Chart Of The Day: Jobs "Additions" By Age Group Reveals The Scariest Picture

Tyler Durden's picture

While the GETCO algos care only about one thing: the headline NFP number derived by the establishment survey, the reality is that in November this number was strictly a divination of seasonal adjustments (which resulted in the typical for November 1.2 million "gain" in jobs), as well as who knows what other Sandy-related adjustments which the BLS has not broken down, the reality is that a more granular dig through the jobs data reveals a far uglier picture, especially for those in the prime working demographic between 25-54. This has been a sensitive issue for the pundits as ever since the arrival of the Obama administration, all the job gains have gone in the 55 and older job category as we now see age outsourcing, while jobs in the 55 and lower age group have imploded. Sure enough, the November data, when seen through the prism of the Household Survey's age distribution, is frankly horrendous.

First, what that granular data shows is that instead of a 146K gain in November, there was actually a drop of 114K jobs when broken down by worker "vintage." But where it gets simply stupid, is that of the 4 age group buckets (16-19, 20-24, 25-54, and 55-69), the biggest gainer continued to be America geriatric work force, which added 177 jobs. As for that key segment of the workforce, the 25-54? Jobs here declined by a whopping 359K in November. And this is good news?


And the really scary charts: cumulative jobs gained or lost in the 55 and under, versus 55 and over age groups. In case it is confusing, since Obama became president, 4 million jobs have been added in the 55-69 age group. Everyone else? Down 3 million!

The same as above but broken by all four age cohorts:

Since Obama became president, over 2.5 million jobs in the 25-54 age group have been lost.

Welcome to the Recovery.

Source: BLS

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
QuantumCat's picture

Take some accountability.  Perhaps you have personally fought against generational excess, but on the whole, BBs have left a cesspool for the rest of us to swim in.  BBs represent the largest voting bloc which has delivered multiple pointless wars that my generation has been asked to fight, and that wonderful cure-all QE. You guys should be so proud, MAN.  All of that hippie time rebelling against the man delivered something many orders of magnitude worse.  Congrats on that generational accomplishment. I work for living, but unlike you, when I'm in my prime earning years, I will be paying enormous taxes on your generation's debt and bailouts and left holding a bunch of devalued dollars. I wish you a long life to see it all through.    

Ropingdown's picture

The attacks on Baby Boomers are simply a reflection of how little the succeeding generations know about spending and demographics, combined with changes in Social Security payment calculations.  The boomers have barely started to retire, but we're already 16 trillion in debt.  It is The Silent Generation which got the gold.  They entered their working life with a rapidly growing real economy.  They followed the war generation and were the purveyors to the families with young boomer kids.  They were the businessmen selling the 'sixties generation their music and consumer lifestyle. When they retired they received SS based on best ten years, not thirty as most of us boomers will.  They received the greatest calculational credit for the periods of enormous inflation, the seventies.  "The phrase gained further currency after William Manchester's comment that members of this generation were "withdrawn, cautious, unimaginative, indifferent, unadventurous and silen." Wikipedia.

QuantumCat's picture

True, and I think a great many BB's will live to see the bust.  However, BB's have tried to perpetuate the Silent generation's success with "out of control" government spending.  Look at the chart of government spending as a percentage of GDP starting in the 80's.  It's about voting for big government to take care of what should be the current generation's responsibility.  Just as BB's sucked as parents in the 70s, they of course have not wanted to take care of their Silent and GI parents in the past decade... so they've voted for government programs to do that for them, meanwhile, protecting their parent's assets for themselves.  Shameful, and that is but one example.   

Seer's picture

Clearly you're trying, but you're likely too young to really understand how things work...

'"out of control" government spending' was built-in; as long as the System marched to time it would get to this point, the only thing in question was the time it would take.

If you can understand the concept of "out of control" growth in government then I might direct you to seeing that growth itself always becomes "out of control."  Track down Dr. Albert Bartlett's presentation Arithmetic, Population and Energy; or, check out Chris Martenson's Crash Course.

Or, you can continue to operate half-cocked, looking like the younger-developed brain that you do to those who have managed to step up out of the mud-slinging pits to see what's really driving the currents.

Good luck!

Floodmaster's picture

The Great Baby Boomer Asset Bubble. QE + Low Interest rate are for the boomers assets, the bill will be paid by their kids and grandkids.

Ness.'s picture

When do boomers get to start spending YOUR accumulated wealth, asshole?  Boomers ponied up 20% downpayments and dealt with 12% interest rates to buy their homes - you Genx pussies can't manage to save enough to move out of mommy's basement.





sharky2003's picture

Money went a lot further in that day and age than it does today.

Atticus Finch's picture

It's important to have some historical understanding regarding retirment age individuals. Alan Greenspan did a supposedly one-time fix to social security. Had social security not been looted by a series of administrations both Republican and Democrat, the one-time fix would have generated a two trillion dollar surplus in social security and the same can be said for Medicare. The Reagan administration created a bogus Social Security lockbox, which meant that various Congresses could steal from social security as long as they left an IOU. The IOUs became part of the US deficit and of course they were never repaid. Clinton eliminated the IOUs and wahla a balanced budget was achieved by a deceitful accounting tricck.

It's interesting that looting social security and medicare are never described as factors in the social security shortfall or that if the funds had been preserved for their intended purpose, that today they would have a 2 trillion dollar surplus.


Thisson's picture

You could add $20 trillion and the problem still doesn't go away.  Costs are going up 12% compound a year, in an economy growing at ~1%.  It's exponential math.

Seer's picture

"It's exponential math."


Perpetual (exponential) growth on a finite planet is IMPOSSIBLE.  Government, private sector, it makes NO/ZERO difference.  The math is the SAME!

BTW - At 1% that sill means a doubling in size in 70 years (the BIG assumption here, with ANY growth, is there would be actual PHYSICAL resources to do so).

docj's picture

The pre-collapse American consumer-based economy - working yourself to death in a job you hate so you can make enough money to buy crap you don't need.

The Obama American consumer-based economy - not working at all so you can sit-back, collect a check, and spend it on crap you need to fill-up all the free time.


Seer's picture

Which one consumes less energy?

Eventually realities push it toward a future with less energy per capita.

In no way saying that anything we're seeing is in anyway any human design.  Nature, yes, human, no.

"Men argue, nature acts." - Voltaire

dark pools of soros's picture

more and more of the young are just being sugar babies to the sugar daddies and sugar mommies

ZeroFreedom's picture

Maybe we should create a site or section called Zero Jobs. In any case government employee unemployed rate came in at 3.8% which says something.

ZeroFreedom's picture

Maybe we should create a site or section called Zero Jobs. In any case government employee unemployed rate came in at 3.8% which says something.

reader2010's picture

This age thing is by design IMHO. Those in the younger age group will be enticed to join the Emipiral Military to carry out WWIII and the NWO for those motherfuckers. 

Seer's picture

I doubt it's by design (history always shows that things become a bit unstable when you have high levels of younger men out of work), but it's a certainty that this will provide an opportunity to stock the cannon-fodder cabinets for the next wars.  NOTE: it's kind of a package deal anyway, as wars are about resources, and insufficient resources means that your employment levels suffer, which then adds pressure to... yup, engage in wars.

Seer's picture

I would also add that wars are good excuse for tightening up control on the home front.

Miffed Microbiologist's picture

The only increase in employment I see now for youth is sidewalk sign flipper. We oldsters don't seem to be able to penetrate that niche. That's why I'm staying in shape... fend off the competition in the coming years.


mendigo's picture

Purely anecdotal of course but I am seeing many new senior faces working the retail stores. Put cat-food on the table I guess.

Meaning while in the places of business where I work all of the manufacturing staff are illegals (great people) and increasingly the office staff are "interns" from off-shore and some illegals working as contractors. Your government is fully aware of this and yet talks about creating new jobs. So they subsidize these operations by looking the other way or promoting the hiring of off-shore talent (who are very capable and motivated) and leaves the public to pick-up the social cost. They talk about creating jobs but in reality they are undermining the workers - nwo. As long as thier kids get jobs what's the harm?

RSBriggs's picture

You're seeing more senior faces in retail jobs because the "connected" generation can't be bothered to allow themselves to be interrupted - and take their face out of their fucking cell phones long enough - to serve customers.   

walküre's picture

Who created these monsters? The fucking "high" tech companies which are a concept of the advertising gangs, which is a concept of the mass consumer retail corps. If it wasn't for the stupid kids with their faces in their fucking cell phones, there wouldn't be any consumers left. Now you're blaming the brainwashed, zombie youth for not being able to work as slaves to serve their own kind? How fucked up is that?

Seer's picture

NOTE: Some of my response is somewhat rhetorical (and not necessarily directed at you; just piles on what you're saying, what I THINK you're saying).

"our government is fully aware of this and yet talks about creating new jobs. So they subsidize these operations by looking the other way or promoting the hiring of off-shore talent (who are very capable and motivated) and leaves the public to pick-up the social cost."

What, there should be talk of NOT creating jobs?  Since when doesn't the govt hype shit, politicians lie?

On one hand people say that government regulations should go away, and on the other we have a stick poking government in the eye for "looking the other way."

If government really IS "the people," then it's clear the people are just all fucked up and confused, have no idea on how to "solve" anything.

First, no one forces businesses on US soil to hire anyone, especially "illegals."

If you're talking more along the lines of collusion between government and business on all of this (can you say fascism?), then yes, absolutely.  Legislated LEGAL immigration (such as provided to my dearly departed grandparents from back during the early 1900s).  H1B visas, which were really no more than a collusion with businesses to help crush unions.  And then NAFTA, which allowed US Ag to operated in Mexico while flushing up cheap labor to work fields in the US.

The overwhelming majority of the "jobs" that are out there are going to disappear, "for legal," "illegal" or whatever one's "classification" is.  The future was over-extended and now it's going to be BARE bones, only the essentials will drive things: and anyone who doesn't know what those are by now can just stick their head back in the sand and forget about everything.

haskelslocal's picture

Why do "Studies" like these have to be politisized?

Just pick a date and start with it. Jobs didn't start on inauguration day 2009. 

Any time you see something that attaches a president's name, beware of Useful Idiot Syndrome.

Haus-Targaryen's picture

Anyone know where the 146k number came from? 

Atticus Finch's picture

I'm right at retirement age. I have been contracting independently as a technical writer and software training developer for nearly 20 years.

My view is that so many job require a minimum of 5 years of experience. College graduates do not have the required experience and so Indians are being shipped in with the requisite experience. This is a self defeating loop because as more Indians are hired into computer programming jobs, US citizens fall farther and farther out of the work pool.

This is not a criticism of the Indians in any way. They simply accepted job. It's the corporate chieftans who continue to betray their country.

As far as experience goes,  it's the old codgers who have the experience and then some, and so they continue to be hired into the workplace.


walküre's picture

You know that at least 50% of Pakistani immigrants are certified as doctors in their home country, right? Getting certified in India, Pakistan or any other hole is like getting a fake student id anywhere in the US...

Atticus Finch's picture

I am aware that many Indians do not have the requisite 5 years experience, but are carried by the rest of the Indians coming from the same employment placement agency that is staffing the project. The thing is that they are in the corporate pipeline and Americans are not.

Seer's picture

"It's the corporate chieftans who continue to betray their country."


Their allegiance is to their shareholders, this is the agreement that we have with the system, with Capitalism.

Further, better margins also mean better profits, which, supposedly, mean more tax dollars to "their country."

Nothing about the system running amok.  It's operating just as it's supposed to.  Problem is is that we're squeezing the planet and the increasing costs of material extraction has to be made up elsewhere.

I didn't vote for any of this (it's been sanctioned/cast in stone a LONG time before I was born).  I don't agree with it.  BUT... it is what it is, until, that is, it ain't- that which cannot continue forever won't (and the pains that we're feeling is the "won't" part starting to filter in).

ian807's picture

I have business owning acquaintences. Their reasons they give me for hiring older people is:

1) They show up on time every day.

2) They haven't been partying, dating or taking care of infants the night before.

3) They're pre-trained with education AND experience.

4) They're customer-presentable (i.e. No tats. Normal hair. Standard English without urban slang).

5) They've seen so many stupid decisions, that they now know how to avoid them.

They probably don't work as long or as hard. They also don't need to. They know what they're doing and can organize appropriately. The reasons are 100% economical and practical. If these guys could hire a 20-something like this, they would. They don't exist in enough numbers to matter.



walküre's picture

Depends on the business of course. A young guy can stack and carry a whole lot more and faster than the old guy. The young guy won't have put his back out at the end of the day either. Realistically, there are only so many jobs that the older person can do and can do better.

Seer's picture

Well, that's the theory, isn't it?

I'm older and I'll wager that very few "younger" people can begin to keep up with my on my farm.

One negative against "older" people might be that they're not as gullible, that they're less likely to put up with shit from some younger manager.  I've always been this way, but I know that when most are younger they are less savvy in detecting when someone's yanking their chain.  And then again, older folks might just let shit roll right off knowing that it's likely all stupid anyway.

Might be more about wages.  Older folks are likely needing less income because their basic needs are mostly covered via other means (paid off mortgage, paid off vehicles etc.).

Until there's a decent study done on this we're really only speculating.  No matter, the future is looking pretty shaky.

walküre's picture

I personally know of a couple 70+ geezers who work a few hours a week, few days a month to keep driving their cars and keep the lights on in their condos. They got fucked by Wall Street and lost a big chunk of their "nestegg" portfolio. Their SS payments buy them mac&cheese, Heinz 57, pink slime and Wonder Bread. They're holding on to their real estate which is paid off but worth less and less. The savings they have are now mostly in cash and they will never ever go back to investing. Mind you, at 70+ they're in the almost dead investor class anyway.

So let's stay focused here. Wall Street sucked 'em and fucked 'em over and over. Now the retirees are barely able to survive on their SS cheques and they feel healthy enough to do a job.

The younger ones work whereever they can in whatever jobs they can get their hands on to keep feeding the family. Working any time of day or night, working 10 to 15 hour days in several jobs. That's their life. Guess how much they will want to put into any investments on Wall Street? Zilch.


1) Wall Street killed the investor. There are no investors left. Old ones are scared and broke and young ones are working too hard for their money to give it up freely

2) There may very well be more jobs but all the new jobs combined are still not enough to grow the economy, grow GDP. People lost good paying jobs with benefits that were considered "safe". They work multiple jobs w/o benefits and still not have the same quality of life they had prior to the initial job loss.

@Wall Street. You gotta ask yourself this question. Was it bloody worth it?

Seer's picture

1) It's ALL a Ponzi;

2) The MAJORITY of the world knows nothing about "retirement."

As the late great George Carlin put it, "It's the American Dream; you have to be asleep to believe it."  Those not born in to the ruling class fell for the trick because they wanted to fly with the eagles.  Never mind history, never mind statistic/probabilities, if you only "want" it hard enough, "work" (for the folks that profit off you not reaching Their level) hard enough you too can be just like Them.  Fucking turn around and see TPTB holding that stick with that carrot!

People have always been free to question the premise.  Ignorance is no excuse.  These 70-somethings have likely had a fair amount of use of the medical industry; I KNOW that I won't be afforded that opportunity.  I could cry for them and their situation, but I doubt that they're going to cry for my future (and as we know, what has really transpired is that up to now we've been borrowing heavily from the future, those 70-somethings especially).

Yankee.go.home's picture

Maybe a lot of workers reached age 55 . . .

Seer's picture

It's part of that Mayan Calendar thing!  Weird times for sure!

SmittyinLA's picture

The Latino replacement population ain't nearly as productive as the people they're replacing, they're far less educated as well as have higher obesity, diabetes, welfare and disability rates, they live longer yet have shorter careerspans too.


But hey all people are equal and replaceable like lightbulbs, right?