patrick.net

While at the same time, deniers will claim that the drop in the labor force participation rate is due primarily to retiring boomers.

I've been scythed and abused for claiming that the workforce is getting older.

It's not that these guys aren't retiring. Companies can't afford to lose them.
The interview for their replacements only yielded a motley assorted room full of idiots with Gauges in their ears, Tattoos on their faces, expecting a 16 hour work week and $15.00 an hour wages, but expecting to be paid for a full 40 hour work week.

darlag says

blue and green (16-24) - shitty, low-paying, no-skill jobs at McDonald's as fry cooks
orange (55-69) - shitty, low-paying, no-skill jobs at Walmart as greeters

purple (25-54) - the main workforce is still unemployed because there are no living wage jobs available

Yep, it's a fantastic recovery. Forget about whether or not people can afford housing and health care. The stock market is up and that's all that counts. Let them eat stock ticker tape!

Kill the Boomers! Kill them all!

In related news, boomers can't afford to retire yet!

If Boomers are expecting to retire from the profits of selling their house, they are in for several big surprises.

- The banks have just as many houses that are unoccupied.
- Damn few can truly afford to pay more than $100/sq.ft.
- Where will the Boomer's kids live if they sell the house?

Well, of the overall growth in the number in the labor force of 10.1M from 2002 to 2012:

11.6M were ages 55 and older. Which means the size of the labor force for those under 55 went down by 1.5MM. Most of these losses (900k) were in the 16 to 24 age group.

Now looking at population over the same time period, there were 61.6M 55 and over in 2002, and in 2012 there are 79.5M. that is a population growth of ~18M, of which 11.6M went into the labor force.

34% were in the labor force in 2002. If 34% of those 55 and older were in the labor force today, there would be 27M in the labor force, 55 and over. However, there are 32.5M.

This is 5.5M jobs that would need to be filled from somewhere, presumably from new workers entering the work force from the younger cohorts. Let say 2M in 15-24 and 3.5M in 25-54. That means LFPR for 16-24 would be 59.7% instead of 54.9% - still down from '02, 63.3%. But for 25-54, LFPR would be 84.2 instead of 81.4%, up from 2002 when it was 83.3%.

In fact, if LFPR for all ages 25+ were held constant at 2002 levels, the LFPR for those 16-24 would have only fell to 62.1%. Down from 2002, yes, and this is the amount that can be attributed to the slow job market recovery. These numbers are from 2012, by now, I would wager if population demographics were held constant, LFPR would have recovered.

Make no mistake, the falling LBPR is definitely due to population demographics. The LFPR fell ~3% from '02 to '12, population mix of 55+ went up 4% over same time period. (21.5% to 25.8%).

Population grew in total 23 million, and 18 million were in the 55+ age group.

So more people who are 55+ are being born.

Dan8267 says

Where will the Boomer's kids live if they sell the house?

They aren't going to leave home. They will live their and then inherit it.

With the rise of 401ks and after 3 decades of stock market and housing inflation, what does it really mean to look at middle class employment any more.

Take a guy with $600,000 in his 401k, $100,000 in cash, and a three-quarters paid off house he bought for $125,000 now worth $325,000.

He gets laid off at 52 -- but really, at his burn rate, he could ride it out until he dies assuming he manages his money, or at least for a few years until something else shows up.

It used to be any unemployment for all but the very wealthy was an unrecoverable death sentence, but independent wealth is so high now.

And then take the Millennials.

Living at home. Uses transit. Eats what's in the fridge. Is still on Mom's health insurance to 26. Basically lives his high school life all through his twenties. Maybe gets a few hours at the coffee shop to pay for bicycle parts, weed and his $125/mo college loan. How much does it take? A few hundred a month if that much?

John Bailo says

He gets laid off at 52 -- but really, at his burn rate, he could ride it out until he dies assuming he manages his money, or at least for a few years until something else shows up.

In a world where the official economic policy is to ignore inflation.
You could burn through 1 million in a decade. And that's if inflation stopped at the current prices and held so for ten years.

sbh says

You're actually right, for once. But not about the abuse part....still looks like a paper cut.

All Right!!! Common Ground!

Hey that paper cut burns like a Motha'...