Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

DCBob

(24,689 posts)

12. I think this graph is a bit misleading.

Reply to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 08:41 PM

Feb 2012

Last edited Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:44 AM - Edit history (1)

You should show a wider year range.. the peak was around 2000. Clearly the slumping economy has some impact but retiring workers and women deciding to be stay-at-home moms have also had some significant impact.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

30 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Ezra Klein: All measures of unemployment are falling [View all] babylonsister Feb 2012 OP

Oh, wow. That is wonderful. DevonRex Feb 2012 #1

ruh roh! What will all the DU debbie downers say? wyldwolf Feb 2012 #2

Not a good place for Mittens to be treestar Feb 2012 #3

An excellent & exciting read. Thank You. Tarheel_Dem Feb 2012 #4

Almost all lumberjack_jeff Feb 2012 #5

Retiring baby boomers treestar Feb 2012 #8

There's an element of whistling through the cemetery evident here. lumberjack_jeff Feb 2012 #9

I think this graph is a bit misleading. DCBob Feb 2012 #12

It's entirely about slumping economy and low demand lumberjack_jeff Feb 2012 #13

"Entirely".. are you sure? Nothing to do with boomers retiring? DCBob Feb 2012 #15

If we were at full employment, wages would be going up. lumberjack_jeff Feb 2012 #16

We are not at full employment obviously... that would be a rate of about 5%. DCBob Feb 2012 #17

if unemployment were to get close to 5%... lumberjack_jeff Feb 2012 #18

65% employment-to-population has never been reached in the history of this country. DCBob Feb 2012 #19

For all practical purposes, the employment to (workforce) ratio was 80% when I was a child. lumberjack_jeff Feb 2012 #20

That may be true but it will be nearly impossible to ever to get to the numbers you want. DCBob Feb 2012 #23

I'm arguing about "true", not "realistic". lumberjack_jeff Feb 2012 #26

Its nice to dream but most of us need to focus on reality. DCBob Feb 2012 #29

Okay. Let's share dumpster diving tips. lumberjack_jeff Feb 2012 #30

Looks quite good to me. joshcryer Feb 2012 #21

First, the population grew by 2 million+ in 2011 and is expected to continue growing. lumberjack_jeff Feb 2012 #24

They don't want to know about the 5.5 M people who dropped from the work force. Beacool Feb 2012 #25

I don't enjoy pissing in anyone's wheaties. lumberjack_jeff Feb 2012 #27

I read it yesterday in the NY Times. Beacool Feb 2012 #28

Not so fast... Comedywriter1214 Feb 2012 #6

republican response....... thelordofhell Feb 2012 #7

LOL ... is that a "Trading Places" reference????? JoePhilly Feb 2012 #11

"Mortimer, your brother is not well. We better call an ambulance" n/t lumberjack_jeff Feb 2012 #14

The fact that this post is in the same forum, three posts down Number23 Feb 2012 #10

It was much worse in 2008 and Mitt wants to take us back to those "good ol' days"!!! Major Hogwash Feb 2012 #22