3 ms·

The workforce isn't shrinking: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CLF16OV https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CLF16OV (Well, unless you deliberately spin the nu

by ajross 3y ago

The workforce isn't shrinking: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CLF16OV https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CLF16OV (Well, unless you deliberately spin the numbers: there was indeed a local peak in November of last year that we haven't quite reached yet, so technically it's been "shrinking" over the last four data points. But then it's been "growing" over 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7...)

toomuchtodo 3y ago
https://www.axios.com/2023/05/08/us-labor-shortage-older-workers https://www.axios.com/2023/05/08/us-labor-shortage-older-wor... https://www.axios.com/2023/08/27/labor-shortages-air-traffic-health-care-teachers-police https://www.axios.com/2023/08/27/labor-shortages-air-traffic... https://www.axios.com/2022/01/21/workers-labor-market-hiring https://www.axios.com/2022/01/21/workers-labor-market-hiring 1.8M people in the US over the age of 55 die every year. Roughly have of that cohort are in the labor force. 3.6M baby boomers retire every year, 10k per day. 4M people turn 18 every year, slowly aging into labor force participation.
- ajross 3y ago
  Where in that article does it refute the fact that the labor force is growing? Long term demographic trends don't explain local economic effects. You can't get inflation today from an expected labor shortage in 2030 or whatever.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    There aren’t enough workers today. It’s why unemployment is at historic lows at the current benchmark rate. Raise the rate all you want, there is a minimum floor of labor needed regardless of the cost of capital. There are still ~8.5 million open jobs as of this comment, the lowest amount in 3 years, but still 8 million openings while workers are still rapidly leaving the participation rate. Fed will eventually fold on 2-2.5% being the target rate. Closer to 3-4% neutral rate factoring in structural changes. Gotta save face and prove you tried. https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-labor-costs-increase-more-than-expected-first-quarter-2024-04-30/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-labor-costs-increase-m... ("Growth in US labor costs accelerates in first quarter") https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/neutral-rate-debate-resurfaces-us-economy-refuses-crack-mike-dolan-2024-02-07/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/neutral-rate-debate-resur... ("Neutral rate debate resurfaces as US economy refuses to crack")
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Additional citations: https://www.axios.com/2024/05/02/interest-rates-rising-unemployment https://www.axios.com/2024/05/02/interest-rates-rising-unemp... ("The pain from the Fed's rate hikes is surprisingly elusive") https://www.axios.com/2024/05/01/us-job-market-openings-jolts-data https://www.axios.com/2024/05/01/us-job-market-openings-jolt... ("Why the job market has stayed so hot for so long")
      - ajross 3y ago
        Slow down. What you're doing is a gish gallop. The contention upthread was that inflation was intractably high[1] because the workforce was shrinking[2]. And that's wrong. Then you came in with a bunch of vaguely related stuff about workforce size and interest rates and inflation pontification. But not one of those articles substantiates the point to which I responded, nor the one you seem to be trying to make via proxy. If you want to cite a dozen sources for analysis reasons, you need to do the analysis and not just throw links at people on the internet. [1] It isn't. [2] It isn't.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

by ajross 3y ago

toomuchtodo 3y ago

https://www.axios.com/2023/05/08/us-labor-shortage-older-workers https://www.axios.com/2023/05/08/us-labor-shortage-older-wor... https://www.axios.com/2023/08/27/labor-shortages-air-traffic-health-care-teachers-police https://www.axios.com/2023/08/27/labor-shortages-air-traffic... https://www.axios.com/2022/01/21/workers-labor-market-hiring https://www.axios.com/2022/01/21/workers-labor-market-hiring 1.8M people in the US over the age of 55 die every year. Roughly have of that cohort are in the labor force. 3.6M baby boomers retire every year, 10k per day. 4M people turn 18 every year, slowly aging into labor force participation.

ajross 3y ago
Where in that article does it refute the fact that the labor force is growing? Long term demographic trends don't explain local economic effects. You can't get inflation today from an expected labor shortage in 2030 or whatever.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  There aren’t enough workers today. It’s why unemployment is at historic lows at the current benchmark rate. Raise the rate all you want, there is a minimum floor of labor needed regardless of the cost of capital. There are still ~8.5 million open jobs as of this comment, the lowest amount in 3 years, but still 8 million openings while workers are still rapidly leaving the participation rate. Fed will eventually fold on 2-2.5% being the target rate. Closer to 3-4% neutral rate factoring in structural changes. Gotta save face and prove you tried. https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-labor-costs-increase-more-than-expected-first-quarter-2024-04-30/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-labor-costs-increase-m... ("Growth in US labor costs accelerates in first quarter") https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/neutral-rate-debate-resurfaces-us-economy-refuses-crack-mike-dolan-2024-02-07/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/neutral-rate-debate-resur... ("Neutral rate debate resurfaces as US economy refuses to crack")
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Additional citations: https://www.axios.com/2024/05/02/interest-rates-rising-unemployment https://www.axios.com/2024/05/02/interest-rates-rising-unemp... ("The pain from the Fed's rate hikes is surprisingly elusive") https://www.axios.com/2024/05/01/us-job-market-openings-jolts-data https://www.axios.com/2024/05/01/us-job-market-openings-jolt... ("Why the job market has stayed so hot for so long")
    - ajross 3y ago
      Slow down. What you're doing is a gish gallop. The contention upthread was that inflation was intractably high[1] because the workforce was shrinking[2]. And that's wrong. Then you came in with a bunch of vaguely related stuff about workforce size and interest rates and inflation pontification. But not one of those articles substantiates the point to which I responded, nor the one you seem to be trying to make via proxy. If you want to cite a dozen sources for analysis reasons, you need to do the analysis and not just throw links at people on the internet. [1] It isn't. [2] It isn't.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]