to technology. Those jobs didn't go overseas. They are just gone and are never coming back.

Along with Americans living longer and longer and increasing the entitlement burden as a result, America will require less and less labor to produce more and more goods.

And that means a shorter work week in order to maintain full employment.

30 hours.

Our kids will be working 30 hours a week...until they are 70, at least.

 

[Norman]

US has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate. What you illiterates don't understand is that this means businesses are going to avoid USA like plague, opting for China instead. Meanwhile we rack a huge trade deficit and degrade into a 3rd world status soon enough.

 

[g5000]

US has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate. What you illiterates don't understand is that this means businesses are going to avoid USA like plague, opting for China instead. Meanwhile we rack a huge trade deficit and degrade into a 3rd world status soon enough.

Corporations are not avoiding America like the plague. Put down the crack pipe.

There are so many deductions, exemptions, and credits in the corporate tax code that the effective tax rate is much, much lower.

The only corporations who are fucked are the startups trying to replace the sclerotic companies who own our politicians.

Get rid of all the special carve-outs in the tax code, and you can easily lower it to 25 percent.

See post 81.

 

[The Derp]

It most certainly is a fact.

I'm not denying the percentages, but what you're denying are the total numbers.

There are 141,000,000 Millennials + Gen Xers. There are 103,000,000 Boomers + Silents.

So the math seems to indicate that there are 38,000,000 more younger workers who would be more than enough workers to cover the retirees.

You don't get it. I'm talking about the fact that the percentage of over-65s has been steadily increasing due to increases in life expectancy.

But that has no bearing on what we're talking about, and nothing to do with anything because that percentage is fluid and always will be. I don't know why you're fixating on it...it has nothing to do with the labor market. And all you're doing is proving to everyone that there are more Millennials than Boomers, therefore the Millennials can pay for the Boomers with change to spare. Just on sheer demo numbers. The percentage of people in entitlements is going to change as people die off. It will go up for now, but then decline later. You seem to think it's constant, but it's not. It's fluid. It changes.

Look, if I understand you correctly, your argument is that advancing Boomers into retirements now will result in more people in retirement than those in the workforce. The math and population numbers say the opposite. The population numbers show there are more Millennials than Boomers, and when combined with Gen Xers, 38,000,000 more people than those in retirement or imminently in retirement.

You can argue perception, but you can't argue math.

This is not going to change. larger and larger percentage of over-65s is going to crush the smaller and smaller percentage of under-65s.

So like I said, you're ignoring actual population numbers.

Your claim is that there will be more people in entitlements than in the workforce. So let's show you how that claim is bullshit:

According to Pew, there are approximately 75,000,000 Millennials (Age 18-34)
According to Pew, there are approximately 66,000,000 Gen Xers (Age 35-50)
According to Pew, there are approximately 75,000,000 Boomers (Age 51-69)
According to Pew, there are approximately 28,000,000 Silents (Age 70+)

Millennials + Gen X = 141,000,000
Boomers + SIlents = 103,000,000

So what you said here: larger and larger percentage of over-65s is going to crush the smaller and smaller percentage of under-65s. is untrue. Unless my math is wrong, which I don't think it is, you have no way of proving that any measurement of the population is going to result in more people in entitlements than paying into it.