Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (49371)	2/23/2012 6:38:46 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: "Your point about how to measure baby boomers is a good one." I wasn't measuring 'baby boomers', <chuckle> (they average a bit wide in the waist I reckon! <G>). No, I was simply pointing out the true fact that NOW the vast numbers of them moving into retirement daily (nearly 10,000) and onto Social Security rolls are the LARGEST SINGLE FACTOR moving the 'labor participation rate' downward. Larger by far than the after-effects of the Great Recession which is probably technically over by now. So, U-6 numbers (broader measure of 'unemployment' which takes into account changes from the 'labor participation rate') need to be interpreted with that fact in mind. Back-out the flood of ongoing Boomer retirements (which will continue for another 15 years or so...) and you return some utility to the U-6 rates. Re: "Regardless, even if you completely ignore them real unemployment is still at least 16%" Don't think it was ever me who was 'ignoring' U-6 numbers. For example, I've been posted them here for many years now. (Thought it was perhaps YOU who had kept your eyes closed to U-6 until it suited you to just lately 'notice' it. Johnny Come-Lately Peter?)