Has anyone glanced at Congressional Outlook?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/01-26-Outlook.pdf

I find it very interesting that the percentage of the population in the labor force began declining in the late 90's and looks to speed up for the next two decades. Is that "hump" in say 1999 the official beginning of the baby boomer departure from the workforce?

My father is retiring soon (he works for the railroad) and he mentioned that his floor has a retirement at least once a week which was unheard of 5 -10 years ago.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Sousuke

[alienlovechild 75]

I find it very interesting that the percentage of the population in the labor force began declining in the late 90's and looks to speed up for the next two decades. Is that "hump" in say 1999 the official beginning of the baby boomer departure from the workforce?

My father is retiring soon (he works for the railroad) and he mentioned that his floor has a retirement at least once a week which was unheard of 5 -10 years ago.

So all the retirements will spell a need for new blood in the labor market? A lot of older people are hanging to their jobs because their retirement funds value dropped like a rock.

Expect Social Security taxes to rise so all the baby boomers get their money back and more.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

baby boomers are vampires

[scandal 951]

baby boomers are vampires

Parasites.

We should deport them all for destroying America.

[alienlovechild 75]

Parasites.

We should deport them all for destroying America.

A lot of Amercian retirees have caught on to the idea of living abroad. Dollars go further in other countries and let's face it our culture doesn't particularily admire older people.

I might retire in the Philippines or someplace like Chile or Argentina. Of course that's 20-25 years in the future so maybe it's just idle talk.

[Ali G. 37]

A lot of Amercian retirees have caught on to the idea of living abroad. Dollars go further in other countries and let's face it our culture doesn't particularily admire older people.

I might retire in the Philippines or someplace like Chile or Argentina. Of course that's 20-25 years in the future so maybe it's just idle talk.

Chile and Argentina are nice countries. Very different when compared to their northern cough cough ghetto neighbors. Heck, they'll tell you that.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Booyah

[Ali G. 37]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/01-26-Outlook.pdf

I find it very interesting that the percentage of the population in the labor force began declining in the late 90's and looks to speed up for the next two decades. Is that "hump" in say 1999 the official beginning of the baby boomer departure from the workforce?

My father is retiring soon (he works for the railroad) and he mentioned that his floor has a retirement at least once a week which was unheard of 5 -10 years ago.

Same thing is occurring in Aus and they already have a huge labor shortage. After all, it is the reason the even laborers are being paid $184K USD to work certain jobs. It's actually much more profitable to not go to college over there and learn a trade.

If it was not for illegal aliens, the same thing would start to happen here. However, the rapid influx of unskilled people has destroyed the labor market, by causing a massive oversupply. Unfortunately this is protected here by the clueless and individuals who basically cannot admit they are biased since their family's roots or spouses are from SA.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Booyah

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I wouldn't say they've destroyed the whole labor market, but certainly its damaging to the construction industry over the last decade which has already been shot in the head by subprime.

Its interesting regarding illegals. Thinking back to the Greenspan post Scandal had yesterday, of course illegals are good for the economy because they provide cheap labor. Reduced labor costs = better economy.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

A lot of Amercian retirees have caught on to the idea of living abroad. Dollars go further in other countries and let's face it our culture doesn't particularily admire older people.

I might retire in the Philippines or someplace like Chile or Argentina. Of course that's 20-25 years in the future so maybe it's just idle talk.

Yep. We kept our flat in Ukraine and that is one of the big reasons. I can retire in a few years and Alla can teach English as a second languge and we can live where $700 per month is a pretty good living wage...nearly double the national average, travel all we want

[scandal 951]

Its interesting regarding illegals. Thinking back to the Greenspan post Scandal had yesterday, of course illegals are good for the economy because they provide cheap labor. Reduced labor costs = better economy.

It's much more than just a question of cheap labor.

I think the aspect that people don't seem to take into account when thinking of immigration is that people are both producers and consumers. Ultimately, an economy is a the sum total of all the production and consumption that is occurring. The larger the population, the more producers/consumers we have, the more economic activity there will be. That's a vast oversimplification of course of the relationship between population and the economy since not all people are equally productive or consume at equal rates. But as a general rule, it works.

Each net new person in this country - whether a baby just born, or an immigrant just arrived - takes 'something' from those already here. They compete for the finite resources we have of food, shelter, jobs, etc. That is true, and it's a good reason not to let population grow uncontrolled. We SHOULD maintain control of immigration for this reason.

However, each new person also gives 'something', most importantly - they give a new source of demand, which spurs more supply, which spurs more economic growth which benefits all of us.

That new baby will immediately need new clothes, a crib, diapers, baby formula, vaccines and doctor appointments, toys, ... and will keep needing and needing till they one day die of old age. All that needing means more stuff bought in the malls, and more services required from doctors, dentists, teachers, and other service providers.

That new immigrant immediately needs an apartment, a car, new winter clothing, ESL classes, and a myriad of other goods and services. That apartment he occupies is one less on the housing market, spurring new construction and propping up real estate values. That used car he buys off the lot is one less in the pool of outstanding cars, firming the Kelly Blue Book value of used cars in that marketplace. That car insurance policy he buys is one additional source of commission earnings his agent just earned, helping him to feed his family.

In short, adding new people to the mix takes stuff away from the rest of us. It also gives us stuff we never had to begin with. From a macroeconomic standpoint, most economists have come to believe that the gains outweigh the costs, particularly when the new immigrants are productive and contributing members of society.

None of this has anything to do with the legality of the immigrant. An illegal immigrant buys stuff, pays sales tax on his delivery pizzas, and takes apartments out of circulation in the housing market, just the same way that a legal immigrant does.

Again, this is NOT (!!) to condone illegal immigration. I don't know how many times I (and others) have said this, only to have this point ignored by the contrarians in the crowd.

Illegal immigration is wrong because IT IS ILLEGAL. Lawbreakers should face the full consequences of the law. Penalties should be severe enough to deter would be offenders. Enforcement should be aggressive, and not taken half heartedly.

In an enlightened America, I would favor increased immigration quotas that reflected the true pressures of the would-be pool of immigrants trying to get in, and the capacity for our economy to accept these immigrants. Obviously our capacity is larger than the current legal quotas since we do have a net influx larger than the quotas (i.e. the illegals) yet over time we experience fairly robust economic growth showing that they are being absorbed (Yes, I know we're coming out of a tough recession, I'm talking about the secular trends, not the cyclical ones).

I would focus the immigrant screening process mainly on national security concerns - keeping out possible criminal and terrorist elements should be the primary focus.

If we did that, the pool of legal immigrants would be larger, illegals smaller, the need for enforcements and deportations lower, and the economic benefit maximized.

That's just me though.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

They also drain resources they don't pay for. Such as schooling etc. Lets look at it this way.

If you have a population of 100,000 people and lets assume they are all middle class for the moment. Their income is X, their spending is .8X, their taxes are .1X and their use of public funds is lets say .05X

Now you add 10,000 illegal immigrants. Their income is .6X, their spending is .58X, their taxes are .02Z and their use of public funds is .03X.

I'm not seeing a serious advantage here for Americans here when there is already a labor surplus.

I guess I'm old school in thinking that immigration should focus 1. Using immigrants to fill specialized holes in the labor force and 2. connecting families (that are legally here).

Edited January 29, 2010 by Sousuke

[Danno 1,228]

Say what you want,

but people with little or no education with minimal skill set, who are very fertile will consume much more in taxes than they possible contribute or stimulate.

THis is true of Immigrants and natural born citizens.

Family with four kids racks up $40,000 in schools costs alone.

They would get thousands BACK in taxes (more than they paid) under the -Earned income credit.

THey would easily get food stamps aprox $600 a month.

Free lunch and breakfast at school $240 a month

All medical is paid.

Section 8 housing might very well be available.

These people might be nice neighbors but how you can spin this into anything but a serious and massive SUCK on the public resources is something you've not demonstrated.

Now multiply this example x millions and you might see why this country is going broke and why these people come... and will keep coming.

[alienlovechild 75]

In an enlightened America, I would favor increased immigration quotas that reflected the true pressures of the would-be pool of immigrants trying to get in, and the capacity for our economy to accept these immigrants. Obviously our capacity is larger than the current legal quotas since we do have a net influx larger than the quotas (i.e. the illegals) yet over time we experience fairly robust economic growth showing that they are being absorbed (Yes, I know we're coming out of a tough recession, I'm talking about the secular trends, not the cyclical ones).

I would focus the immigrant screening process mainly on national security concerns - keeping out possible criminal and terrorist elements should be the primary focus.

If we did that, the pool of legal immigrants would be larger, illegals smaller, the need for enforcements and deportations lower, and the economic benefit maximized.

I'd go for quality over mere quantity in immigration. Sure there are talented immigrants that do a lot for this country but many a huge external cost to support for a generation in the case of kids.

The idea of a bigger population smacks of great European powers that wanted big populations in the 19th and first half the 20th century or Mao's China. We don't need millions to pick crops, work in factories or become soldiers. If your notion was correct, India or China would have dominated the world long ago. They have a surplus population problem.

Then there is the irony of Western colonialism ending after WW-II but many of the Western nations will be "colonized" a hundred years later.