>On this we agree. On the issue of Labor Participation Rate, your statements that it includes people who are children and retired people is simply not true. You have your facts wrong.
Half wrong. I thought the range started at 14 years (when you can get working papers), but it starts at 16. However, it does include those who are retired.
I called an economist friend today and he said that because of that, the Labor Participation Rate never goes above 70% (see cepr.net, and that 65-66% is very good, and that where we are now, 62-63%, isn't bad. Adjusted for population growth, the participation rate has shrunk since 1999 by about 3 million Americans, or about 1% of the population.
>And as you point out, that 63% of the Labor Force are also engaged in paying for their kids and their elderly retired parents, most of whom did not save enough to retire on, and so, are fully dependent on social security and other forms of welfare.
OK, so they depend on Social Security. But they're mostly OK. Senior Citizens have the lowest percentage of their population in poverty in the country, and that's because of Social Security and Medicare. That's what they were designed to do.
>If this trend continues towards more people not working, then you need to think about whether we are marching towards catastrophe or not.
We've got work to do, but we're (mostly) going in the right direction. At least compared to half a decade ago.
>Real compassion is shouting very loudly to everyone who will listen that today's policies are not working and that we'd better start figuring out real fast how to get more able bodied people working and off welfare, otherwise, we are going to achieve 3rd World Status in record time and we'll all be wishing we were more responsible with this nation's wealth.
Thanks, Chicken Little!
-Z |
