Only ONE in Dementia Care?
8 hours ago
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Lowest Percentage Of Americans Working
How is that Hope and Change working for you? From USA Today: The share of the population that is working fell to its lowest level last year since women started entering the workforce in large numbers three decades ago, a USA TODAY analysis finds. Only 45.4% of Americans had jobs in 2010, the lowest rate since 1983 and down from a peak of 49.3% in 2000. Last year, just 66.8% of men had jobs, the lowest on record. The bad economy, an aging population and a plateau in women working are contributing to changes that pose serious challenges for financing the nation's social programs. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2011-04-13-more-americans-leave-labor-force.htm?loc=interstitialskip In Nevada, 41.3% of adults are working. Part of Nevada's problem is that we are a retirement haven. Arizona, Florida, California and several other states have lower averages. So, how are the Democrats treating you lately? High gas and food prices and higher unemployment are the results of the Democrats and their strategies. It would be laughable if this wouldn't hurt so many people. Worst president ever.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Actually, basic economics indicates that what we have is a very low aggregate demand. That is a result of the recession. Businesses aren't hiring because they do not have customer demand.
ReplyDeleteBecause this is an asset-driven recession (i.e. housing) demand will come back very slowly, compare with the much shallower 2001 dot-com recession.
http://cr4re.com/charts/charts.html#category=Employment&chart=JobLossesPercentMar2011.jpg
So we have about 2% less of our population working than we'd like. And the folk who aren't working are busy paying off credit cards and otherwise not spending the way they did prior to 2007, because they feel poorer now that their houses are worth less.
So where are you going to find that aggregate demand?
Back of the envelope calculations are that unemployment would have been roughly 2% higher without the stimulus, and that the stimulus was about 1/2 the size is should have been given the hit that GDP took. That's the way the cookie crumbles, no one had the stomach for a large enough stimulus.