4 ms·

I'd like to see more data that counteracts the data I keep seeing: 1. Baby boomers are not retiring at the levels previously expected, and they're not retirin

I'd like to see more data that counteracts the data I keep seeing: 1. Baby boomers are not retiring at the levels previously expected, and they're not retiring (and slowing down promotions for juniors). 2. Marriage rates are lower than ever. Single parent households are becoming a new norm. 3. Too many college graduates have experienced low salaries or poor job prospects compared to expectations (and now they're defaulting on their loans!) 4. Welfare/transfers are not enough and mostly go to those already in jobs, subsidizing the low wages. (The Walmart class, etc.) Now we have political instability and that's not a cause for concern?

bmelton 9y ago
I wasn't meaning to imply that political instability isn't a cause for concern, but I wasn't referring to the introduction in my conclusion, just the listed points. Also, for what it's worth, I didn't intend to refer to it as political instability, rather, just the usual situation in which one administration explains uncomfortable facts differently from another. I have no idea what Trump's response to it would be, but IIRC, the Obama administration spun the low participation rate as something akin to "Well, now that people don't have to have jobs for medical insurance, now they're free to drop out of the workforce and pursue their hobbies" or something. To be fair, that didn't strike me as a terribly convincing answer, but I'd wager it unlikely that the Trump administration would "credit" the ACA for the low participation rate, even if it were true.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > IIRC, the Obama administration spun the low participation rate as something akin to "Well, now that people don't have to have jobs for medical insurance, now they're free to drop out of the workforce and pursue their hobbies" or something. You recall incorrectly. The Obama Administration never spun low labor force participation like that.

bmelton 9y ago

I wasn't meaning to imply that political instability isn't a cause for concern, but I wasn't referring to the introduction in my conclusion, just the listed points. Also, for what it's worth, I didn't intend to refer to it as political instability, rather, just the usual situation in which one administration explains uncomfortable facts differently from another. I have no idea what Trump's response to it would be, but IIRC, the Obama administration spun the low participation rate as something akin to "Well, now that people don't have to have jobs for medical insurance, now they're free to drop out of the workforce and pursue their hobbies" or something. To be fair, that didn't strike me as a terribly convincing answer, but I'd wager it unlikely that the Trump administration would "credit" the ACA for the low participation rate, even if it were true.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> IIRC, the Obama administration spun the low participation rate as something akin to "Well, now that people don't have to have jobs for medical insurance, now they're free to drop out of the workforce and pursue their hobbies" or something. You recall incorrectly. The Obama Administration never spun low labor force participation like that.