Americans Not In The Labor Force Soar By 579,000 To Record 94.6 Million

Amazing how so many on the far right are continuing to talk about Americans not in the labor force.

By contrast, when traitor Bush created the Great Recession and millions were unemployed the right wingers called that a "success".

 

How is that left wing mythology when that scenario was predicted in the 1980's and why it was necessary to not only tax SS benefits, but to increase the SS wage base threshold.

 

The point is that if your elite "builders", as you call them, were to drop dead tomorrow the nation would not stop. It would continue to carry on, even thrive. That is to say, if the 1/10 of 1% were to vanish today do you think the world would stop on its axis and go boo hoo hoo. Only Ayn Rand sex addicts believe that fairy tale. On the other hand if the 99% were to vanish then the world will truly be in trouble.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/05/opinion/rushkoff-occupy-wall-street/

https://www.google.com/search?q=occ...ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMIv-K2ssyryAIVgqceCh3-QgxT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn't_build_that

 

RW propaganda.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus blamed the shrinking participation rate on “the Obama economy,” but economists say most of the decline, which has been happening for more than a decade, is due to demographics, including the trend of baby boomers reaching retirement age and deciding to no longer work.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/

Baby Boomers' Impact on Participation Rate Big, Expected
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-big-part-of-labor-participation-rate-decline

Only a Third of the Oldest Baby Boomers in U.S. Still Working
http://www.gallup.com/poll/181292/third-oldest-baby-boomers-working.aspx

Millions of "baby boomers" — a generation typically defined as those born during the post-war baby boom that took place between 1946 and 1964 — have retired from the workforce over the past six years.

This is putting massive downward pressure on the total labor force participation rate, which currently stands at 63.0% (chart 2).
http://www.businessinsider.com/baby-boomers-are-retiring-2014-2

There are other factors affecting the LFPR, including younger people retiring and more going to school or becoming stay at home parents, but the driving factor now is retiring boomers, as we've known about all along.

 

I never called anybody "elite builders".

That's what you called them, and that's your problem.

You have been brainwashed with constant left-wing propaganda to think that anyone who has built something from nothing and became successful and made a lot of money because of it, is somehow evil and corrupt.

Maybe, just maybe, they are just hard working sacrificing risk takers, unlike you.

 

The labor force participation rate has increased for workers over 55, and decreased in most every other age group.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2014/01/14/who_is_dropping_out_of_the_labor_force_and_why_100840.html

.http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2012/05/18/why-older-workers-cant-get-hired

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ils/summary_10_04/older_workers.htm

If retirement was the "driving factor" as you claim, we'd be having a drop in the labor force participation rate amongst older workers, not an increase.

 

Jan 2014 and 2012 articles. But most people don't retire until they are in their 60s.

But people in the fifties are not the ones retiring.

 

So what? Has that data been revised? I wasn't aware a year and a half old article is no longer relevant to the "post recession" years that are being focused on.

Also irrelevant, as the "55+" group includes them.

What part of "persons aged 55 years and older" do you not understand?

 

Yes. Three years ago the economy was less recovered, and more boomers have retired since then.

Yeah, but it includes millions who are not them.

The part about why you are looking at data for 55 year olds when most folks don't retire until their sixties?

 

Show me a source that shows the net effect of the 55+ group labor participation rate dropping post recession between the 2014 article I posted and now.

So? The overall effect is still a higher participation rate for the group, which precludes the possibility that they could be the "driving factor" to the drop in participation rate that you are claiming.

"persons aged 55 years and older" does not include people in their sixties?

 

I couldn't care less about 55 year olds. I've cited several recent sources showing that boomer retirement is driving down the LFPR, as has been predicted for decades now.

But you don't know if that is because the 55-65 group is getting higher and the 65+ group lower.

Does the "persons aged 55 years and older" included people younger than 65?

 

Again, the 55+ group includes everyone older than 55. All the 65 year olds you keep referencing are included.

Yet their participation in the labor force is increasing.

It really doesn't matter. The youngest baby boomer today is 51. The oldest is 69. The majority of baby boomers today are younger than 65 years old. Your argument makes no sense at all. You want to make the claim that "baby boomers retiring" is the "driving factor" behind the drop in the labor force participation rate, yet you seem to be ignoring 14 of the 19 possible years that encapsulate this group of people.

There are about as many baby boomers in their 50's as there are in the 60's (actually more, since more people die in their 60's than 50's), yet the labor force participation rate for 55+ is increasing. That even ignores the 51, 52, 53, and 54 year olds completely, and the rate is still increasing.

 

You've repeated this several times now.

The total population group includes 65+ too. So is that an accurate metric to use to measure the activities of people retiring because the 65 year olds are included? Why not?

Please cite current data proving this claim.

How does it not make sense? You already have about a quarter of the boomers at retirement age. Why wouldn't millions of boomers starting to retire have an impact?

People in the fifties aren't the ones retiring.

 

It is when the argument is whether "baby boomers" are retiring enough to be the "driving factor" behind the drop in the labor force participation rate, which is what you are claiming. You're arguing about baby boomers, yet you are leaving out the 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, and 64 year olds and only focusing on the 65, 66, 67, 68 and 69 year olds who are part of the baby boomer group.

I just did. So did the OP.

What about the other three quarters of them who are not at retirement age? That group comprises the majority of "boomers".

Clearly, and they are participating in the job market more than they used to. Unfortunately for those who argue that "baby boomers retiring" is responsible for the large drop in the overall labor force participation rate, "boomers" include many, if not most, people in their fifties.

 

I'm not leaving anyone out. I'm pointing out the fact that most people retire around 62-65 so if you include a younger population you are not measuring the correct parameter.

There is nothing in the OP that talks about the 55+ metric.

What of them?

The fact that 55 year olds are participating more does not prove that 65 year olds are not retiring.

 

I certainly am since we are talking about "baby boomers". If we are looking at whether or not baby boomers are retiring enough to take down the overall labor force participation rate in society, why would we ignore those boomers aged 51 to 61? There simply isn't enough people in the 62-65 group that you are reference to cause that big of a drop in the LFPR. It's not rational to believe that the LFPR for everyone aged 16-61 is rising, but that the amount of people dropping out beginning at 62 is large enough to overpower the rise by that extent.

The data clearly shows that people in other age brackets are dropping out of the labor force.

My mistake. I was thinking of this thread.

Why are you ignoring them?

No, but it undermines your argument that "baby boomers retiring" is the "driving factor" behind the drop in the labor force participation rate.

Boomers can't really be the driving factor anyway, since they are now outnumbered by millenials according to Pew Research.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/16/this-year-millennials-will-overtake-baby-boomers/

 

I see...anything you don't wish to believe is in your eyes a hoax...like it or not those participation rates are quite accurate...

 

The US jobs issue is much more than simple politicizing...it's quite complex, varying across the nation, rooted in many different reasons, and has very little to do with Obama or any president...

 

For reference:

In January of 2009, there were 71.786 million people ages 55 and over. As of the most recent data, there are 87.83 million people ages 55 and older, or an increase of a little more than 16 million.

Now...

In January of 2009, there were 27.049 million people ages 55 and over who were employed. As of the most recent data, there are 33.951 million people ages who are employed, or an increase of 6.9 million.

So...

Even though employment of those ages 55 and older increased by 6.9 million, those ages 55 and older not in the labor force increased by 9.1 million.

Finally...

In January of 2009, there were 80.529 million people not in the labor force. As of the most recent data, there are 94.513 million people not in the labor force, or an increase of roughly 14 million. Which means we can attribute around 65% of the not in the labor force increase on those ages 55 and older.

Anyone want to guess just how much the U.S. population has grown in the time span of these data sets?

 

I think you need to consider the definition of workforce participation rate...particularly how the government combines the total of 'employed' workers to 'unemployed' workers which is divided by the population. Here is the formal government definition of 'unemployed':

Definition: Unemployment is defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as people who do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the past four weeks, and are currently available for work. Also, people who were temporarily laid off and are waiting to be called back to that job are included in the unemployment statistics.

Those who have not looked for work within the past four weeks are not only no longer counted among the unemployed, they are also removed from the labor force by the BLS.

IMO there are potentially millions of American workers who are not being counted in the 'unemployed' category...those who have dropped out, have not 'actively looked for work in the past four weeks', those waiting to be called back to work that may never happen, etc. And, our government collects the information about 'actively looking for work in the past four weeks' by doing surveys! Would be curious to know if anyone on this forum has EVER been surveyed by the BLS?

Bottom line; The method used by the BLS to determine unemployment and workforce participation rate is AT BEST a GROSS estimate of the actual situation...

 

There are and always have been scores of millions of Americans not in the workforce who are not looking for work -- the not employed versus the "unemployed" who are people looking for work.

Retirees, house-spouses, students, trust fund babies -- these folks have never been considered unemployed.

That does not make the employment numbers a "GROSS estimate." Folks just get confused because they don't understand what the number mean because they are ignorant or (more likely) mislead by RW propaganda media.

We should not include retirees, house-spouses, students, trust fund babies as "unemployed", because if we did, we would get a distorted picture of the number of folks who don't have a job, but are looking for one -- i.e. the unemployed. If someone isn't looking for a job, why should we worry about them being unemployed?

 

My post was not about 'unemployment'...it was about the workforce participation rate. It is the government which uses the word 'unemployed' in which their very GROSS equation adds those working to those the government feels are 'unemployed' and divides by the total population.

It's not rocket science Iriemon to know that no one on this forum, including me, has ever been surveyed regarding my 'employment' status...therefore...logic dictates that their calculations of unemployment and workforce participation rates are GROSS estimates at best...

 

Because you've never been polled doesn't mean they just make GROSS estimates.

 

Democrats insist that is not enogh unemployed. They want to import as many unskilled, low wages immigrants from all over the world as possible to make as many Americans unemployed and dependent upon government as possible. To sell socialism they must make a majority impoverished and therefore peasant begging government for food. Socialism requires making everyone slaves to the goverment.

 

I'm a Democrat and I've never insisted there is not enough unemployed. Please link to quotes by Democrats insisting there is not enough unemployed.

Thanks.

Sounds like another BS conservative straw man to me.