Why is the rate so low? Is it merely cyclical, or are there deeper problems within the economy that are inhibiting any progress on the participation rate?
• The rate increased from the middle of the 1960s through the 1990s, as women entered the "workforce and baby boomers reached their prime working years. But over the last 10 years, the participation rate has fallen. Some see this as nothing more than cyclical, projecting that workers will continue moving back into the labor force as the economy grows.
• But there are deeper structural problems, too. A 2012 Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago study found that 25 percent of the decline in participation was due to retirements since the start of the Great Recession.
• But that is not the only story, because it is not just for baby boomers that the participation rate has declined. Younger workers are dropping out of the labor force as well, due to discouragement, work disincentives created by public policy, a lack of training and an increase in seeking disability insurance.
• On top of this, globalization and changes in technology have lowered employment and wage growth for low-skilled workers.
The United States should reconsider what the proper role for the federal government is in the labor market, and implement policies that will actually remove barriers to lasting labor force participation by low-wage workers.
• The Earned Income Tax Credit should be expanded.
• Disability insurance needs reform.
• Unemployment insurance continues to be expanded, but instead should be combined with block grants to the states, which can create their own training and workforce programs.
• Social Security needs reform.
• The retirement earnings test within Social Security should be eliminated.
New claims for US unemployment insurance benefits plunged to the lowest level in nearly 15 years last week, the Labor Department reported Thursday.
Initial jobless claims, a sign of the pace of layoffs, dropped to a seasonally adjusted 265,000 in the week ending January 24, a hefty decline of 43,000 from the prior week's slightly upwardly revised level of 308,000.
It was the lowest level for initial claims since mid-April 2000. The decline in claims was much steeper than expected, with analysts projecting a reading of 301,000.
"Consider proposed cuts in taxes and regulation, which nearly every GOP candidate is pushing in the name of creating jobs. The initiatives seem to ignore surveys in which employers cite far bigger impediments to increased hiring, chiefly slack consumer demand.
"Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration, and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today," writes Bruce Bartlett. He's an economist who worked for Republican congressmen and in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
As for the idea that cutting regulations will lead to significant job growth, Bartlett said in an interview, "It's just nonsense. It's just made up."
Government and industry studies support his view." The Atlantic
Good like the American sniper. Shrewd, ruthless and a low opinion about anyone that doesn't agree with them. Perhaps a necessary evil until their need is filled but I think we could do just as well without them in civilized society.
Yeah they would be fun to party with in the New York Penthouse but that doesn't mean they are brilliant or care about anything but their own self interest. Their brother doesn't think much of them.
Sure you can change it. We have the greatest disparity in the world and history between the haves and the have nots. That condition has been changed over and over in history. No, 4 million is a living wage, no problem with someone getting more but there has to be a floor that means no working person is in poverty.
Quack, quack , quack. The only rapture will be when science gets to the point we can send colonies off planet.
Better to destroy an industry than the world. The coal industry is not being destroyed by climate change. It is being destroyed by better methods and cheap gas. .Should we keep an industry going that is neither cost effective nor healthy just because it existed before? Sounds like featherbedding the railroad when they didn't need the stokers after the diesel engine was invented.
Because the minimum wage I too low. Isn't that obvious? People are working but not getting paid enough to support themselves and their families. If minimum wage was equal to what it was in the 50s it would be 15 dollars an hour. All the money is going in to the pockets of the owners and managers. Why should there be such a thing as "the working poor"?
You are right about irregardless Hitch. I think he is referring to Koch republicans.
wrong. there were 101,401 glaciers in 2009. More important. "There is strong mass loss in the first decade from 1945. Note that at this time, there were only several glaciers monitored - not quite a global sample. The mass loss slows down in the second decade so that around 1970, global mass balance was close to zero. Glaciers were in near equilbrium which indicates glacier shrinkage in the late 20th Century is essentially a response to post-1970 global warming (Greene 2005).
After 1975, glacier shrinkage continues to accelerate until present. The mass loss from 1996 to 2005 is more than double the mass loss rate in the previous decade of 1986 to 1995 and over four times the mass loss rate over 1976 to 1985. When you narrowly focus on a few cherry picked glaciers, you can be misled into an incorrect view of global glacier trends. When you take in the broader picture, you see that globally, glaciers are shrinking at an accelerating rate."
Wrong. "There are a total of 101,411 identified glaciers in the world as of December 2009. This is based on data from the World Glacier Inventory maintained by the University of Colorado’™s National Snow and Ice Data Center. 10% of the Earth is covered with glaciers, which store 75% of the world’™s freshwater."
"Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
You didn't get it close to right little z.
Planned parenthood doesn't use public money for abortions. They have other funds for that. They do use public funds for breast exams, and other women health issues. So now, God, you are going to Shrink the universe? Talk about arrogance. You seldom fail to amuse me.
Looking at weekend futures is a useless exercise. Posting them as what is going to happen on Monday morning is embarrassing. Your red has turned green.
Thank you for being man enough to admit your mistake when erazor corrected you. Fox new and right wing bloggers have tried to confuse the public on this issue for two years now.
You would think even an idiot could tell your posts from mine. Little Z can't argue the facts of my posts because they are facts, not opinions. Unlike the anti Obama crowd I don't need to make up information to denigrate leaders and their families. All I need do is post the truth then little z and his ilk slobber all over their bibs. Thank for the support but little z is just going to continue his malicious attacks which Is a good thing. He isn't winning any hearts and minds with his sociopathic rages.