Record number of women unemployed...

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/record-55807000-women-not-labor-force-participation-rate-matches-26-year-low

Record 55,807,000 Women Not In Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 26-Year Low


The number of women not in the labor force increased from 55,195,000 in November to 55,807,000 in December, an increase of 612,000.

The participation rate for women hit a record low for this year of 56.6 percent, which also matches the 56.6 percent seen in September 1988, a 26-year low. The labor force participation rate, as calculated by the BLS, is the percentage of this population that either has a job or actively sought one in the last four weeks.

You know those retired babyboomers at lunch today.....most were woman. When the bubble of population retires early and has health care......your participation rates go down.....guess what......not one of those ladies were complaining.....I saw one lady get a great seared tuna salad. She left a tip for the waiter.....retire early.

2seaoat wrote:You know those retired babyboomers at lunch today.....most were woman.  When the bubble of population retires early and has health care......your participation rates go down.....guess what......not one of those ladies were complaining.....I saw one lady get a great seared tuna salad.   She left a tip for the waiter.....retire early.

Why haven't all those retirees been replaced? Hmmm.

Why haven't all those retirees been replaced? Hmmm.

Rapid gains in productivity which is a very good thing usually in the short term mean reduced labor.  The computer has certainly contributed to productivity and reduction of man hours.  Many entry level jobs which were clerical have been replaced by less manpower allocation.   The fifty something folks who are taking early retirement are not entry level folks and their jobs are being replaced with younger people, but down the food chain as they move people around with attrition, they are not replacing folks.  Again, for people familiar with economics these are all very good things.  A large participation rate with low productivity is what brought down communist economies.

Maybe the record number of women are those choosing to balance home and work with a home based business. I see this growing among younger friends. I applaud them.

by 2seaoat Today at 1:40 am
Why haven't all those retirees been replaced? Hmmm.

Rapid gains in productivity which is a very good thing usually in the short term mean reduced labor. The computer has certainly contributed to productivity and reduction of man hours. Many entry level jobs which were clerical have been replaced by less manpower allocation. The fifty something folks who are taking early retirement are not entry level folks and their jobs are being replaced with younger people, but down the food chain as they move people around with attrition, they are not replacing folks. Again, for people familiar with economics these are all very good things. A large participation rate with low productivity is what brought down communist economies.

------
You didn't answer it

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t18094-teotwawki-and-the-labor-force-participation-rate

How many times will this have to be put to rest?

boards of FL wrote:https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t18094-teotwawki-and-the-labor-force-participation-rate

How many times will this have to be put to rest?

Oh yeah that settled it... battle of ignorance

I really think BOF is Goebbels reincarnated.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t18094-teotwawki-and-the-labor-force-participation-rate

How many times will this have to be put to rest?

Oh yeah that settled it... battle of ignorance

Didn't it? I'm trying to directly engage you on this topic, and you can't even muster an informed opinion or even a theory for why the LPR moves the way that it does. All you can seem to do is run away and then create another thread on the same topic, again and again.

It's no different than going to a debate and shouting the same phrase over and over, but never being able to actually defend it or explain it.

TEO won't come here and do this himself so I'll do it for him.

Here is TEO refuting his own thread.

Which TEO is correct? The TEO that created this thread or the TEO below, who shows us how ignorant this thread is?

Either way, these two TEO's combine and create Captain Flounder!

Captain Flounder! If you don't agree with him now, that's OK! Just wait 5 seconds! He'll change!

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Yes as the population ages and increases you will have more women employed and more dropping out of the workforce...number wise. Remember we now have 20 million illegals in the country and that number counts for something.

You can have data that appears to contradict itself if you don't qualify the data type....

TEOTWAWKI wrote:If I have a population of 100 women in 1900 and 50 are employed and 50 are not the there are 50 women employed and 50 are not .

then if I have a population of 10000 women in  year 2000 and I have the same percentage employed and unemployed  it would be 5000 employed and 5000 not....so More women are employed than ever and more women are unemployed than ever....unless you look at the percentages rather than the gross numbers.

Awkward!

candles can burn at both ends...so it may be awkward but possible.