CNBC jobs lies, Goldman Sachs economist Jan Hatzius interview, Baby boomer impact lie, NBC leading way in Orwellian media lies?, Citizen Wells email to Hatzius for clarification
“People 55 to 64 years old, the first forget-about-retirement generation, are staying in the labor force to an ever greater degree. In 1992, only 56.2% were still in the labor force, in 2012, 64.5% were. Similar for older folks. The participation rate for people 65 to 74 years old jumped from 16.3% to 26.8%. Reality is this: fewer people can afford to retire.”…Zero Hedge January 8, 2014
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”…Joseph Goebbels
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984″
Was anyone paying attention surprised when Brian Williams of NBC was caught in a lie?
No!
It is what we have come to expect from the mainstream media.
The mantra of the left.
The end justifies the means.
Just yesterday Goldman’s chief economist Jan Hatzius appeared on CNBC.
From Zero Hedge February 6, 2015.
“Following the January jobs report, Goldman’s chief economist Jan Hatzius appeared on CNBC but instead of joining Steve Liesman in singing the praises of the “strong” the report (which apparently missed the memo about the crude collapse), he decided to do something totally different and instead emphasize the two series that none other than Zero Hedge has been emphasizing for years as the clearest indication of what is really happening with the US labor market: namely the recession-level civilian employment to population ratio and the paltry annual increase in average hourly earnings.
This is what Hatzius said (2:40 into the clip):
“The employment to population ratio is still 4% below where it was in 2006. You can explain 2% of that with the aging of the population that still leaves quite a lot of room potentially, and the wage numbers are telling us we are just not that close, although we are getting closer.””
Read more:
I sent the following email to Jan Hatzius.
I have not yet received a response.
|
Hi.
I have a math, computer science & business background.
I am also one of the baby boomers.
You recently appeared on CNBC & stated:
“The employment to population ratio is still 4% below where it was in 2006. You can explain 2% of that with the aging of the population that still leaves quite a lot of room potentially, and the wage numbers are telling us we are just not that close, although we are getting closer.” Would you elaborate on: “You can explain 2% of that with the aging of the population” I am preparing an article and want to be accurate. Thanks Wells |
Many in the mainstream media have incorrectly attributed the large drop in the percentage of the population employed to baby boomers. I awarded the Washington Post Orwells for their misleading report.
From Citizen Wells January 20, 2015.
I am going to make this real simple.
Let’s ignore immigrants increasing our work force for the moment.
The baby boomer generation is known for it’s size. However, due to the growth in the US, recent generations are even larger.
Let’s take the example of those turning 65 in 2014, born in 1949 and those turning 22 in 2014, born in 1992. I chose age 22 to account for college even though some of them entered the work force earlier, if they could find a job.
There were 3.56 million people born in the US in 1949. 85 % or 3.026 million are alive.
There were 4.08 million people born in 1992. Probably at least 4 million still alive.
Let’ assume that all of the people who turn 65 next year retire.
That is still a net gain of about a million potential workers.
As we all know, all of those people do not stop working unless they cannot find a job.
From the CBO.
“The resulting rise in the projected rates of labor force participation for older people is noteworthy. For men ages 62 to 64, CBO projects that the rate of labor force participation will rise from about 52 percent in 2012 to about 55 percent in 2022. For men ages 65 to 69, the projected rate rises from about 37 percent in 2012 to about 41 percent in 2022. The changes for women are similar: The projected rate of labor force participation for women ages 62 to 64 rises from about 44 percent to about 48 percent, and for women ages 65 to 69, the projected rate increases from about 28 percent to about 32 percent. In 2022, the FRA will be 67 only for people age 62 or younger in that year. As that group ages and the FRA gradually becomes 67 for all older people, CBO projects that the labor force participation rate for older people will continue to increase, although at a slower pace.”
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43834
That’s right. You read it correctly.
Men ages 62 to 64: rate of labor force participation about 52 percent in 2012.
Men ages 65 to 69: 37 percent in 2012.
Once again I am compelled to award the Washington Post 4 Orwells.
Zero Hedge nails it again.
“A few days ago we disproved, in what we hoped would be the last time, any insinuation that the collapse in the labor force is due to demographics (a topic we had covered before) when we showed that it was just 10 short years ago that the Bureau of Labor Statistics itself was forecasting an increase in the overall participation rate – here we assume logically that America’s demographic profile was known to its labor market experts in 2004 – only to slowly at first, then very fast, revise it ever lower… and still it was unable to catch up to the unfolding gruesome reality.
Yet somehow, so called finance experts, econ PhDs, central planners and other ivory tower dwellers still refuse to let this topic go, and continue to reference the participation rate and demographics in the same sentence. So to truly end any speculation that the plunge in the labor force is due to “old people”, defined as workers 55 and over, retiring, here is a chart (which in an update of a post we didfirst in October 2012 and it took the rest of the media world only 14 months to catch up) of the cumulative job gains broken down by “young”, or those 16-54, vs “old”, those 55 and over.
Spot something wierd?
It seems that the “old” age worker group – that which is supposed to be bleeding workers to retirement – has had zero job losses since the start of the Depression in December 2007, while it was the “younger” workers who according to the BLS’ Household Survey, have hit the labor cliff and seen their number collapse, dropping as much a 6 million, and only slowly rising, with another 3.5 million jobs left to catch up before pre-recession levels are met.”
I would love to hear Mr. Hatzius’ explanation for the baby boomers affecting the percent of population working by 2 percent.
Citizen WElls 