because the jobs they do enable a lot of BS jobs, go
unfilled and actually need to be filled to create other
job growth while someone in the labor market for a long
time is likely in a comfortable job that will be
realized to be unnecessary and already replaced by
disruption from newer lower pay equivalents.
(Also GDP is in USD which means it is down 30% in many senses.)
> I don't really think retiring boomers play the same role in the economy.
~3M+ deaths during the pandemic pulled forward a labor supply shock that would've happened more slowly over time, due to structural demographics ("Demographics are destiny", fertility rates never recovered after the 2008 GFC in the US [economic shocks destroy fertility rates], population has been held up with net immigration for the last half decade). Boomers have investments and real estate equity in some cases, Medicare and Social Security in others (with some overlap), and have constant demand for healthcare and other elderly goods and services. They make up almost 20% of the population.
Certainly, there is a bifurcation between undocumented worker jobs (agriculture, high physical labor healthcare, food industry) and documented worker jobs Boomers are retiring from. The latter is relevant for my points on labor market dynamics, the former is distinct because it is unlikely documented workers are going to flow into these low wage, low quality of life jobs without higher wages and worker protections (as one would expect). You see this with employers and farmers complaining there are no workers for them.
The data shows older workers are absolutely playing a material part in the economy, both as consumers and workers.
> There are now 20 million more 55+ employed than there were in 2000. The 55+ population increased by 42 million (from 57 million in 2000 to 99 million today [2022]), a 74% increase. Total employment in the age cohort increased by 113%.
This data supports my viewpoint just as well. Older workers are taking
the lower effort higher reward jobs that Americans are healthy enough and happy enough to do. If we go by salaries a bunch of CEOs retiring would be
a massive blow to salaries and propping up the US economy. CEO
are paid by what the best CEO is worth as no one wants to believe they
hire dud CEOs.
There's no explanation to me as to why this years attrition from the labor
force is much more meaningful than any other years, but there is a
notable loss instead of gain of millions of workers willing and
able to do any job instead of any convenient job.
Do sardines cause sharks or do sharks cause sardines? In what
sense is the preference for the theory that sardines growth causes
shark population growth a lump of labor fallacy?
because the jobs they do enable a lot of BS jobs, go unfilled and actually need to be filled to create other job growth while someone in the labor market for a long time is likely in a comfortable job that will be realized to be unnecessary and already replaced by disruption from newer lower pay equivalents.
(Also GDP is in USD which means it is down 30% in many senses.)