Ricter, i was in a rush when I wrote those last two posts and didn't notice that chart was of the participation rate.. which you could probably tell. I can't fix them now. Anyway are you chalking up the discretionary cut to Obama? Because that was clearly not by choice, the dems didn't want to cut anything but were forced to by the reps in order to get the debt ceiling raised. The author confirms that in the article although she didn't give any credit to the reps.
As for the chart, I can accept that half of that is from baby boomer retirement but it looks like it fell off of a cliff after '08.. a lot of that has to be due to job loss. Many people also lost, or were down, a good deal in their retirement plans during that time and I doubt they just retired anyway. The number I used in my post was the employment to pop ratio, not the participation rate. I don't know the exact differences between the two but this ratio is defined as the number of employed people within "working age"/ total population of people within "working age". The baby boomer coming of age didn't stop the this ratio from increasing under Bush until '08. It has not even blipped up under BO, just flatlined after a huge decline.
http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS12300000_83015_1342494968165.gif
I left the link cause the chart keeps disappearing.
Assuming jobs are the best indicator of an economies status, our economy is not (or is barely) expanding and obama's record doesn't start at recession low. I don't think jobs are the best indicator, but maybe the most accurate way to track change month over month.
As for the chart, I can accept that half of that is from baby boomer retirement but it looks like it fell off of a cliff after '08.. a lot of that has to be due to job loss. Many people also lost, or were down, a good deal in their retirement plans during that time and I doubt they just retired anyway. The number I used in my post was the employment to pop ratio, not the participation rate. I don't know the exact differences between the two but this ratio is defined as the number of employed people within "working age"/ total population of people within "working age". The baby boomer coming of age didn't stop the this ratio from increasing under Bush until '08. It has not even blipped up under BO, just flatlined after a huge decline.
http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/LNS12300000_83015_1342494968165.gif
I left the link cause the chart keeps disappearing.
Assuming jobs are the best indicator of an economies status, our economy is not (or is barely) expanding and obama's record doesn't start at recession low. I don't think jobs are the best indicator, but maybe the most accurate way to track change month over month.