pinqy
Gold Member
Your question is an easy one: someone retires, that's plus one to "not in the labor force" and minus one to employed. An unemployed person gets the open job makes it plus one to employed and minus one to unemployed.Again you create a Straw Man to argue against. I never said retirees were the ONLY reason for the drop in the LFP rate, I said they make up a significant portion of those who leave the workforce, as you well know. You also have family members leaving the workforce to take care of children, elderly, sick or disabled family members. You also have workers going back to school. You also have the aging workforce becoming disabled. But the largest number of workers leaving the workforce are the Boomers retiring.so the lpr drop you keep claiming (but cannot prove) is from only retirees above 65?
and, answer this question 3rd request in this thread alone-
so they are not counted in any of the data? they disappear from the unemployed ranks with no indicator, becasue they took a retirees job? that must be reflected somewhere, like lowering the number of unemployed....?
can I please see the links to that explanation and the numbers of those unemployed who have now become employed via a retiree position in the bls data
Prove it , show me the numbers for the "significant numbers" you claim.
Disabled, why yes of course, all of a sudden, in the last 3 years jobs have become hugely more injurious to workers
and, answer this question 4th request in this thread alone-
so they are not counted in any of the data? they disappear from the unemployed ranks with no indicator, becasue they took a retirees job? that must be reflected somewhere, like lowering the number of unemployed....?
Net changes: employed stays the same, unemployed goes down (so labor force goes down) and not in the labor force goes up.
Look here for the gross changes: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_flows_current.pdf