Moderator: Bill Glasheen
Aggregates can be misleading. For instance, that surge in the participation rate from the 1960's to 1980's is a result of women joining the workforce. The male rate, on the other hand, has been declining since the 1950's. Male participation has fallen under President Obama. It fell under President George W. Bush. And President Clinton. It's fallen in every presidential administration going back to at least Eisenhower's, with the exception of Carter's, for whom it was flat.
Why are fewer men choosing to work? For that, we turn to the Census Bureau's 2012 Statistical Abstract. The participation rate is lower for single men than for married men, and marriage rates in the US have been falling for decades, so we'd expect a modest decline from that. Looking by age bucket, it's been pretty steady for single and married men for everyone over the age of 25 since the start of the Great Recession.
The recent decline we've seen has been primarily among young, single men. For single men age 16-19, participation fell by almost 9 points from 2006-2010. For single men age 20-24 it fell by almost 5 points. This could be for a variety of factors, from men deciding it's not worth bothering to apply for a job at the local grocery store, to men more focused on their education with unskilled work harder to find, to those living at home who decide there's no need for spending money when so much entertainment is free online.
Additionally, the acceleration in the labor force decline began when the oldest baby boomers began turning 60. Yes, because of deflated housing prices and retirement accounts, boomers will work longer than they thought. But 60-year olds still work less than 30-year olds, and that demographic shift is being reflected in the data.
Bill Glasheen wrote:Here's another interesting plot worth pondering.
Glenn wrote:I am simply pointing out the reality that is when it comes to campaign strategy, like I said it may not be academically adequate or realistic but it works come election time
Bill Glasheen wrote:As for the labor force participation rate, you can't compare today's numbers with the previous generation's numbers. In my mom's generation, women were housewives.
Bill Glasheen wrote:No it doesn't work. To force 3 dimensions into one is asking us all to play stupid. I don't do stupid.
Glenn wrote:There are times when you come across as the perpetual teenager Bill
Glenn wrote:Libertarian candidates/voters also had no impact on the election which is why the R and D candidates ignored them. Technophobic/philic may be an important dimension to us, but there was zero attention paid to it by R and D candidates. I agree with you whole hardedly, candidates, platforms, and campaigns should be multi-dimensional, and if we had a strong 3rd (4th, 5th, etc) party we would at least have some more multi-dimensional options. The last time a third-party candidate influenced an election was in 2000 when Nader cost Gore Florida and thus an electoral college win, the strategy of ignoring certain dimensions did not pay off for the D's then.
Glenn wrote:So you did not look at the graphs and stats?
Glenn wrote:We discussed 2D (and higher) political-spectrum charts (including the Nolan chart which was created in 1969 by one of the founders of the Libertarian Party to illustrate the Libertarian view) at length early on in a political behavior graduate seminar course I took this spring. Increasing the dimensions to incompass spectrums other than liberal-conservative can offer some slight increases in explanatory power for the academics, but have had little impact on the campaign strategy the public sees which is largely dominated by Republican vs Democrat interests. The reality of campaigning is that the focus is on conservative versus liberal. In the primaries this year the Republican candidates were all trying to present themselves as the most conservative and their opponents as being liberal. I have yet to hear anyone campaign on a technophilic vs technophobic platform, nor many of the other dimensions that are championed by other similar 2D charts.
Bill Glasheen wrote:If you take Classical Liberalism and add in technophilic, you get Thomas Jefferson. That's pretty much where I sit in my political views.
Jason Rees wrote:Also, we tried moderate candidates twice now. Fool them once, shame on you, and so forth... I don't think you're going to get another moderate to pull the football away from at the last second again... no, it wasn't moderates that 'sat out.' It was the base. Romney didn't inspire the base, and his ground game was jacked up by experimental, untested software. Obama tended his base very well, and his ground game was superb.
No, no, a hundred times no. You won't see a 'moderate' candidate next time 'because he's the only one who can win.' Sorry. Been down that road twice now, and that car just won't drive. Lucy won't be holding the ball next time.
Top Republicans say Romney didn't offer specifics
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press
November 15, 2012
LAS VEGAS (AP) — Top Republicans meeting for the first time since Election Day say the party lost its bid to unseat President Barack Obama because nominee Mitt Romney did not respond to criticism strongly enough or outline a specific agenda with a broad appeal.
In conversations at the Republican Governors Association confab in Las Vegas, a half dozen party leaders predicted the GOP will lose again if it keeps running the same playbook based on platitudes in place of detailed policies. Instead, they asserted, the party needs to learn the lessons from its loss, respect voters' savvy and put forward an agenda that appeals beyond the white, male voters who are its base.
"We need to acknowledge the fact that we got beat," Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said in an interview. "We clearly got beat and we need to recognize that."
Little more than a week after Romney came up short in his presidential bid, the party elders were looking at his errors and peering ahead to 2016's race. Some of the contenders eying a White House run of their own were on hand and quietly considering their chances. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie scheduled a private meeting on the sidelines with Haley Barbour, the former Mississippi governor who is widely seen as one of the GOP's sharpest political operatives.
"We need to have a brutal, brutally honest assessment of everything we did," Barbour said. "We need to take everything apart ... and determine what we did that worked and what we did that didn't work."
Other potential White House contenders such as Jindal, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker were outlining a vision for the party in coming elections.
"We need to figure out what we did right and what we did wrong, how we can improve our tone, our message, our technology, our turnout — all the things that are required to win elections," McDonnell said. "We are disappointed, but we are not discouraged."
With polls in hand and shifting demographic trends in mind, these Republicans are looking at how best to position the party to make inroads with growing numbers of Hispanic, black and young voters who overwhelmingly voted Democratic last week.
Republicans are reconsidering their stance on immigration reform following the presidential election, in which 71 percent of Latinos voted for President Obama. The Census Bureau estimated there were more than 10.8 million undocumented immigrants living in the country in 2010, and more than half of those were Mexican. The push for reform is in part being driven by the farm lobby, many of whose members rely on immigrant workers.
American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman, right, said immigration-reform talks between congressional leaders and the Obama administration could provide a "'crack in the window of opportunity' for ag worker programs and other reforms the farm lobby wants," Agri-Pulse reports. The AFBF opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, but supports giving some undocumented people who've worked in agriculture an avenue toward legal status. It also wants Congress to improve the federal H-2A visa program for foreign workers, heavily used by agriculture.
Republican leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner, are taking note of the farm lobby's call to action, and of the fact that Hispanics are the fastest-growing minority in the U.S. Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he and Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., are trying to continue a compromise on immigration reform, noting the importance of a strong guest-worker program. Graham said the immigration debate within the Republican Party has alienated Hispanic voters "because of tone and rhetoric," and it's "an odd formula for a party to adopt," since the party is losing votes every election cycle because of it. "It has to stop. It’s one thing to shoot yourself in the foot; just don’t reload the gun," Graham said.
Glenn wrote:As for primaries, I agree they do sometimes showcase more of the diversity in each party, although it seemed less so this year, particularly among Republicans.
Glenn wrote:The reality of campaigning is that the focus is on conservative versus liberal.
Glenn wrote:I may have short-changed Ron Paul a bit
Glenn wrote:Nothing in the data supports the conclusion that the current labor-force participation rate is solely a product of the recession.
Glenn wrote:A new biography came out yesterday that you might be interested in Bill
Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power
jorvik wrote:"The Obama administration is reportedly quickly moving on plans to nationalize private 401k and IRA retirement accounts, and replace them with government sponsored annuities(aka Treasury bonds that the Treasury currently can’t sell to anyone but the Fed)."
Businessweek wrote:The $716 billion line gets people pretty riled up. The problem is, the claim is flat-out wrong. “The Affordable Care Act doesn’t steal anything from Medicare,” Henry Aaron, a health-care expert at the Brookings Institution, tells me. “It actually improves Medicare’s finances. No matter how you slice it, the Affordable Care Act strengthens medical hospital insurance.”
Here’s how: Money in the Medicare trust fund comes mostly from payroll taxes, premiums, and general revenue. The trust fund then pays that money out to health-care providers. Part of the trust fund was expected to go bankrupt by 2016. Obamacare actually saves it money in a variety of ways. From 2010 to 2019, Obamacare trims payments to providers by $196 billion. They agreed to take a cut because they will get so many new patients, thanks to the individual mandate. Another $210 billion will be generated by raising Medicare taxes on the wealthy (that’s households earning more than $250,000). Another $145 billion comes from phasing out overpayments to Medicare Advantage. More savings come from streamlining administrative costs.
Bill Glasheen wrote:Essentially what mattered in 2012 won't matter in 2014 and 2016.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests