Everyone wants to find an easy way to make extra income or get a job that requires little to no effort. Unfortunately, nothing in life ever comes so easy. Its not like you can just slap some banner ads up on a website and get instant ad revenue.
But there are many people that I follow that have turned blogging into a full time job thus completely freeing themselves from having to work a 9-5 office job.
After listening to these men, it made me really want to try it out. Start up a blog and see where it goes from there.
I started out November of last year and here are my following results.
Posts 79
Total Views 6000
Total money earned $.92
92 cents earned. Well, its progress. Better than a goose egg.
To be honest, I'm much more interested in looking at the page views. They kind of feel like the achievements or trophies you can collect when playing video games.
So, from the older wiser men, the key to being a successful blogger is to do the following.
1. Write a lot
2. Network a lot
3. Develop a large following
4. Create a product you can sell to a loyal following
5. Monetize your content
Taking things one step at a time, I'll focus on topic number one.
I was listening to Matt Forney say that you have to write a lot. It pretty much has to be a full time job. If you don't put in the effort, then you won't get any money.
So I was wondering how much is alot?
I know that it is more than I am doing right now, but how much more.
How could I find out?
Easy. I could just look at a successful blogger and see how much they wrote. The sidebar of blogger will breakdown how many posts the writer wrote year by year. So, I decided to check out CappyCap's history.
In his first year, 2005, he had 151 posts. That comes out to 12 to 13 posts a month.
In years 2006 to 2011 he had a range of 400 to 700 posts per year. That would make it 33 to 58 posts per month.
In 2012 to the current year, he has been making 900 to 1000 posts per year. That comes out to about 80 posts per month.
So when Matt Forney said you have to write a lot, it will become a full time job.
It is going to be a long road ahead but let's see what happens.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Extra benefit to practice minimalism
One benefit of minimalism that I haven't heard people talk about is that minimalism lessens the effect that you feel from inflation.
Well, theoretically anyway. In practice, you can save money just by not buying stuff that you don't need or buy cheaper substitutes.
Everything about this next example is completely theoretical, it is not a reflection of how the real world actually works.
Andrew's cost of living is $15,000.
Boco's cost of living is $25,000.
For the year of 2015, we will assume the inflation rate is 3% (not unreasonable).
Let's assume that the price of every single thing increases by 3% (not how the world works but this is just theoretical).
Assuming that Andrew and Boco bought all the same stuff for 2015 as they did in 2014 (also not how the world works), both Andrew and Boco's expenses will increase by 3%.
Andrew's cost of living is now $15,450.
Boco's cost of living is now $25,750.
In this case Boco's cost of living increased $300 more than Andrew's did.
This example only looks at cost, It does not take into account the money that Andrew or Boco make. If the cost of everything in 2015 increased by 3% then the cost of Andrew and Boco's labor would increase by 3% and theoretically, their salaries should increase by 3%. If this is the case, this would negate the effect felt by inflation.
However, if Andrew and Boco's salaries do not increase in 2015, Boco feels the effect of inflation worse than Andrew does.
In a more extreme example, let's throw Charlie into the mix.
His cost of living is $40,000.
Making all the same theoretical assumptions from above, Charlie feels inflation worse.
Due to a 3% increase of inflation in 2015, his cost of living for 2015 is now $41,200.
Charlies cost of living increased $750 more than Andrew's.
To conclude this example, having to buy less stuff will make you less vulnerable to inflation compared to someone who has to buy more stuff.
Now back to the real world.
As a response to higher prices, the easiest way to save money is to just not buy stuff that you don't need. If you would like to buy the next new tablet or cell phone, think hard if it is really worth the couple hundred bucks.
The second way to save money is to find a cheaper substitute to what you already buy. If absolutely need a new electronic, don't buy the top of the line product but instead buy the cheapest one that suits your needs.
Both of these methods will affect your finances much more than inflation.
Well, theoretically anyway. In practice, you can save money just by not buying stuff that you don't need or buy cheaper substitutes.
Everything about this next example is completely theoretical, it is not a reflection of how the real world actually works.
Andrew's cost of living is $15,000.
Boco's cost of living is $25,000.
For the year of 2015, we will assume the inflation rate is 3% (not unreasonable).
Let's assume that the price of every single thing increases by 3% (not how the world works but this is just theoretical).
Assuming that Andrew and Boco bought all the same stuff for 2015 as they did in 2014 (also not how the world works), both Andrew and Boco's expenses will increase by 3%.
Andrew's cost of living is now $15,450.
Boco's cost of living is now $25,750.
In this case Boco's cost of living increased $300 more than Andrew's did.
This example only looks at cost, It does not take into account the money that Andrew or Boco make. If the cost of everything in 2015 increased by 3% then the cost of Andrew and Boco's labor would increase by 3% and theoretically, their salaries should increase by 3%. If this is the case, this would negate the effect felt by inflation.
However, if Andrew and Boco's salaries do not increase in 2015, Boco feels the effect of inflation worse than Andrew does.
In a more extreme example, let's throw Charlie into the mix.
His cost of living is $40,000.
Making all the same theoretical assumptions from above, Charlie feels inflation worse.
Due to a 3% increase of inflation in 2015, his cost of living for 2015 is now $41,200.
Charlies cost of living increased $750 more than Andrew's.
To conclude this example, having to buy less stuff will make you less vulnerable to inflation compared to someone who has to buy more stuff.
Now back to the real world.
As a response to higher prices, the easiest way to save money is to just not buy stuff that you don't need. If you would like to buy the next new tablet or cell phone, think hard if it is really worth the couple hundred bucks.
The second way to save money is to find a cheaper substitute to what you already buy. If absolutely need a new electronic, don't buy the top of the line product but instead buy the cheapest one that suits your needs.
Both of these methods will affect your finances much more than inflation.
Friday, November 21, 2014
W-4 Reminder
While this may seem like common knowledge, I am surprised how many people don't know what the W-4 form is. This is a small reminder.
When you take any job as an employee, you will have to fill out some paperwork on the first day and the W-4 will be included in the list.
The W-4 is the form that determines how much money your employer withholds from your paycheck. The amount that gets withheld from you paycheck is the amount that goes to the federal government, state government, and social security.
Not all employers will explain this to their employees. When you fill the form, you have the options to claim allowances. The more allowances that you claim, the less money that gets withheld from your paycheck.
Keep in mind that however you fill out the form, it will not affect the amount you actually get paid.
If you claim no allowances, you will have the most amount of money taken from your paycheck every cycle. Most likely, this will lead to more money being withheld from you within a year and you will most likely receive a large refund when you file your taxes. Conversely, if you claim an many allowances as you legally can, you will have the smallest amount of money withheld from your paycheck and you can expect to receive a very small refund at the end of the year or possibly owing money to the federal or state government.
Which option is better? It depends on the person.
Personally, I like to receive the most money from my paycheck every cycle. I'd rather have more money all year round rather than just wait for a large amount in February. I'd rather pay the government money owed.
People who are really hard pressed for cash may also prefer having the most money in every paycheck.
If you want to change the amount that is withheld from your paycheck, I think you can talk to your employer and request to change your W-4. A good reason to update your W-4 is if you get married or have children because you will be able to claim more allowances if you wish.
When you take any job as an employee, you will have to fill out some paperwork on the first day and the W-4 will be included in the list.
The W-4 is the form that determines how much money your employer withholds from your paycheck. The amount that gets withheld from you paycheck is the amount that goes to the federal government, state government, and social security.
Not all employers will explain this to their employees. When you fill the form, you have the options to claim allowances. The more allowances that you claim, the less money that gets withheld from your paycheck.
Keep in mind that however you fill out the form, it will not affect the amount you actually get paid.
If you claim no allowances, you will have the most amount of money taken from your paycheck every cycle. Most likely, this will lead to more money being withheld from you within a year and you will most likely receive a large refund when you file your taxes. Conversely, if you claim an many allowances as you legally can, you will have the smallest amount of money withheld from your paycheck and you can expect to receive a very small refund at the end of the year or possibly owing money to the federal or state government.
Which option is better? It depends on the person.
Personally, I like to receive the most money from my paycheck every cycle. I'd rather have more money all year round rather than just wait for a large amount in February. I'd rather pay the government money owed.
People who are really hard pressed for cash may also prefer having the most money in every paycheck.
If you want to change the amount that is withheld from your paycheck, I think you can talk to your employer and request to change your W-4. A good reason to update your W-4 is if you get married or have children because you will be able to claim more allowances if you wish.
Monday, November 17, 2014
Retirement Planning for Minimalists
In an ideal world, we would have perfect information and would know exactly how much to save for retirement, how many years we have to work, which investments to purchase, and how long we would live.
We don't have these things, so the best we can do is make estimates. However, if a man wants to limit the time that he has to work, I would recommend the following suggestion.
Retirement planning would go something like this.
1. Accumulate a large amount of capital as soon as possible.
2. Put the money into safe investments (fixed income) first and maybe riskier investments later
3. When you have more money than you need for the remainder of your life, start depleting your wealth.
In further detail:
1. You want to accumulate a large amount of money relatively fast if life because you want to have as much money producing more money (interest, dividends, etc). To accumulate a lot of money, you have to do at least one of two things. Either make a lot of income, spend as little money as possible, or preferably both. Make sure to pay off all debts though.
2. Ideally, you want to get to a point where you have a great amount of capital that your money can produce money by itself. Ideally, you would be making money by doing absolutely nothing. Safer returns provide much less rate of return but I would want to have a good safety net first before throwing money into riskier investments. If you can make your annual living expenses with just interest or divided income, you are in a great spot.
3. This part is advice for minimalists but more so for people who intend not to marry or have children. Without anyone to pass on your money to, you have no reason to accumulate anymore wealth than you need for a lifetime. If you get to a point in your life where you estimate that you have enough money to live for the rest of your life, you can start depleting your wealth to the point where you don't earn anymore interest or dividend income. You can deplete all the principal savings as well. The tricky part about this is that you don't know when you will die. If you deplete your wealth to soon, you may run out of resources to protect yourself. If you wait too long to deplete your wealth, you could end up dying before getting to enjoy your wealth. Most likely, we will all die with something to pass on to someone else or the state.
We can't know for sure how the future will play out but I encourage everyone to plan for it. This is a basic way to plan for it.
We don't have these things, so the best we can do is make estimates. However, if a man wants to limit the time that he has to work, I would recommend the following suggestion.
Retirement planning would go something like this.
1. Accumulate a large amount of capital as soon as possible.
2. Put the money into safe investments (fixed income) first and maybe riskier investments later
3. When you have more money than you need for the remainder of your life, start depleting your wealth.
In further detail:
1. You want to accumulate a large amount of money relatively fast if life because you want to have as much money producing more money (interest, dividends, etc). To accumulate a lot of money, you have to do at least one of two things. Either make a lot of income, spend as little money as possible, or preferably both. Make sure to pay off all debts though.
2. Ideally, you want to get to a point where you have a great amount of capital that your money can produce money by itself. Ideally, you would be making money by doing absolutely nothing. Safer returns provide much less rate of return but I would want to have a good safety net first before throwing money into riskier investments. If you can make your annual living expenses with just interest or divided income, you are in a great spot.
3. This part is advice for minimalists but more so for people who intend not to marry or have children. Without anyone to pass on your money to, you have no reason to accumulate anymore wealth than you need for a lifetime. If you get to a point in your life where you estimate that you have enough money to live for the rest of your life, you can start depleting your wealth to the point where you don't earn anymore interest or dividend income. You can deplete all the principal savings as well. The tricky part about this is that you don't know when you will die. If you deplete your wealth to soon, you may run out of resources to protect yourself. If you wait too long to deplete your wealth, you could end up dying before getting to enjoy your wealth. Most likely, we will all die with something to pass on to someone else or the state.
We can't know for sure how the future will play out but I encourage everyone to plan for it. This is a basic way to plan for it.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Basic lifetime financial planning.
Your finances will have a big impact on the quality of your life. The average American will spend most of his life working. Most people don't really enjoy their jobs though. I've always thought that to increase your quality of life, you want to cut out as much frustration and consternation from your life.
With this thought, I came to the conclusion that you want to try to keep the amount of work you do in your life to the bare minimum. At least, work that you hate doing.
The obvious issue is that most people need to work to make money and survive. So, how much does a man have to work in his life?
It depends. Probably a better question to ask is how much money you are going to need?
How much money will you need for the rest of your life?
Most people would brush off the question because they would claim that
"No one can predict the future"
"Only God knows"
"Life is full of uncertainty"
Yes, it is next to impossible to predict the exact dollar amount you will need until you die. However, since personal finance has such an impact on a man's life, it seems insane to not even try to figure out the answer.
While we cannot get a fully accurate number, we can make estimates and get some sort of idea of how much money we will need to accumulate and how much we will have to work in our lifetimes.
This is a process that is ongoing. You have to keep doing it. When you are young, it is difficult to get a good estimate of how much money you need because you have so much life to live. It is like hitting a target from 1000 yards away. However, as you get older, you have less life to live and that target gets closer and closer.
The first thing you want to do is estimate your lifespan. Men here in America live an average of 79 years. If you believe yourself to be in better or worse health than the average American, adjust the average. If you take good care of yourself, it is reasonable to make it to 85 or 90 years old.
When you have your estimated life span, go ahead and subtract your current age. If you estimate to live to age 85 and are currently 30, you have an estimated 55 years left to live.
The second thing you want to do is estimate how much money you spend (or need to spend) within a year. This figure may be difficult to come by depending on how much effort you want to put into it but I'll go into that next time. For this example, lets use $15,000 as an estimate.
At this point, multiply the estimated needed money per year by how many years you have left to live.
In this example $15,000 * 55 = $825,000.
This is how much money Bill is going to need for the rest of his life. But this doesn't account for how much money Bill has right now. For this example, lets say Bill has $25,000 and no debt.
Subtract $25,000 from the $825,000 and Bill needs another $800,000 to retire today at the age of 30.
This really is the basic of basic of personal financial planning.
1. Estimate your life span and figure out how many years you have left to live.
2. Estimate how much money you will need per year.
3. Multiply the two figures to find an amount.
4. Subtract from the total how much money you actually have.
Doing this planning gets you some sort of idea of how much money you need. This number may vary greatly in the long run for several factors.
1. You may live longer or shorter than you expect
2. You will face life changing events that will change how much money you need per year
3. You may face some sort of catastrophe that makes financial planning for you useless
4. Our country/currency/economic environment falls to pieces
The list can just go on from here.
At the age of 30, it is like trying to hit a target that is way far away. But it is important to always be aiming at and trying to hit that target.
The estimates can be as complex as you want them to be as well. You can adjust the calculation to factor in things like inflation, acquisition of real property, family members etc.
With this thought, I came to the conclusion that you want to try to keep the amount of work you do in your life to the bare minimum. At least, work that you hate doing.
The obvious issue is that most people need to work to make money and survive. So, how much does a man have to work in his life?
It depends. Probably a better question to ask is how much money you are going to need?
How much money will you need for the rest of your life?
Most people would brush off the question because they would claim that
"No one can predict the future"
"Only God knows"
"Life is full of uncertainty"
Yes, it is next to impossible to predict the exact dollar amount you will need until you die. However, since personal finance has such an impact on a man's life, it seems insane to not even try to figure out the answer.
While we cannot get a fully accurate number, we can make estimates and get some sort of idea of how much money we will need to accumulate and how much we will have to work in our lifetimes.
This is a process that is ongoing. You have to keep doing it. When you are young, it is difficult to get a good estimate of how much money you need because you have so much life to live. It is like hitting a target from 1000 yards away. However, as you get older, you have less life to live and that target gets closer and closer.
The first thing you want to do is estimate your lifespan. Men here in America live an average of 79 years. If you believe yourself to be in better or worse health than the average American, adjust the average. If you take good care of yourself, it is reasonable to make it to 85 or 90 years old.
When you have your estimated life span, go ahead and subtract your current age. If you estimate to live to age 85 and are currently 30, you have an estimated 55 years left to live.
The second thing you want to do is estimate how much money you spend (or need to spend) within a year. This figure may be difficult to come by depending on how much effort you want to put into it but I'll go into that next time. For this example, lets use $15,000 as an estimate.
At this point, multiply the estimated needed money per year by how many years you have left to live.
In this example $15,000 * 55 = $825,000.
This is how much money Bill is going to need for the rest of his life. But this doesn't account for how much money Bill has right now. For this example, lets say Bill has $25,000 and no debt.
Subtract $25,000 from the $825,000 and Bill needs another $800,000 to retire today at the age of 30.
This really is the basic of basic of personal financial planning.
1. Estimate your life span and figure out how many years you have left to live.
2. Estimate how much money you will need per year.
3. Multiply the two figures to find an amount.
4. Subtract from the total how much money you actually have.
Doing this planning gets you some sort of idea of how much money you need. This number may vary greatly in the long run for several factors.
1. You may live longer or shorter than you expect
2. You will face life changing events that will change how much money you need per year
3. You may face some sort of catastrophe that makes financial planning for you useless
4. Our country/currency/economic environment falls to pieces
The list can just go on from here.
At the age of 30, it is like trying to hit a target that is way far away. But it is important to always be aiming at and trying to hit that target.
The estimates can be as complex as you want them to be as well. You can adjust the calculation to factor in things like inflation, acquisition of real property, family members etc.
Sunday, November 2, 2014
How much an increased minimum wage would cost McDonalds
Back in college, I had one professor that told us an interesting lesson.
Don't take anything at face value. Everyone has an agenda. You will be lied to by the government, the media, your parents, and me. Go do your own research and determine what is true for yourself.
Lately, there has been some media coverage about fast food workers demanding a higher wage. I think they were fighting for $15 an hour. I think even the national government was considering increasing the minimum wage up to $10.10 an hour.
Conservatives say that higher minimum wages will destroy jobs and liberals say that everyone deserves a living wage. With that being said, I was wondering how much an increase of the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would cost McDonalds.
First I had to look up what the average minimum wage is in America. That information can be found here at the National Conference of State Legislature. The minimum wage varies from state to state a little bit but for the most part, the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. If the national government increases the minimum wage to $10.10, then each hour worked by a minimum wage employee would cost an extra $2.85 per hour. This estimate is a little over stated because the mean minimum wage is slightly higher than $7.25 per hour. For that sake of simplicity, I will use $7.25 per hour as the minimum wage.
The second thing I had to find out was how many McDonald's employees in America make minimum wage. According to stastita, there are 14,267 McDonald's restaurants in the United States. According to Macroaxis, there are a total of 440,000 employees working at McDonald's in the United States. On average, this comes out to be about 30 employees for every restaurant.
If the minimum wage is increased to $10.10 an hour, McDonald's would only incur extra costs for each employee that makes less than $10.10 an hour. With 30 employees per McDonald's, I initially estimated that 20 of those employees work part time for minimum wage. However, I found a figure from McDonald's that states that about 80% of their employees work part time for an hourly wage. I'll stick with my initial estimate of 67% of McDonald's employees making minimum wage. This part of the estimate will be under stated.
At this point, I decided to plug in some numbers.
Extra wages due to increase of minimum wage * 20 employees per McDonald's * total McDonald's in America = Extra cost of labor per hour for McDonald's.
$2.85 per hour * 20 employees * 14,267 McDonald's = an extra $813,219 per hour for labor.
Assuming each one of these 20 employees per McDonald's works 20 hours a week, the extra cost of labor per week comes out to be $16,264,380.
Assuming each one of these employee works this rate for each week of the year, the extra cost of labor for the whole year comes out to be $845,747,760.
An increase of the minimum wage to $10.10 would cost McDonald's $846 million if McDonald's decided to absorb the cost.
This figure does not mean very much by itself, so lets compare it to McDonald's net income.
So, according to McDonald's income statement, McDonald's 2013 net income was $5,585,900,000.
Roughly $5.59 billion.
If in 2013, the minimum wage was $10.10, an extra $846 million would have been added to operating expenses and subtracted from net income which would leave the net income at $4.74 billion.
$846 million out of $5.59 billion is slightly more than 15%.
An increase of the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 is almost 40%.
A 40% increase to the minimum wage would cause McDonald's a loss of 15% to net income.
Should the federal minimum wage increase to $10.10, McDonald's would not just sit there and absorb the loss. McDonald's would have to either increase prices or fire employees and shut down some locations.
Don't take anything at face value. Everyone has an agenda. You will be lied to by the government, the media, your parents, and me. Go do your own research and determine what is true for yourself.
Lately, there has been some media coverage about fast food workers demanding a higher wage. I think they were fighting for $15 an hour. I think even the national government was considering increasing the minimum wage up to $10.10 an hour.
Conservatives say that higher minimum wages will destroy jobs and liberals say that everyone deserves a living wage. With that being said, I was wondering how much an increase of the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would cost McDonalds.
First I had to look up what the average minimum wage is in America. That information can be found here at the National Conference of State Legislature. The minimum wage varies from state to state a little bit but for the most part, the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. If the national government increases the minimum wage to $10.10, then each hour worked by a minimum wage employee would cost an extra $2.85 per hour. This estimate is a little over stated because the mean minimum wage is slightly higher than $7.25 per hour. For that sake of simplicity, I will use $7.25 per hour as the minimum wage.
The second thing I had to find out was how many McDonald's employees in America make minimum wage. According to stastita, there are 14,267 McDonald's restaurants in the United States. According to Macroaxis, there are a total of 440,000 employees working at McDonald's in the United States. On average, this comes out to be about 30 employees for every restaurant.
If the minimum wage is increased to $10.10 an hour, McDonald's would only incur extra costs for each employee that makes less than $10.10 an hour. With 30 employees per McDonald's, I initially estimated that 20 of those employees work part time for minimum wage. However, I found a figure from McDonald's that states that about 80% of their employees work part time for an hourly wage. I'll stick with my initial estimate of 67% of McDonald's employees making minimum wage. This part of the estimate will be under stated.
At this point, I decided to plug in some numbers.
Extra wages due to increase of minimum wage * 20 employees per McDonald's * total McDonald's in America = Extra cost of labor per hour for McDonald's.
$2.85 per hour * 20 employees * 14,267 McDonald's = an extra $813,219 per hour for labor.
Assuming each one of these 20 employees per McDonald's works 20 hours a week, the extra cost of labor per week comes out to be $16,264,380.
Assuming each one of these employee works this rate for each week of the year, the extra cost of labor for the whole year comes out to be $845,747,760.
An increase of the minimum wage to $10.10 would cost McDonald's $846 million if McDonald's decided to absorb the cost.
This figure does not mean very much by itself, so lets compare it to McDonald's net income.
So, according to McDonald's income statement, McDonald's 2013 net income was $5,585,900,000.
Roughly $5.59 billion.
If in 2013, the minimum wage was $10.10, an extra $846 million would have been added to operating expenses and subtracted from net income which would leave the net income at $4.74 billion.
$846 million out of $5.59 billion is slightly more than 15%.
An increase of the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 is almost 40%.
A 40% increase to the minimum wage would cause McDonald's a loss of 15% to net income.
Should the federal minimum wage increase to $10.10, McDonald's would not just sit there and absorb the loss. McDonald's would have to either increase prices or fire employees and shut down some locations.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Why are 90 million Americans not working?
Recently, it was reported that the unemployment rate dropped to a low of below 6%. By the sound of it, a falling unemployment rate sounds like good news but it is not always an indication of good news.
The unemployment rate is the total number of people without a job and looking for work divided by the total labor force. If people find work, the unemployment rate goes down. However, if people just give up and stop looking for work, they are no longer part of the labor force and the unemployment rate goes down.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 93 million Americans not part of the labor force. Over the last few months, I was wondering why so many people just aren't working. So I decided to do a little research.
How many Americans are there? 319 million according to the US Census.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our work force is 147 million Americans and the total number of Americans not in the labor force equals 93 million Americans.
Those two statistics added up total to 240 million Americans. The difference between 319 million and 240 million Americans is 79 million Americans. I would assume that most of these Americans would be children. Just to double check, I looked up the total number of children aged 0-17 years of age and came up with the figure of 75 million, so that is pretty close.
My next question is this. How many total jobs are in America. According to the department of numbers, the total is 147 million if you look at CPS or 139 million if you look at CES.
Well, that looks like a pretty easy conclusion to draw. If our total labor force is only 147 million and there are only 147 million jobs, there are 93 million people not working because there aren't enough jobs.
My next question is this. Of that 93 million people, how many aren't working because they are retired?
According to the social security website, there are 64 million Americans collecting either social security, supplemental income, or both. This does not guarantee that they are not working but this next calculation is more of an estimate than the ones above.
Assuming that 64 million Americans are retired and not working, 93 million Americans minus 64 million (assumed) retired Americans leaves 29 million Americans not retired, not children, and not looking for work.
This 29 million I calculated only counts the people not part of the labor force. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the actual number of unemployed Americans equal 18 million. Both these figures added together equal 47 million. Almost 15% of the total US population.
The unemployment rate is the total number of people without a job and looking for work divided by the total labor force. If people find work, the unemployment rate goes down. However, if people just give up and stop looking for work, they are no longer part of the labor force and the unemployment rate goes down.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 93 million Americans not part of the labor force. Over the last few months, I was wondering why so many people just aren't working. So I decided to do a little research.
How many Americans are there? 319 million according to the US Census.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, our work force is 147 million Americans and the total number of Americans not in the labor force equals 93 million Americans.
Those two statistics added up total to 240 million Americans. The difference between 319 million and 240 million Americans is 79 million Americans. I would assume that most of these Americans would be children. Just to double check, I looked up the total number of children aged 0-17 years of age and came up with the figure of 75 million, so that is pretty close.
My next question is this. How many total jobs are in America. According to the department of numbers, the total is 147 million if you look at CPS or 139 million if you look at CES.
Well, that looks like a pretty easy conclusion to draw. If our total labor force is only 147 million and there are only 147 million jobs, there are 93 million people not working because there aren't enough jobs.
My next question is this. Of that 93 million people, how many aren't working because they are retired?
According to the social security website, there are 64 million Americans collecting either social security, supplemental income, or both. This does not guarantee that they are not working but this next calculation is more of an estimate than the ones above.
Assuming that 64 million Americans are retired and not working, 93 million Americans minus 64 million (assumed) retired Americans leaves 29 million Americans not retired, not children, and not looking for work.
This 29 million I calculated only counts the people not part of the labor force. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the actual number of unemployed Americans equal 18 million. Both these figures added together equal 47 million. Almost 15% of the total US population.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)