Why is small business failing?

mac · Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 11:22 am Post subject:

What a surpise. Ignored all substantive commentary. Spin that propeller.

boggsman1 · Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer

In the first 3 months of 2009...the US lost 2,000,000 NET jobs as reported in the BLS establishment survey. Many of those jobs were shed by corporations reacting to a vicious credit crunch. Most of those jobs have not returned.. At the same time, the housing market imploded, remember? Some economists (like Marc Zandi) state that 4,000,000 construction jobs disappeared , and only 40% have returned. At the same time, baby boomers (those born between 1946-1964...median 1955-age 69) are retiring at an abnormal rate.relative to historical trends, and this makes up half of the 3.3% drop in the LPR.
"Blaming" anyone is a worthless exercise of mental masturbation....realizing economics is cyclical, and the abnormality of the economy post- great recession is anything but normal.

mac · Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 12:29 pm Post subject:

Watch out, your posting--despite being supported by the facts and the news report--is about to be described as "absurd" by someone who knows absurd.

swchandler · Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588

The seed idea offered here by the right is that Republican leadership will turn everything around and provide the opportunity for employment growth and prosperity. How this would come about is predictably missing, except maybe the promise of a relative handful of jobs if the Keystone XL pipeline is approved. What would Republicans do to miraculously turn all the negative economic statistics around?

Maybe mrgybe can turn his focus from revealing the many faults of President Obama, his administration and Hillary Clinton to unveiling the promises and policies that we can expect from a united and powerful Republican right. What can we expect starting January 20, 2017 if a Republican is elected president?

mrgybe · Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180

Boggsy, You are wrong. If the job losses early in this Administration are a principal driver of the lower participation rate, that rate would have dropped precipitously in that early period and then slowly recovered over the ensuing 5 years. That didn't happen. The participation rate has declined steadily over the entire 6 years. You are, however, correct that workers are retiring at an abnormal rate. They are retiring much slower than normal due to the weak economy. The participation rate in 2012 for workers 65 and older is double the rate of 20 years prior and nearly 50% higher for those 55 and older. Look at the data.

techno900 · Joined: 28 Mar 2001 Posts: 4161

From Mac's Fact Check post:

boggsman1 · Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer

The job losses are not the driver..just an event that put many people out of the workforce. The numbers would not have shown up until 18-24 months later.when unemployment expired... I disagree with you on the baby boomers. We have hundreds of studies that show the number of retirees is at an all time high. They can still be working, but the abnormal volume of retirees adds to the lower particpation rate. You are saying that a higher percentage of them are woking, but that doesnt make up for the larger volume.
I'm sorry, but it is you that is wrong on both counts...If I need to further explain it to you, I am happy to do so.

mac · Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:51 pm Post subject:

Techno--agreed, we still have a ways to go. Postings that actually make some analysis are more valued than claims of absurdity. It is pretty clear that for the first part of the recovery, economic gains went to the top and jobs went to the lower end. Something like 42% of Americans now make less than $15/hour. More recent trends are better.

I think that the response among the young has been to string jobs together and do whatever they can off the radar. For those who were over 50, early retirement seemed like a better option than working as a barrista. Construction workers, where recovery is only now growing, would have been helped by a more substantial stimulus. The bombing of the housing market and the weakening of consumer demand hit that sector hardest--little was being built.

The small size of the stimulus was due to caution on the part of Obama and the Democratic leadership--and utter opposition by the Republicans. Can anyone show me any instance in the last 100 years where austerity--or letting the banks fail--Republican talking points to opposed Keynesian economics--have given a better result?

boggsman1 · Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer

Here's a big reason the LPR is stuck in the mud...and trust me I see it every day . Large companies, after laying off 100's of thousands in 2009, have learned they do NOT need to hire them back. Automation, and more efficient management has rendered many mid -level managers, paper pushers....useless. And those people are now, massage therapists, and kiteboard instructors.