Posted on 05/13/2012 7:56:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
Today, we're going to start by looking directly at the evidence that would seem to support the case that Baby Boomers are making out much better than younger Americans in the Great Recession in the second part of our three-part series.
Here, we'll start by showing the number of individuals counted within each approximately five-year long age grouping recorded by the BLS as being employed in November 2006 and November 2011. Only the data for the very youngest, Age 16-19, and oldest, Age 75 and older, cover different age ranges. The data shown in our first chart applies to the BLS' non-seasonally adjusted figures for each of the indicated age groups:
Comparing the recorded values for the same age groupings in November 2006 with those for November 2011, we find that there would indeed appear to be a significant shift favoring Americans over the age of 50.
We can see that move clearly if we focus in the differences recorded in the values from November 2006 to November 2011, as shown in our second chart:
We observe that the age distribution of the U.S. workforce would appear to have shifted strongly in favor of those Age 50 and older.
Surprisingly though, we see that teens would appear to only be the fourth most negatively-affected age grouping, with the top three most-negatively affected being those Age 35 to 39, Age 40-44 and Age 45 to 50. Teens however would indeed be the most negatively affected age grouping once you take their total numbers in the U.S. workforce into account, as the total non-seasonally adjusted number of people with jobs in this age group has been reduced by over 30% from November 2006 to November 2011.
We observe that even though the Age 35-39, Age 40-44 and Age 45-49 groups had seen larger declines in their workforce numbers than U.S. teens, because so many more people in these age ranges are employed, the declines are much smaller as a percentage share of the working population for each group than it is for teens.
The age group with the largest increase in the number of individuals recorded as having jobs from November 2006 to November 2011 is the Age 60 to 64 cohort, which would represent many of the leading edge of the Baby Boom generation, which spans the years from 1946 through 1964. Individuals Age 60-64 in 2011 were born between the years of 1947 and 1951.
Unfortunately, these charts don't tell the whole story. That's because nearly all of the people in the indicated age ranges in our charts for November 2011 are not the same people who were recorded in these same age groupings in November 2006. The only exception is for the Age 75+ age grouping, which is a catchall grouping for the oldest employed Americans.
As an illustration of what we mean when we say that we aren't dealing with the same people, let's consider the individuals who were between the ages of 45 and 49 in November 2006. These are definitely not the same people who are included in the Age 45-49 age grouping in November 2011's jobs data, because they were all five years older by the time November 2011 rolled around. And because that's the case, you really can't say what happened to the net number of working people in 2006's Age 45-49 grouping by looking at that same category in 2011.
Unless you take their aging into account. If you really want to find out what happened five years later with the net employment situation of working people who were between the ages of 45 and 49 in November 2006, you need to look at the people who were between the ages of 50 and 54 in November 2011.
So that's what we've done! Our results are graphically presented below in our third chart:
Starting with the lowest age grouping on the chart, we find that those Age 16-19 in November 2011 saw their ranks within the U.S. workforce grow by roughly 4,177,000, at least compared with how many of their peers had jobs when they were between the ages of 12 and 15 in November 2006. Likewise, we see the greatest number of individuals join their peers in the U.S. workforce for the Age 20-24 group in the five years from November 2006 to November 2011, and we see a much smaller gain for those who waited until they reached the ages of 25 to 29.
Basically, what we're seeing with these younger ages are people entering into the U.S. work force within each age peer group. Going back to our first and second charts, and in particular, for the youngest age grouping of Age 16-19, we observe that these numbers are far reduced from their levels in November 2006, which indicates that jobs for teens that existed in 2006 no longer exist for the teens of 2011, which we observe in the total decline of employed individuals in this age range and which we can say with confidence because the population of teens was largely stable throughout these years.
What is more interesting though for this period of time applies for the older age groups, where it is clear that people are exiting the work force. Here we find that every older peer group, spanning the ages of 25 upward, saw their number of peers in the U.S. workforce decline in the five years from November 2006 to November 2011.
Some of that you might expect, especially once individuals reach retirement age, where many individuals in the U.S. tend to begin retiring around Age 60, while others hold on until they reach the normal retirement age to receive full Social Security benefits at or not long after Age 65.
But what you wouldn't necessarily expect is to see so many individuals between the ages of 30 to 55 exit the U.S. workforce during this time. This negative net change covers working age people who had jobs in November 2006, but were no longer counted as being employed in November 2011.
That covers a pretty big portion of the Baby Boom generation, the youngest members of which, born in 1964, would be 47 years old in 2011. We would therefore estimate that over 3 million of these individuals between the pre-retirement ages of 47 and 55 prematurely left the U.S. workforce during these five years.
Clearly, many people, including a good portion of the Baby Boomers, have left the U.S. workforce in the five years from November 2006 to November 2011. But how much is due to "normal" factors like retirement and how much might be recession-driven? And if the oldest workers are really the least affected by the recession, the question is why?
In the third and final part of our series, we'll do our best to answer these questions....
When my son was in high school in the late 70’s he and his friends at one time or another worked in a gas station. Those jobs simply do not exist any more. So it’s not only the illegals that teenagers seeking part-time jobs must battle but laws which have been enacted as well as changes in technology. I do believe they could make a dent in the lawn care market but I can’t remember the last time I saw a teenager mow even their own lawn - at least not in my area.
You realize, of course, that some legislators are considering making many of the items on your list illegal, as “discriminatory”.
I especially dislike visible tattoos. I wonder if I will live long enough to see tattoos on the flabby, wrinkly, age-spotted bodies of 50-year olds 20 or 30 years from now.
No...Obama is! Also, some in the younger generation have not, to their detriment, been taught a work ethic, which many of the boomers have in spades.
It is what it is. Dear God help us.
Obama’a regulatory siege, crushing and uncertain Obamacare impacts, and his promise for significantly increased tax burdens are the reasons small and large businesses have withheld any plans for growth and expansion.
Nanny state handouts and regulation are not the engines of the economy.
I would add to the general discussion that baby boomers were sold into debt slavery by their parents (socialism security and medicare are nothing more than generational wealth transfers [which also happen to favor women by virtue of their greater longevity than men]. Given that the politicians the boomers elected spent all their earnings buying votes there is nothing left for them (sorry Grand Wizard Byrd, but their ain’t no there there in the “trust fund”). Now the boomers have a moral choice - sell their children into slavery as their parents did, or to end the practice altogether. The bond market says they don’t have good choices (nice thing about capitalism that [as least such capitalism as we actually have today, which is in reality corporatism {a variant of fascism}]) and the demographic transfer of wealth is going to be very difficult to finance. That’s the good news actually.
Older people probably give a better answer to that first question, “will you come to work everyday?” Yes and I’ll be on time. Appearance does count for a lot especially where the new hires are going to be in contact with customers, appearance and dress gives a big clue as to attitude and personal habits.
The older people aren’t stealing the jobs, the younger people are abdictating them.
Ten million people unemployed and eleven illegals in the country,How are boomers taking any jobs?.
I heard that one of our local colleges require all their nurse’s assistants-in-training to wear navy blue shirts and smocks when training. This rule was enacted because the young women refused to obey the oh-so-strict rule of not wearing colored or striped bras, panties and thongs under their clothes for all to see. They have to hide their tats as well.
Plenty of work in China tho...
It won't be too much longer that wages for the former middle class will be able to compete with Chinese labor which will move industry back to the U.S...
Then there will be plenty of work for everyone...
Education has failed our children and is now failing our grandchildren because educators have become more interested in themselves than our children.
Having said that let's take a look at a second reason for not hiring the young as my generation, the “baby boomers” age.
The second cause is economically driven.
With all of the new regulations and mandates coming on line every employee must produce more income for the company not less. Ten to fifteen years ago when my son entered the job market the rule of thumb was each and every employee had to produce twice what he was paid, before taxes, for the company to have any chance of breaking even.
With the explosion of new regulations and mandates, Obamacare being the least of the problem, who is going to produce that level of income stream - someone with effectively zero experience, or a person who has a history of personal contacts and job performance?
Notice, I didn't even address the difference in work ethics.
IMHO, the newbies have nothing to offer their employers and this is why the “baby boomers” and the following generations aren't suffering as bad as the newbies. Social consciousness is nice but it don't pay the bills nor put food on your family's tables. Businessmen know this but our educators and their ilk don't.
Indeed and Obama&Co. are doing their best to ensure socialism for all,except them.
What is interesting re your list is how similiar it was to my list in the last 3 years of my Naval reserve duty, where I tested and started the process for those wanting to join the Navy in the mid to late 1960’s.
No tattoos
Clean DMV print out (No DUI or moving incidents in 10 yrs)
Pass drug test
Pass a security check
Pass random drug and alcohol tests.
No felony convictions.
Later in civilian life as a manager, I used basically those same standards until my company was told by the Equal Opportunity Economic Terrorists, we couldn’t use those requirements. After a couple of bad hires due to my inability to determine the quality of the candidates. I left management and went back into sales.
The company’s new hires got so bad afterwards, I refused to work with any new hire unless they had been with the company for a year, and I had a couple of social lunches with them. Many failed the lunch session.
Then, at age 55, living in N California near Gay Frisco, Marvoulous Marin, Berkley and other left wing centers, I applied the principles of my list re having contact with new comers and a few people we knew socially at that time.
That drove my Priest, wife, a few friends and others up the wall, until they realized I had no room in my life for the losers in life, who made their lifetime a losing thing. Then, they felt entitled to the good things in life without earning them.
My 40 something year sons and a few nieces and nephews are smarter than I was, and they have adopted the lists and no goes re contact and business.
Bo“stealing” implies ownership. We don’t own jobs, we earn our positions. If I’m going to hire someone, I want someone that will represent the best value to my company. If that person is a boomer rather than a leftist-brainwashed college grad, then so be it.
Yep - being willing to pursue the jobs, and actually having skills and work ethics to offer an employer, does not make one a thief.
11 posted on Sunday, May 13, 2012 8:13:40 AM by trebb (”If a man will not work, he should not eat” From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: EGPWS
One other factor impacting this significantly is that many retirees are returned to the work force after the ‘08 crash. Add the fact that they are experienced, they don’t have to be paid benefits.
12 posted on Sunday, May 13, 2012 8:13:47 AM by catfish1957 (My dream for hope and change is to see the punk POTUS in prison for treason) th of you are correct:
No, illegals are.
Do you have a link that I can send to all the libtards I know?
Work ethic
Manners
Industry connections
Knowledge of legacy product lines
Absence of facial piercings, more conservative appearance, more attention to personal hygeine and appearance.
Ability to do math and make change without a calculator
Confidence
Ability to train new hires in the event things get better
Literacy in communications
Ability to adapt to newer technologies while having an understanding of fundamentals and older technologies.
Better knowledge of regulations and standards.
Good probelm solving and conflict resolution skills
More settled in their personal lives
Maturity, wisdom.
There are a multitude of reasons to retain older employees, and even hire older new hires at comparable rates to someone younger. Not all will exhibit the qualitiess shown above, nor are those necessarily absent in a younger worker, but if I had to start looking for someone with them, I'd probably be looking at someone older.
This foolish author thinks that he is scoring political points with the "young" by writing that the older workers are the only benefiting under Obama (obviously they are not at all in any shape or form) and in his little brain he thinks that the young are not going to vote for Obama because of this.
bump-o-matic!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.