Yellen's job puzzle: Why are 20-somethings retiring? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/yellens-job-puzzle-why-20-130017298.html How come more people are retiring in their early 20s? Why are middle-age men becoming stay-at-home dads? What's keeping women out of the workforce other than illness, kids or school? Those are some of the questions raised in a new Bureau of Labor Statistics report that shows changes over the past decade in why people stay out of the labor force. Finding answers is key for the Federal Reserve as it maps the contours of a job market that's becoming harder to predict with the aging of the baby boomers and shifting household priorities. Here's what the bureau found, broadly: Thirty-five percent of the U.S. population wasn't in the labor force in 2014, up from 31.3 percent a decade earlier. (You're considered out of the workforce if you don't have a job and aren't looking for one. That's distinct from the official unemployment rate, which tracks those out of work who are actively job hunting.) Drilling down into the numbers reveals more about the shifts in the reasons some people forego a paycheck. In all age groups, for instance, more people cited retirement as the reason for being out of the labor force, and it wasn't just older people. For Americans between the ages of 20 and 24, the share of those sidelined over the past decade because they were in school increased, unsurprisingly, during the decade that included the Great Recession. What's more unusual is that the share of 20- to 24-year-olds who say they're retired doubled from 2004 to 2014. Other reasons for not working are also on the rise. More men between 25 and 54 cited home responsibilities, while women of the same age range increasingly point to illness or school as the leading cause. The data also show, perhaps not surprisingly, that men and women without a high-school diploma are more than three times as likely to be out of the workforce than their peers with a college degree. (More at above url)
Maybe we need less "social support"? Maybe we need more, "if you don't work, you don't eat"? (That's how it was when I was in my 20's... 'cause my grandfather told me, "that's how it works".)
I should pay MORE in taxes so that you can continue to sit on your butt and collect? I've already paid more in taxes than you'll make in your entire life. Some of that, sadly, went to support your lazy, parasitic, tit-sucking worthless ass! Just like all the rest of your ilk.... not gonna bother with working, just bitching at the mere thought of your freebies being taken away and you ever becoming required to provide for yourself. ON IGNORE, PARASITE!
with your ridiculous remark and gratuitous insult, the contest for the dumbest remark on ET for 2016 is now closed. it is pretty early in the year but the crown fits you perfectly..
It is the height of naivete to believe that extracting more money from the affluent and giving it to the government will solve your problems. The politicians do however count on that kind of simple "thinking".
it's naive to think that the wealth gap today isn't caused by the lowest tax rates on the top 10% in modern history bring back 90% tax rates and we'll see equality again
You are likely too young to know this but when the tax table was that high, there were a multitude of deductions and exclusions which have since been eliminated. No one paid that kind of tax.
why do you offer him excuses for his ignorance and shoot from the hip remark? before posting he should have researched the subject, god forbid. that is exactly what is wrong with education in the US. no matter what the tax rates are, in modern times the federal government has collected about 20% of income in taxes.
it is your 2nd remark on this thread without offering proof. it is obvious to you and possibly the circles you travel in. it still doesn't make it true.