US Workers In The Prime 25-54 Age Group Are Still 2.6 Million Short Of Recovering Post-Crisis Job Losses

5 comments

Posted on 8th June 2014 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

,

Tyler Durden's picture



Pundits may be trying to spin this Friday’s jobs report as indicative of an ongoing recovery, emphasizing that as of May, all the jobs that were lost since December 2007 have now been recovered, or this chart…

 

However the same pundits fail to mention is that while it took the Fed some $2.7 trillion in incremental liquidity to regain all the lost jobs (and concurrently push the S&P to absolutely ridiculous record numbers), at the same time the US population, which grew by 14.8 million since December 2007, has lost a record 12.8 million people form the labor force, which remains at an all time high 92 million!

 

Further digging into the data, here are two other things you won’t hear from the permabulls: while the May job gain of 217K was respectable, breaking down the jobs by age group as shown by the household survey, shows that not only did the majority of the jobs go to the lowest paying wages for yet another month, but for Americans in their prime working years, those aged 25-54, May was a month in which some 110K workers either lost their jobs, or were moved into the oldest, 55-69 age group.

Furthermore, while the total number of jobs may have recovered its post December 2007 losses, for Americans aged 25-54, there is still a long, long time to go, with the prime US age group still over 2.6 million jobs short of recovering all of its post December-2007 losses.

Finally, continuing the qulitative breakdown of the jobs breakdown in the US, one group that has gotten the decidedly short end of the stick are stay at home dads, which according to a recent Pew research study have increased by a whopping 100% to 2 million from the 1.1 milion in 1989:

The number of fathers who do not work outside the home has risen markedly in recent years, up to 2 million in 2012. High unemployment rates around the time of the Great Recession contributed to the recent increases, but the biggest contributor to long-term growth in these “stay-at-home fathers” is the rising number of fathers who are at home primarily to care for their family.

Visually:

Bloomberg has more:

The number of fathers at home with their children reached a high of 2.2 million in 2010 in the wake of the recession, which ended in June 2009. While the figure fell to 2 million in 2012 as unemployment declined, it was still almost double the 1.1 million stay-at-home dads in 1989, according to the report.

 

Fathers account for a growing share of stay-at-home parents in the U.S., with almost a quarter of the men reporting they’re at home because they can’t find a job. Dads represented 16 percent of all parents not working outside the home in 2012, up from 10 percent in 1989, a report released today by the Pew Research Center in Washington shows. There are more than five times as many stay-at-home mothers.

 

“The share of dads specifically there to care for those at home has been growing steadily across time,” said Gretchen Livingston, the report’s lead author. “We still see a steady increase in this number.”

 

The report follows a study Pew released two months ago that showed American mothers are reversing a historical trend and increasingly staying home, a change driven by demographic, social and economic forces. The increase in stay-at-home fathers is also related to economic forces, this study found.

Don’t blame it on the economy… blame it on disabilities.

As is the case among mothers, stay-at-home fathers are less well-off financially and have lower educational attainment than their working counterparts, the report said. At-home fathers are twice as likely to lack a high school diploma as working fathers — 22 percent to 10 percent — and almost half are living in poverty compared with 8 percent who work outside the home.

 

The largest share of stay-at-home fathers — 35 percent — say they are there because of their own illness or disability, the report said. This contrasts with stay-at-home mothers, just 11 percent of whom cited those reasons.

 

And while the overall average age of working-age Americans continues to rise ever higher (with the 25-54 age group consistently depressed), one subset of Americans that is leaving the workforce are the same disenfrachised fathers, caring for their children:

Stay-at-home dads also tend to be older than such mothers, which may partially explain why so many more are ill or disabled. While 43 percent of stay-at-home fathers are 45 years or older, only 21 percent of stay-at-home mothers are in that age group.

 

About one in five stay-at-home fathers say the main reason they are there is to care for their home or family, representing a fourfold increase from 1989 when only 5 percent of them said that. Among mothers, the number is 73 percent.

It gets worse:

Stay-at-home dads get less respect, the study found. About half of Americans said children are better off if their mother is home and doesn’t hold a job, compared with just 8 percent who said that about fathers, according to a 2013 Pew survey. That finding shows Americans “still very much differentiate between a stay-at-home mom and a stay-at-home dad in terms of the value to children,” Livingston said.

Well, reverse feminism may not be particularly strong in the US, and neither is the so-called recovery. But at least demand for propaganda spin masters has never been greater, regardless of age or domestic father status.

5 Comments
  1. Nonanonymous says:

    The elections in November should be interesting. How will all of these under-educated, unemployed, disabled stay at home dads vote?

    If by some miracle, the Tea Party makes gains at all levels of government, we’re still two years away from a Clinton victory in 2016. Maybe it will be enough. It has to be.

    These next two years will be an all out assault on the 2A. It’s the only thing standing in the way of the anti-constitutionalists, but they won’t tip their hand too soon. Expect the rise of the police state after November, which will test the resolve of the new Congress. The best we can hope for is stalemate for the next two years. Even then, the globalists are coming.

    North Carolina voted to get rid of Common Core. The NC GOP continues to make the right choices, for the betterment of all, in spite of the rhinos.

    8th June 2014 at 10:42 am

  2. bb says:

    There is hope for some parts of the country. Getting rid of Common Core is a good start.

    8th June 2014 at 2:19 pm

  3. taxSlave says:

    They are fucking the future with all of the idiotic policies being administered to “our” children.

    Just imagine the argument for the 2nd amendment 29 yrs from now – the adults will have grown up believing that a pop tart in the shape of a gun is a punishable offense.

    That coupled with mental illness being defined as believing in the antiquated Constitution and Bill of Rights, suggests to me that the totalitarians need just one more generation to effect their plans.

    I plan on taking a few out before the get to me when the time comes.

    8th June 2014 at 6:34 pm

  4. gilberts says:

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1480284769/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

    Has anyone here seen Enjoy the Decline? It’s an interesting book I just got a hold of that aims to help the younger set deal with the death of the nation and the end of the economy. Essentially, the author advises you to avoid the rat race, abandon the American Dream of a career, home, wife, kid, and car, and shoot for a more achievable plan of a Trade, a small apartment, a 15K income, and lots of free time. Since the job market doesn’t need or want you, why kill yourself trying to get into it? Accept the idea the US is dead and stop being angry about your inability to achieve the unsustainable dream of your parents, accept you can survive, even thrive, without the Dream, and lead a more fulfilling life.

    While it’s a cynical and jaded worldview in some respects, I can understand the author’s viewpoint. I don’t necessarily agree with his advice, but I can see how a changing world requires some flexibility. “Semper Gumby!”

    The first chapter did have a very succinct discussion of the economy and why in an era of bigger and bigger govt it is pointless to try and become a salaried worker. He also has a great point-if you don’t want to support the welfare state, why work hard? Aim low, make a survivable 15K, and stay off the grid.

    One thing I disagree with is the idea that you shouldn’t have stuff. I can see how stuff takes over your life, but in a failing economy, Dmitry Orlov points out you want to have stock on hand, supplies, and resources you can use when the networks you rely on are down. The author is writing as if the Just In Time system will always be there.

    Check it out-it’s worth a look.

    9th June 2014 at 9:20 am

  5. Nonanonymous says:

    Thanks for the book reference. I have kids in grade school and it’s a difficult balance.

    Charles Smith has a book out about making a career. Sounds like it’s along the same lines. I agree about JIT being susceptible to disruption.

    I read somewhere, maybe here, where large box retailers are reducing inventory like crazy. OT, but relevant to the dying economy. We may see the big reset, and it will become a matter of survival. If we do, that, too, will be a manufactured crisis, as the US and it’s economic common wealth have more than enough of everything to be self sufficient, they just don’t want ME oil or Russian NG going anywhere else, as well as maintain the status of the petro dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

    9th June 2014 at 12:32 pm

Leave a comment

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.