Economist Jan Hatzius baby boomer impact debate with Citizen Wells, Drop in percent of population working, Email debate, Both agree not enough jobs, 2 percent allegation in CNBC interview

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”…Karl Marx

“Over the last six months, of the net job creation, 97 percent of that is part-time work,”…Keith Hall, former BLS chief

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984″

Goldman Sachs chief economist Jan Hatzius was interviewed on CNBC on Friday, February 6, 2015 after the January jobs report.

From Citizen Wells February 7, 2015.

From Zero Hedge February 6, 2015.

“Following the January jobs report, Goldman’s chief economist Jan Hatzius appeared on CNBC but instead of joining Steve Liesman in singing the praises of the “strong” the report (which apparently missed the memo about  the  crude collapse), he decided to do something totally different and instead emphasize the two series that none other than Zero Hedge has been emphasizing for years as the clearest indication of what is really happening with the US labor market: namely the recession-level civilian employment to population ratio and the paltry annual increase in average hourly earnings.

This is what Hatzius said (2:40 into the clip):

“The employment to population ratio is still 4% below where it was in 2006. You can explain 2% of that with the aging of the population that still leaves quite a lot of room potentially, and the wage numbers are telling us we are just not that close, although we are getting closer.””

Read more:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-06/why-goldman-suddenly-banging-table-scariest-chart-jobs-report

I sent the following email to  Jan Hatzius.

I have not yet received a response.

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/cnbc-jobs-lies-goldman-sachs-economist-jan-hatzius-interview-baby-boomer-impact-lie-nbc-leading-way-in-orwellian-media-lies-citizen-wells-email-to-hatzius-for-clarification/

Jan Hatzius did respond in less than 24 hours and we debated via email the validity of his statement:

“You can explain 2% of that with the aging of the population”

I will not present the entire exchange unless he requests it.

Here are our ending remarks.

Mine:

“Thanks for your response.

I have no wish to be unkind to you.
However, I consider it a “sacred” duty to report the truth, facts.
For what it is worth, I have much German ancestry and was baptized and raised in the Lutheran Church.
I even worked as VP of Administration for a German company in the US circa 1983.

Apples and oranges.
The studies that you quote are projections done in 2006, not historical analysis.
I am not questioning the projections.
They are projections probably done by competent people using the best data available.
But they are projections, not history, done before probably the biggest anomaly in recorded US job history.

“It is also true that there are not enough jobs. That’s why I said population aging accounts for 2 of the 4 percentage points of decline, not for the entire decline.
Best regards,
Jan”

I would like to thank Jan Hatzius again. He did not have to respond.

I will leave it to the reader to decide who is right.

However, I found an article that may provide insight.

From Fortune November 6, 2012.

“Obama’s best friend at Goldman Sachs”

“To be sure, the German-born Hatzius hasn’t publicly stated that he supports the President. But his analysis, which is widely read in financial circles, has long jibed with the monetary and fiscal policies embraced by Democrats. In numerous notes published over the last few years, Hatzius has advocated stimulus spending and called for more quantitative easing, renouncing efforts to slash the deficit as premature.”

“Hatzius’ views have endeared him to the likes of liberal economist Paul Krugman, who has mentioned the Goldmanite nearly a dozen times in his New York Timesblog. Krugman has repeatedly referred to Hatzius’ group as “excellent,” calling the economist a “very calm, measured guy.” Back in 2009, he noted that Hatzius’ analysis was “spot on.””

“Hatzius sounded warnings about the housing market as early as 2005, when he published a report that asked “Bubble Trouble? Probably Yes.” In December of 2007, the economics writer Ben Stein criticized Hatzius in the New York Times for his gloomy prognostications, accusing the economist of fear-mongering in order to support Goldman’s bearish position.

Stein (incorrectly) mocked Hatzius for his view that the subprime mortgage crisis could spin out of control, hampering lending and slowing growth. “He is also postulating,” Stein wrote, “that lenders would have to retrench so deeply that lending would stall and growth would falter — an event that, again, has not happened on any scale in the postwar world, except when planned by the central bank.” (The piece, available here, is worth reading for its comedic value alone).”

Read more:

http://fortune.com/2012/11/06/obamas-best-friend-at-goldman-sachs/

Further remarks from Citizen Wells:

“The reason that we have a 4 percent drop in the p of p, percent of population, working is that we do not enough jobs and
good full time jobs to maintain the same ratio.

The problem is exacerbated by too many part time jobs which yield a result of too many people working multiple jobs.

In 2006 we knew how the population was growing in terms of births and deaths with some anticipated immigration.

We did not know that the economy was going to collapse and that Obama would permit a flow of illegals to enter our country
and workforce. We also did not know that much of the job growth was going to be in part time and lower wage positions.

Regarding baby boomers and their impact on the job market.

This is being tossed about indiscriminately without justification.

We are on the leading edge of baby boomers reaching the traditional retirement age of 65.

Most of the baby boomers, which include those born up to 1964, have not reached retirement age yet.

Some people retire before that age but in recent years there has been a trend of retiring later.

Older workers generally have a more beneficial impact on the p of p ratio. Those retiring generally are retiring from a
full time job. Many of those who continue to work are in one part time job.

This yields a one to one scenario of one person to one job.

Younger people are having a more detrimental impact on the p of p ratio.

Because so many of the jobs being created are part time and/or lower wage jobs, the younger folks are working 2 or more of
these jobs.

This is hurting the ratio.

Also, unlike what you are being led to believe, there are far more of the younger people.

Let’s take the example of those turning 65 in 2014, born in 1949 and those turning 22 in 2014, born in 1992. I chose age
22 to account for college even though some of them entered the work force earlier, if they could find a job.

There were 3.56 million people born in the US in 1949. 85 % or 3.026 million are alive.

There were 4.08 million people born in 1992. Probably at least 4 million still alive.

Let’s assume that all of the people who turned 65 retired.

That is still a net gain of about a million in the workforce.

I mentioned above that in 2006 we did not know that Obama would allow so many illegal immigrants into the US.

Recently I reported about the even bigger drop in the p of p ratio in NC.

From Citizen Wells February 3, 2015.

“The plummet of the labor force participation rate in NC, other states and the US is big news and should be more widely
reported.

The percentage of the population working is also important and in some ways more significant.

Since the big news today was the lowest so called initial claims number in 15 years let’s go back to January 2000 and
compare the employment to population percent from then to now.

US
Jan 2000 64.6

Dec 2014 59.2

That’s a plummet of 5.4 percent!

NC
Jan 2000 65.1

Dec 2014 56.5

That’s a plummet of 8.6 percent !!!”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2015/02/03/5-6-percent-unemployment-rate-big-lie-gallups-jim-clifton-white-house-wall-street-and-media-lies-30-million-americans-out-of-work-or-severely-underemployed-percent-of-population-working-plummets/

From the Center for Immigration Studies August 2014.

“An analysis of government data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that, since 2000, all of the net increase in the number of working-age (16 to 65) people holding a job in North Carolina has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal).
This is the case even though the native-born accounted for 61 percent of growth in the state’s total working-age population.”

Read more:

http://cis.org/all-north-carolina-employment-growth-since-2000-went-to-immigrants

In conclusion, the answer is simple.

We do not have enough good jobs to maintain the same ratio of people working that we had in 2006.

The CEO of Gallup tells it like it is.