Workforce participation rate is so low because Obama sucks! Or maybe it's just family values.

[CrusaderFrank]

My brother's secretary quit because she figured out she could make $52,000 by collecting benefits and not lifting a fucking finger, and that's without living in a Section 8 apartment

Dubya and Obama transformed American into a lazy, dependent European style Socialist Security State

Dante has reserved spaced for both of them down in the 9th Circle with the other traitors

 

[semaj]

My brother's secretary quit because she figured out she could make $52,000 by collecting benefits and not lifting a fucking finger, and that's without living in a Section 8 apartment

Dubya and Obama transformed American into a lazy, dependent European style Socialist Security State

Dante has reserved spaced for both of them down in the 9th Circle with the other traitors

 

[NightFox]

So er umm....I'm curious as to why you would bring up the labor force participation rate in the first place? Since you apparently already know that it doesn't apply to the premise of your OP?

The premise of my OP is that the cost of child care is contributing to a low workforce participation rate.

How the fuck does that premise not have any relation to the workforce participation rate?

Because you JUST SAID IT DIDN'T ..... remember homemakers/stay at home parents AREN'T included in the labor force participation rate, so the fact that child care costs are forcing more parents to stay at home has no effect on the labor force participation because they are not part of the calculation.

God DAMN I'm so sick of stupid mother fuckers around here.

So you blow up your own premise and now are going attempt to substitute name calling for an argument? take a chill pill and try to get some perspective, k?

 

[Eaglewings]

That is to say, this is a part of the equation. Child care is expensive. It's perfectly reasonable for one parent to become a stay at home parent in lieu of working a job that nets very little after childcare costs. Our economy will probably be better for it in the long run.

According to the Care.com survey, 69% of parents say that the cost of care has impacted their career decisions, and a quarter of parents have switched jobs for better family benefits. Some parents—women in particular—are leaving the workforce altogether. The share of mothers who stay at home has been rising over the past dozen or so years—a reversal of a long-term trend of women entering the workforce. According to the Pew Research Center, 29% of mothers did not work outside the home in 2012, compared to 23% in 1999.

When childcare costs more than rent, fewer women choose to work - Fortune

I would think this calculation does not apply to the San Francisco bay area. Rent here is so expensive only the rich or long time homeowners can afford to live here. Rent is over $10,000 a month unless if you are way out of the city or desired area's around the bay.
Not only is child care extremely high, so is everything else.

The poor, old, or lower income people are leaving / or evicted and extremely expensive high rises for the high tech's are coming in.
I think we will see this happen in the cities across America in the desired cities, leaving the lower income to the undesired areas.

Working in the high tech world a spouses can stay home or work if they please. It is the ones on minimum wage or low wage that have to leave or stay home and go on welfare, or spouses work 24 hours a day , splitting it up to afford a crappy apt.

 

[bedowin62]

when?

what year? how? why/??

It's all in the link. Did you not read the link? Please do not comment until you read the link. You will find the link linked in the OP, where you will find a link you can click on in order to read the link.

your link opens to a mess of type and ads that overwrite the text of the article. Still i cant see where is says WHY these costs have rise so much allegedly.

 

[semaj]

Our employment problem is due in part to fiscal policy initiated by Obama. His early stimulus programs were devoted more to government than private job creation. Government regulations have also hurt job creation.

We had a similar problem during the Depression. One of FDR's officials admitted that their schemes failed to provide needed jobs. WW11 was the final impetus for a substantially improving economy.

Obama is a socialist. He was associated with and probably was a member of the New Party, a socialist party when he was in Illinois. His outlook and policies support my view that he is a socialist. Socialism does not create a robust job market.

 

[SwimExpert]

how did people get so much disposable income suddenly allowing them to not participate in the workforce when it was always a conundrum that much of what you earn was going to go toward child care costs.

Straw man. Nowhere did anyone say that people have come into some kind of windfall of disposable income. To the contrary, the link describes the situation as a matter of increasing costs.

If you can't address the issue honestly, then stay silent.

 

[SwimExpert]

your link opens to a mess of type and ads that overwrite the text of the article.

That's why Chrome sucks. Use firefox or IE.

 

[Eaglewings]

when?

what year? how? why/??

It's all in the link. Did you not read the link? Please do not comment until you read the link. You will find the link linked in the OP, where you will find a link you can click on in order to read the link.

your link opens to a mess of type and ads that overwrite the text of the article. Still i cant see where is says WHY these costs have rise so much allegedly.

You need to put a Ad Block on your computer and you will not get the Ads, it is a free download. This one is for chrome.
if you have another web browser type the name of the browser and Ad Block..Adblock Plus - Surf the web without annoying ads!

 

[SwimExpert]

Workforce participation rate is so low because Obama sucks! Or maybe it's just family values.

False dichotomy.

The LFPR has been falling since before anyone even heard of Obama. And for more than a year, the LFPR has leveled off.

The primary cause of the low LFPR is public and private debt.

Everybody wants to blame somebody else. They never want to blame themselves.

It's open season on scapegoats.

So you reject the proposition that rising child care costs are a factor in decision making?

 

[g5000]

Workforce participation rate is so low because Obama sucks! Or maybe it's just family values.

False dichotomy.

The LFPR has been falling since before anyone even heard of Obama. And for more than a year, the LFPR has leveled off.

The primary cause of the low LFPR is public and private debt.

Everybody wants to blame somebody else. They never want to blame themselves.

It's open season on scapegoats.

So you reject the proposition that rising child care costs are a factor in decision making?

I categorically reject the idea it is a primary factor.

 

[SwimExpert]

Because you JUST SAID IT DIDN'T

No, you just need to learn how to read.

 

[semaj]

As far as child care is concerned, my wife and I stay four days a week to help care for our two year old grand daughter. Her parents work shifts that leave our grand daughter unattended for most week days. We drive fifty miles to and from home every week and we have not unpacked in two years. We have saved them over $20,000. However, as stated earlier, this is a different issue from our anemic employment rates.

 

[NightFox]

Because you JUST SAID IT DIDN'T

No, you just need to learn how to read.

Really? So your current assertion is that homemakers/stay at home parents ARE part of the labor force participation calculation, is that correct?

 

[saveliberty]

IF cost were a factor, most would find the low cost provider with good references. Around here that would put you at about $150 per week. That is under $8,000 per year. Sounds like stay at home parents are choosing that route for other than cost savings.

 

[SwimExpert]

Really? So your current assertion is that homemakers/stay at home parents ARE part of the labor force participation calculation, is that correct?

No.

 

[SwimExpert]

However, as stated earlier, this is a different issue from our anemic employment rates.

Yes. But this thread is not about unemployment rates, it's about workforce participation rates.

 

[SwimExpert]

I categorically reject the idea it is a primary factor.

Why?

 

[SwimExpert]

IF cost were a factor, most would find the low cost provider with good references. Around here that would put you at about $150 per week.

That assumes a low cost provider with good references exists. If they did, then the increased demand would spur the low cost provider to become a higher cost provider. After all, they aren't doing it for charity. But that's a concept lost on liberals.