• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Very Disturbing Piece of Data

Puck it

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,613
Points
48
Location
Franconia, NH
Just saw this piece of data and this is very disturbing, Sorry for the small size. It shows more people went on disability then took jobs.

americansjoiningdisabilityoutnumberthosefindingjobs.img_assist_custom-640x465.jpg
 

bobbutts

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
1,560
Points
0
Location
New Hampshire
So what's the solution? Let the disabled fend for themselves so us rich skiers can have a couple % lower taxes on our private schools, suv's, and vacation homes?
 

dmc

New member
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
14,275
Points
0
The solution is to put Puck on ignore and you won't have to read his thinly veiled political postings...

haha...
 

wa-loaf

Active member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
15,062
Points
36
Location
Mordor
That's one month of data. Doesn't really say shit.

Edit: Sorry three months, but still not really a significant trend.
 

Puck it

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,613
Points
48
Location
Franconia, NH
That's one month of data. Doesn't really say shit.

Edit: Sorry three months, but still not really a significant trend.


I agree but it is not a trend that is good if continuing in the future.

No valed political just posting some data that I find disturbing.

Are they real claims for disability?
 

wa-loaf

Active member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
15,062
Points
36
Location
Mordor
Also, what is the connection? It seems like two independent things going on. Is there some relation to employment and disability? Is it a seasonal thing, does disability always spike this time of year? I know it can be pretty tough to get on disability so i don't think people are choosing that over work. Don't see much correlation here.
 

Puck it

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,613
Points
48
Location
Franconia, NH
Also, what is the connection? It seems like two independent things going on. Is there some relation to employment and disability? Is it a seasonal thing, does disability always spike this time of year? I know it can be pretty tough to get on disability so i don't think people are choosing that over work. Don't see much correlation here.

IMO, they are not independent. The relation is that SSDI is paid through payroll taxes thorugh FICA. If there is less people being empoyed and more going on disability then there is going to be a "critical mass". We are all ready have a problem with retirees on the SSI. I am trying to find yearly data for this but not luck.
 

ctenidae

Active member
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
8,947
Points
38
Location
SW Connecticut
It's an interesting data point, to be sure, but I'd have to look at it more to decide it it qualifies as disturbing.

Also, hard to pin it as a political post with just the data point. Sure, the source is GOP, but you could use that data against either side in a variety of ways.

Naturally, most of the outlets citing the trend are on the right, blaming it on the "Obama Recovery." I guess it's good that there's a recovery. Cynically, is the Obama Recovery coming after the Bush Recession?

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/05/07/246490.htm

An earlier analysis from teh Insurance Journal with deeper stats. Particulalry interesting, and something I'd have to noodle over for a while to fully grasp, is the delayed impact growing disability rolls have on GDP. As long as jobs are scarce, it doesn't really matter- people will be on unemployment, disability, or longer term assistance. The IJ article says, though, that once the economy starts rolling again, we may not be able to beet 2-2.5% growth because we won't have people to do it. Bet we don't have immigration reform, either.

So, maybe the Democrats are the reason we have the growing problem now, but the Republicans are the reason we won't be able to fix it later. Or the Republicnas are the reason we have a recession we can't grow out of now because the Democrats won't reform Medicare. Or it could be that the Democratic Congress in the 80's couldn't get Medicare reforms done with a Republican administration that was focused on budget cutting, leading to reversals in the 90s and bipartisan bickering over healthcare reform that got ignored in the 2000s and have since resurfaced. Of course, if it had been designed correctly in the 60's with an eye towards the politicization that occured through the 70s up to today we wouldn't have this whole mess to begin with.

Or, could be both sides suck and really exist simply to prevent the other side from doing anything.
 

drjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
17,334
Points
63
Location
Brooklyn, CT
It's an interesting data point, to be sure, but I'd have to look at it more to decide it it qualifies as disturbing.

Also, hard to pin it as a political post with just the data point. Sure, the source is GOP, but you could use that data against either side in a variety of ways.

Naturally, most of the outlets citing the trend are on the right, blaming it on the "Obama Recovery." I guess it's good that there's a recovery. Cynically, is the Obama Recovery coming after the Bush Recession?

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/05/07/246490.htm

An earlier analysis from teh Insurance Journal with deeper stats. Particulalry interesting, and something I'd have to noodle over for a while to fully grasp, is the delayed impact growing disability rolls have on GDP. As long as jobs are scarce, it doesn't really matter- people will be on unemployment, disability, or longer term assistance. The IJ article says, though, that once the economy starts rolling again, we may not be able to beet 2-2.5% growth because we won't have people to do it. Bet we don't have immigration reform, either.

So, maybe the Democrats are the reason we have the growing problem now, but the Republicans are the reason we won't be able to fix it later. Or the Republicnas are the reason we have a recession we can't grow out of now because the Democrats won't reform Medicare. Or it could be that the Democratic Congress in the 80's couldn't get Medicare reforms done with a Republican administration that was focused on budget cutting, leading to reversals in the 90s and bipartisan bickering over healthcare reform that got ignored in the 2000s and have since resurfaced. Of course, if it had been designed correctly in the 60's with an eye towards the politicization that occured through the 70s up to today we wouldn't have this whole mess to begin with.

Or, could be both sides suck and really exist simply to prevent the other side from doing anything.

Real answer. BOTH parties are too afraid to make any concessions to the other, let an idea posed by one party "work" at the expense of the other parties idea. We just need to get some politicians in place who realize that their primary focus has to be to the country 1st and NOT one's caucus 1st.

Secondly, we need some politicians who aren't afraid to make the tough choices that need to be made. Right now all that is going on is a constant game of "punting" all at the future expense of our kids and grandkids, and frankly that sucks!
 

Puck it

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,613
Points
48
Location
Franconia, NH
It's an interesting data point, to be sure, but I'd have to look at it more to decide it it qualifies as disturbing.

Also, hard to pin it as a political post with just the data point. Sure, the source is GOP, but you could use that data against either side in a variety of ways.

Naturally, most of the outlets citing the trend are on the right, blaming it on the "Obama Recovery." I guess it's good that there's a recovery. Cynically, is the Obama Recovery coming after the Bush Recession?

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/05/07/246490.htm

An earlier analysis from teh Insurance Journal with deeper stats. Particulalry interesting, and something I'd have to noodle over for a while to fully grasp, is the delayed impact growing disability rolls have on GDP. As long as jobs are scarce, it doesn't really matter- people will be on unemployment, disability, or longer term assistance. The IJ article says, though, that once the economy starts rolling again, we may not be able to beet 2-2.5% growth because we won't have people to do it. Bet we don't have immigration reform, either.

So, maybe the Democrats are the reason we have the growing problem now, but the Republicans are the reason we won't be able to fix it later. Or the Republicnas are the reason we have a recession we can't grow out of now because the Democrats won't reform Medicare. Or it could be that the Democratic Congress in the 80's couldn't get Medicare reforms done with a Republican administration that was focused on budget cutting, leading to reversals in the 90s and bipartisan bickering over healthcare reform that got ignored in the 2000s and have since resurfaced. Of course, if it had been designed correctly in the 60's with an eye towards the politicization that occured through the 70s up to today we wouldn't have this whole mess to begin with.

Or, could be both sides suck and really exist simply to prevent the other side from doing anything.

Thanks for the link. That article provides some data for some past years and supports the previous graph and appears to be somewhat impartial. Maybe a better word would be "disheartening".
 

wa-loaf

Active member
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
15,062
Points
36
Location
Mordor
Real answer. BOTH parties are too afraid to make any concessions to the other, let an idea posed by one party "work" at the expense of the other parties idea.

Not just that, but when one party actually adopts the ideas pushed by the other party all of a sudden those ideas are now bad. We are fighting Oceana, no Eurasia, or was it Eastasia today?
 

ScottySkis

Active member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
11,990
Points
38
Location
Middletown NY
Real answer. BOTH parties are too afraid to make any concessions to the other, let an idea posed by one party "work" at the expense of the other parties idea. We just need to get some politicians in place who realize that their primary focus has to be to the country 1st and NOT one's caucus 1st.Secondly, we need some politicians who aren't afraid to make the tough choices that need to be made. Right now all that is going on is a constant game of "punting" all at the future expense of our kids and grandkids, and frankly that sucks!
We do but they run on other party's, Roseane Arnold is running and Ron Paul, but they will not get enough votes to win so weren't stuck with these crappy politicians unless we have a revolution.
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
25,796
Points
63
Location
Southeast NH
If I had to guess, the reason for the high disability claims currently probably has at least some relation to long term unemployment benefits running out for many people as well as an aging population.

An aging population is always going to result in higher disability claims. You've got people in the their late 50s and older who have had physically demanding careers and their bodies are just breaking down where they are in too much physical pain to do much of anything anymore.

Regarding people moving on from unemployment to the next government teat; I'm sure there are percentage of folks who are just truly lazy and milking the system, but there are probably other people who have been deserving of Disability Insurance for many years, but have too much pride in wanting to be self sufficient and now are realizing that's probably one of the only options for them.

A bit off topic, but I've long held the belief that I think reform in unemployment benefits should center around shortening the term, but increasing the amount of income someone can legally make while still maintaining their benefits. Plenty of people just sit on that unemployment check because the value of it is more than some of the low wage jobs available in the market. Allowing them to make more money outside of the government check would accomplish a couple of things and there would obviously be the monetary incentive to work. First, it could introduce someone to a new career path that they had not considered before. As an example, they might realize that they enjoy working in retail and see that with their prior work experience, they could move up the ladder and achieve a decent management position in a short period of time. While that position may not pay what they were used to in their prior career, it still could prove to be a rewarding position for them. The second thing it does is open up networking opportunities that these folks aren't exposed to while sitting at home. I've had friends lose their "real jobs" and take positions in restaurants and end up landing new job back in their field of choice either through networking with fellow employees or through the customers they meet.
 

riverc0il

New member
Joined
Jul 10, 2001
Messages
13,039
Points
0
Location
Ashland, NH
Website
www.thesnowway.com
The citation says it was put together by a Republican Senator. That isn't an unbiased source of information and charts can be setup to be 100% factual but paint a misleading or incomplete picture. Instead of being infuriated, find better sources with data that shows the bigger picture.
 

Puck it

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,613
Points
48
Location
Franconia, NH
The citation says it was put together by a Republican Senator. That isn't an unbiased source of information and charts can be setup to be 100% factual but paint a misleading or incomplete picture. Instead of being infuriated, find better sources with data that shows the bigger picture.


Read further down. The link from ctendiae shows data from the past years. And if you looked you would have seen I stated I was looking for other data. I am well aware data can be presented to look how you want it to. A 10% is pretty significant. And when you find a true unbiased source let me know. They all have agendas.
 

riverc0il

New member
Joined
Jul 10, 2001
Messages
13,039
Points
0
Location
Ashland, NH
Website
www.thesnowway.com
They all have agendas.
I guess then... we should never trust any research? Or perhaps, the take away should be not to trust those that have clear outspoken bias. There are many independent organizations that at least TRY to remain impartial and unbiased and work with researchers that are represent a multitude of viewpoints to eliminate the most offensive of bias and agenda. All I am saying is never take any representative of a political party's data (or politically motivated think tanks) at face value or use it as a cry of outrage. And that goes for either side of an issue, not just picking on GOP.
 

Puck it

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,613
Points
48
Location
Franconia, NH
I guess then... we should never trust any research? Or perhaps, the take away should be not to trust those that have clear outspoken bias. There are many independent organizations that at least TRY to remain impartial and unbiased and work with researchers that are represent a multitude of viewpoints to eliminate the most offensive of bias and agenda. All I am saying is never take any representative of a political party's data (or politically motivated think tanks) at face value or use it as a cry of outrage. And that goes for either side of an issue, not just picking on GOP.


It is not possible to be completely unbiased. My point was that this data at face value is very scary.
 

ctenidae

Active member
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
8,947
Points
38
Location
SW Connecticut
It is not possible to be completely unbiased. My point was that this data at face value is very scary.

I get your point, but your language is imprecise. The data is concerning, and warrants further investigation, as it may be indicative of a larger problem.

At face value, it's a meaningless data point. Disability claims are outpacing unemployment claims. Has there been a shift back to manufacturing or other manual/heavy labor jobs that carries a significantly higher risk of injury? If that were coupled with a growing job base, you would very naturally expect to see this effect.

It's not a question of whether you should trust someone's data based on their bias. Data is data. Before accepting data or analysis, you should be aware of the source's reasons for producing it. If you question the source and feel there's likely to be bias you can't live with, then do your own research.
 

Puck it

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,613
Points
48
Location
Franconia, NH
True, I understand your point, but I expect the jobs increase to be the same or better then diability claims if manufacturing increases. I did say I needed to find more data to see if the trend is cyclic or actually increasing. Your link does substaniate the trend up but need further researching. It is a wow factor graph for me though.
 
Top