3 ms·
Labor force participation isn't adjusted for age of the population, so as a population pyramid squeezes through, like that of the baby boomers retiring, you wou
by mikecb 12y ago
Labor force participation isn't adjusted for age of the population, so as a population pyramid squeezes through, like that of the baby boomers retiring, you would see a peak and drop naturally.
- nostromo 12y agoPlease note that the chart only includes the working age population.
- jobu 12y agoIt includes 25-54. Currently the age of retirement for full Social Security benefits is 67. Seems likely that they're missing a large chunk of Baby Boomers that are working longer.
- 6stringmerc 12y ago...and not accounting for the health care costs, present or future, which the Baby Boomer cohort is going to take out from the economy from a productivity / wealth standpoint. Basically, to exaggerate, the inheritance tax is relatively a moot point because other than a small percentage, most Baby Boomers didn't save enough to retire and didn't pay enough into the system to keep them alive from 67-80 something, because there has been little to no upward mobility for the rank and file spend and be taxed lower classes.
- 6stringmerc 12y agoExcept that hasn't happened, at all, since the mid/late 1990s. ZeroHedge has been very adamant about exposing the problem with your assumption: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-03/hiring-grandparents-only-230k-september-were-added-55-69-age-group-10k-lost-prime-25 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-03/hiring-grandparents... You assume the Baby Boomers can retire, and I assert that they are the most indebted, non-saving, addicted to their lifestyle cohort the US has ever seen. The only natural drop is when they drop dead naturally...but they'll go out kicking and screaming, demanding free healthcare that they didn't pay for, etc, etc.