“…we shouldn’t be discriminating against capital by double taxing income that is saved and invested.And it helps to explain why we shouldn’t be discouraging labor by subsidizingunemployment and idleness.But it’s time to issue a very important caveat. The goal of policy should be economic freedom, not maximizing GDP.There’s nothing wrong with people choosing to be out of the labor force – so long as they’re not expecting taxpayers to pay their expenses.Many women, for instance, may want to be at home with children, particularly during their younger years.Moreover, some older workers may want to retire early.So while I think it’s bad news that labor force participation has dropped under Obama, there’s more than one possible way to look at that data when you factor in the voluntary choices of some segments of the potential workforce.But it’s very difficult to give any sort of optimistic or positive spin to these numbers from the Senate Budget Committee. They show a very worrisome trend among prime-working-age men.
Here’s the breakdown.
One in eight, the highest proportion since record-keeping began in 1955, are out of the labor force… Another 2.9 million men in the 25-54 age group haven’t given up–they are still in the labor force–but are currently unemployed.
And here are the consequences.
…the damage done to a generation of American men (and women too, of course) will not easily be undone. Those who missed a chunk of what should have been their most productive years, or departed the labor force entirely, will suffer from Obamanomics for the rest of their lives. The damage being done by our current, inept economic policies is literally incalculable.