Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No I said the MAJORITY of them were Boomers retiring. According to SSI in Aug 2012 there were 219,631 new retirees and 75,459 new disabled. The rest of the 368,000 who left the labor force were new students, new moms, family members who left work to take care of a sick or aged family member, people who left the country, etc.Does the " no longer looking fo work" include those who have retired from the workforce?
Those "no longer looking for work" are the baby boomer retirees that Ed's referring to as retired.
The "no longer looking for work" are the people who just gave up looking and those that their benefits have expired.
With all due respect, the job report on people people leaving the workforce isn't talking about retiree's.
that is all
They are certainly part of it. In month 1 a person is employed. Before the collection period of month 2, he retires. Employment changes -1, the Labor Force changes -1, Not in the Labor Force changes +1.
However.....for July to Aug the changes to not in the labor force were negative for both the 25-54 and 55+ age groups. Meanwhile 1.6 million more 16-24 year olds were not in the labor force though all of that change, and more, was "Do not want a job now."
Simple arithmetic is not your strong suit.In 2011 the US population increased by 2,261,698 and retirees increased by 2,598,067.
Exactly, which means that 336,369 more people dropped off the employment rolls due to retirement than were added for the ENTIRE YEAR of 2011.
That's an AVERAGE of 28,030 new retirees a month, while we had just about 300,000 drop off last MONTH alone. That is a net of just about 270,000 more NON retirees dropping out than retirees.
And as is indicated by the Labor Force Participation rate, that has been going on since 2009!
By the way, as a baby boomer, I can tell ya that most boomers are only retiring from their CURRENT jobs. MOST are continuing to work until retirement age...IF they can.
This ain't getting better...it's getting WORSE!
In 2011 there was an average of 216,506 retirees per month.
According to SSI in Aug 2012 there were 219,631 new retirees and 75,459 new disabled, as was already posted.
Look, retirees are not counted as part of or as having given up on finding work.
You started this nonsense about retirees. It's a flat out fabrication.
Actual unemployment figures( U-6) DO NOT account for those retiring from the workforce.
.
With all due respect, the job report on people people leaving the workforce isn't talking about retiree's.
that is all
They are certainly part of it. In month 1 a person is employed. Before the collection period of month 2, he retires. Employment changes -1, the Labor Force changes -1, Not in the Labor Force changes +1.
However.....for July to Aug the changes to not in the labor force were negative for both the 25-54 and 55+ age groups. Meanwhile 1.6 million more 16-24 year olds were not in the labor force though all of that change, and more, was "Do not want a job now."
Stop making up things just to make yourself feel better.
Not in the Labor Force age 16-24: 15,327,000,
age 25-54: 23,307,000
age 55+: 48,194,000
Not in the Labor Force Do Not Want a Job Now, age 16-24: 13,198,000
age 25-54: 20,354,000
age 55+: 46,438,000
Not in the Labor Force age 16-24: 16,957,000,
age 25-54: 23,180,000
age 55+: 48,173,000
Not in the Labor Force Do Not Want a Job Now, age 16-24: 14,837,000
age 25-54: 20,072,000
age 55+: 46,372,000
No it's not. Not everyone who enters the population enters the Labor Force. Most of the increase in the population comes from people turning 16, but they have always had a low labor force participation.If the population grows by 2,261,698, that is an INCREASE in the work force of 2,261,698.
Comparing the population increase in 2011 to the retirees in 2011 is comparing apples to oranges!
Baloney!Simple arithmetic is not your strong suit.Exactly, which means that 336,369 more people dropped off the employment rolls due to retirement than were added for the ENTIRE YEAR of 2011.
That's an AVERAGE of 28,030 new retirees a month, while we had just about 300,000 drop off last MONTH alone. That is a net of just about 270,000 more NON retirees dropping out than retirees.
And as is indicated by the Labor Force Participation rate, that has been going on since 2009!
By the way, as a baby boomer, I can tell ya that most boomers are only retiring from their CURRENT jobs. MOST are continuing to work until retirement age...IF they can.
This ain't getting better...it's getting WORSE!
In 2011 there was an average of 216,506 retirees per month.
According to SSI in Aug 2012 there were 219,631 new retirees and 75,459 new disabled, as was already posted.
Apparently, the ability to logical thought is not YOUR strong suit.
If the population grows by 2,261,698, that is an INCREASE in the work force of 2,261,698. And if the number of people who retire is 2,598,067...that is a DECREASE in the work force of 2,598,067. The DIFFERENCE in that potential work force is a net DECREASE of 336,369 potential workers over the ENTIRE YEAR. Divide 336,369 by 12 months in a year and it IS 28,030 more retirees than NEW WORKERS...AVERAGE per month for the entire year!
I'm sorry your having so much trouble grasping the concept that retirees do NOT account for more than just a fraction of the numbers of people who have given up since your own figures bare that out...but the nearly 10 MILLION people who have given up looking for jobs DO get it!
By the way, if you want the REAL differential numbers, you'll have to go back to the birth rate in 1995 since they were the ones turning 16 in 2011, add that number to the immigration numbers from 2011 to get the potential work force increase and then subtract that figure from your figure for the numbers of retirees to get the REAL net number of increase or decrease in potential work force.
Just so ya know how it REALLY works. Comparing the population increase in 2011 to the retirees in 2011 is comparing apples to oranges!
Ok, so let me get this right. You are not counted as part of the population until you are 16....really?No it's not. Not everyone who enters the population enters the Labor Force. Most of the increase in the population comes from people turning 16, but they have always had a low labor force participation.If the population grows by 2,261,698, that is an INCREASE in the work force of 2,261,698.
Comparing the population increase in 2011 to the retirees in 2011 is comparing apples to oranges!
Well, that much is true. The birth rate is useless and therefore not used for labor force statistics (except for calculating employment projections).
Baloney!
The US population is 314 million, the civilian noninstitutional population is 244 million and the workforce is 155 million, so it is complete bullshit that an increase of 2.26 million in population is an increase of 2.26 million in the workforce.
But the biggest bullshit is the bullshit that 10 million have given up looking for work, the REAL number is LESS than 1 million.
Employment Situation Summary
Among the marginally attached, there were 844,000 discouraged workers in August, a
decline of 133,000 from a year earlier.
Being a CON$ervoFascist when caught lying about 10 million giving up looking for work, you just keep on lying even after being exposed to the fact that they are less than 1 million.Ok, so let me get this right. You are not counted as part of the population until you are 16....really?No it's not. Not everyone who enters the population enters the Labor Force. Most of the increase in the population comes from people turning 16, but they have always had a low labor force participation.If the population grows by 2,261,698, that is an INCREASE in the work force of 2,261,698.
Well, that much is true. The birth rate is useless and therefore not used for labor force statistics (except for calculating employment projections).
See, the round and round is what I mean by logic defect among liberals.
The statistics for retirees Ed quoted were from 2011. The 16 year olds entering the work force in 2011 were born in 1995. And since 1995 the rate of increase of population has remained just about steady at around 2.5-3 million per year. As a matter of fact, we've AVERAGED just under 1.2% per year over the last 50 years. That means that the potential labor force has increased by the EXACT SAME AMOUNT over the last 44 years...not to put to fine a point on it. So the numbers he quoted were close enough to point out the absurdity of claiming that baby boomers were responsible for the MASSIVE drop in the Labor Participation Rate. Which is NOT the same as the labor force. I simply used his figures to point out that the application of just the TINIEST BIT of common sense put's lie to that claim and tells anyone with a brain that the math don't work! If you use 2 million or 3 million...the math does NOT WORK!
And by the way, the Labor Participation Rate is NOT the same as the labor force. Retirees are REMOVED from calculations for total labor force used to calculate unemployment and employment rates. AS are those who may be out of work and do not ACTIVELY seek employment. You know, the 250-300,000 a month who are dropping out. These are people who are NOT tracked because they can not be tracked by the BLS. So the labor force is NOT the labor force and it has virtually NOTHING to do with the Labor Force Participation Rate...which IS tracked by the BLS and DOES include retirees.
Baloney!
The US population is 314 million, the civilian noninstitutional population is 244 million and the workforce is 155 million, so it is complete bullshit that an increase of 2.26 million in population is an increase of 2.26 million in the workforce.
But the biggest bullshit is the bullshit that 10 million have given up looking for work, the REAL number is LESS than 1 million.
Employment Situation Summary
Among the marginally attached, there were 844,000 discouraged workers in August, a
decline of 133,000 from a year earlier.
Read the above response to pingy math guy. Should explain why it does NOT MATTER TO THE POINT THAT YOU ARE WRONG!
But you ARE right about one thing. Being a conservative, I probably should have said 7 million who have dropped out since that is the conservative estimate by experts. The 10 million I used was the middle of the road one. The high end estimates are 12 to 14 million who have given up.
By the way, just why in the hell do you suppose that 45 million people are now getting food stamps when it was about 22 million pre recession? Are they retiring to go on food stamps? Just exactly why are 1 in 6 people receiving some sort of public assistance? Is that the retirement plan you have? And if you believe the US Census, OVER 100 MILLION AMERICANS are enrolled in some sort of welfare program.
THAT...is nearly 1/3rd the ENTIRE POPULATION of this country!
Guys, just a LITTLE common sense will go a LONG way!
SHIT IS BAD AND GETTING WORSE!!!
No amount of fuzzy government math is going to change that!
"The federal government administers nearly 80 different overlapping federal means-tested welfare programs," the Senate Budget Committee notes. However, the committee states, the figures used in the chart do not include those who are only benefiting from Social Security and/or Medicare.
The employment to population ratio is easily the most worthless and most deliberately deceptive stat of all. The more retirees, students, stay at home moms, etc., the lower the ratio. The U-3 rate is the rate that has always been used for Republican presidents therefore it is the rate that should be used for Democratic presidents also.This talk about retirees is a red herring. Forget the labor force participation rate and just look at the employment-to-population ratio, as it measures the proportion of the country's working-age population that is currently employed. As it measures those people of working age, it already takes into account retirees. The employment-to-population ratio shows that only a dismal 58.3% of people of working age are employed, significantly lower than anytime prior to the recession or during the recession.
The employment to population ratio is easily the most worthless and most deliberately deceptive stat of all. The more retirees, students, stay at home moms, etc., the lower the ratio. The U-3 rate is the rate that has always been used for Republican presidents therefore it is the rate that should be used for Democratic presidents also.
Right. For Labor Force Statistics only the Adult Civilian Non-Institutional Population is used. Excluded are all groups that face restrictions to entry/exit to/from the Labor Market.Ok, so let me get this right. You are not counted as part of the population until you are 16....really?
No, I don't. Why would children, prisoners, people in a mental institute or old age home etc whose ability to work, not work or change jobs is not a factor of the labor market be relevant in analyzing the labor market? "Liberal" has nothing to do with it (I'm not a liberal).See, the round and round is what I mean by logic defect among liberals.
It's not absurd, it's just not as big a factor as Ed claims. The Labor Force Participation Rate is the Labor Force as a percent of the Population. We can't directly measure retirees, but approximating with the age group of 65 years and older, they've added a (slightly) larger percent to the denominator than to the numerator, which means a downward push.So the numbers he quoted were close enough to point out the absurdity of claiming that baby boomers were responsible for the MASSIVE drop in the Labor Participation Rate.
Well, yeah...one is a level and the other a percentage. You seem to be thinking of some other distinction, though. Not sure what it is.Which is NOT the same as the labor force.
No they're not, except in the sense that they're neither working nor looking for work. They're still in the survey and still part of the population.And by the way, the Labor Participation Rate is NOT the same as the labor force. Retirees are REMOVED from calculations for total labor force used to calculate unemployment and employment rates.
The Labor Force is Employed and Unemployed. Since retirees, full time students, housewives, etc are neither, then they're Not in the Labor Force, but still in the Population. It's not that they're not tracked, it's that they don't meet the definition. So for Labor Force participation, retirees will be part of the denominator and not part of the numerator.So the labor force is NOT the labor force and it has virtually NOTHING to do with the Labor Force Participation Rate...which IS tracked by the BLS and DOES include retirees.
There's a big difference between leaving the labor force and "giving up."But you ARE right about one thing. Being a conservative, I probably should have said 7 million who have dropped out since that is the conservative estimate by experts. The 10 million I used was the middle of the road one. The high end estimates are 12 to 14 million who have given up.
Retirees are part of the population therefore they have a reducing effect on the ratio. Once a Republican is elected you will never heat a peep about the employment to population ratio.The employment to population ratio is easily the most worthless and most deliberately deceptive stat of all. The more retirees, students, stay at home moms, etc., the lower the ratio. The U-3 rate is the rate that has always been used for Republican presidents therefore it is the rate that should be used for Democratic presidents also.
This post doesn't make sense.
Number one, retirees have no effect on the ratio, unless you're going to argue that people are now choosing to retire while they're still of working age. Unfortunately for you, this is untrue as people are working longer and retiring later. This is especially true in a down economy. Number two, we're in a (unofficial) recession and wages have fallen to pre-1990 levels, iirc. Given these two facts, you would not expect more women choosing to be stay at home moms. They would, instead, choose to work in order to support their families to make up for the decline in wages. Number three, we've been using the ratio for years, so it seems odd to want to throw it to the wind now. Apparently, if you find a statistic that doesn't suit your agenda, then disregard it, right?
And, for what it's worth, the U6 rate is better than the U3 rate. But you probably wouldn't want to use that one, for obvious reasons.
This talk about retirees is a red herring. Forget the labor force participation rate and just look at the employment-to-population ratio, as it measures the proportion of the country's working-age population that is currently employed. As it measures those people of working age, it already takes into account retirees. The employment-to-population ratio shows that only a dismal 58.3% of people of working age are employed, significantly lower than anytime prior to the recession or during the recession.
THERE IS NO MAXIMUM AGE. So yes, people in there seventies, eighties, nineties are all in the population used for the emp-pop ratio. Someone retires at age 80, they are no longer in the numerator but are still in the denominator, which is a downward push to the ratio.Number one, retirees have no effect on the ratio, unless you're going to argue that people are now choosing to retire while they're still of working age.
And, for what it's worth, the U6 rate is better than the U3 rate. But you probably wouldn't want to use that one, for obvious reasons.
While I find myself almost always agreeing with you 100% of the time, I take exception to that one statement. The BLS does not measure retirees, but the SSI does and publishes yearly, quarterly and monthly totals for both retirees and the disabled, both of whom are not in the labor force. For August 2012 there were 219,631 new retirees and 75,459 newly disabled for a total of 295,090 who left the workforce in August for just those two reasons only.It's not absurd, it's just not as big a factor as Ed claims. The Labor Force Participation Rate is the Labor Force as a percent of the Population. We can't directly measure retirees, but approximating with the age group of 65 years and older, they've added a (slightly) larger percent to the denominator than to the numerator, which means a downward push.
You can recieve SSI (and SSD) and still work, though there are restrictions. Those people would be classified as "Employed" in the CPS. Also, many of those receiving SSI and SSD are in institutions...assisted living, group homes, etc and are therefore not part of the Population.While I find myself almost always agreeing with you 100% of the time, I take exception to that one statement. The BLS does not measure retirees, but the SSI does and publishes yearly, quarterly and monthly totals for both retirees and the disabled, both of whom are not in the labor force. For August 2012 there were 219,631 new retirees and 75,459 newly disabled for a total of 295,090 who left the workforce in August for just those two reasons only.It's not absurd, it's just not as big a factor as Ed claims. The Labor Force Participation Rate is the Labor Force as a percent of the Population. We can't directly measure retirees, but approximating with the age group of 65 years and older, they've added a (slightly) larger percent to the denominator than to the numerator, which means a downward push.
All very good points and I can't argue with any of them. But I would add that there are also people who retire who do not apply for SSI further complicating the number of retirees who are not in the workforce.You can recieve SSI (and SSD) and still work, though there are restrictions. Those people would be classified as "Employed" in the CPS. Also, many of those receiving SSI and SSD are in institutions...assisted living, group homes, etc and are therefore not part of the Population.While I find myself almost always agreeing with you 100% of the time, I take exception to that one statement. The BLS does not measure retirees, but the SSI does and publishes yearly, quarterly and monthly totals for both retirees and the disabled, both of whom are not in the labor force. For August 2012 there were 219,631 new retirees and 75,459 newly disabled for a total of 295,090 who left the workforce in August for just those two reasons only.It's not absurd, it's just not as big a factor as Ed claims. The Labor Force Participation Rate is the Labor Force as a percent of the Population. We can't directly measure retirees, but approximating with the age group of 65 years and older, they've added a (slightly) larger percent to the denominator than to the numerator, which means a downward push.
So for Labor Force Participation, the relevant people are those that retired (or became disabled) do not do any kind of work or look for work, and are not in any kind of institution. You can't measure those from either the Social Security records or the Current Population survey.
While it's only published annually, Table 20 breaks down the reasons for part time (<35 hrs/wk) and we can see that for 2011, the annual average was 2,180,000 people receiving Social Security who were working less than 35 hrs/wk in order to not go over the income limits. There could be more SSI recipients working, but listing medical or health reasons for not working more, and there could be SSI recipients working more than 35 hrs/week. So you can't use the number of people collecting SS benefits as the number who left the labor force.
In August 2012 there were over 5 million Disabled working and 0.8 million unemployed (Table A-6). 0.9 million of the working disabled were 65 or older.
So, no, retirees who are Not in the Labor Force are not directly measured and we can only approximate by age and the number of SSI recipients. But that's going to be very rough, especially as the measurements and time frames are different.
All very good points and I can't argue with any of them. But I would add that there are also people who retire who do not apply for SSI further complicating the number of retirees who are not in the workforce.You can recieve SSI (and SSD) and still work, though there are restrictions. Those people would be classified as "Employed" in the CPS. Also, many of those receiving SSI and SSD are in institutions...assisted living, group homes, etc and are therefore not part of the Population.While I find myself almost always agreeing with you 100% of the time, I take exception to that one statement. The BLS does not measure retirees, but the SSI does and publishes yearly, quarterly and monthly totals for both retirees and the disabled, both of whom are not in the labor force. For August 2012 there were 219,631 new retirees and 75,459 newly disabled for a total of 295,090 who left the workforce in August for just those two reasons only.
So for Labor Force Participation, the relevant people are those that retired (or became disabled) do not do any kind of work or look for work, and are not in any kind of institution. You can't measure those from either the Social Security records or the Current Population survey.
While it's only published annually, Table 20 breaks down the reasons for part time (<35 hrs/wk) and we can see that for 2011, the annual average was 2,180,000 people receiving Social Security who were working less than 35 hrs/wk in order to not go over the income limits. There could be more SSI recipients working, but listing medical or health reasons for not working more, and there could be SSI recipients working more than 35 hrs/week. So you can't use the number of people collecting SS benefits as the number who left the labor force.
In August 2012 there were over 5 million Disabled working and 0.8 million unemployed (Table A-6). 0.9 million of the working disabled were 65 or older.
So, no, retirees who are Not in the Labor Force are not directly measured and we can only approximate by age and the number of SSI recipients. But that's going to be very rough, especially as the measurements and time frames are different.
However, using your table A-6 and the change in the over 65 not in labor force numbers we can see that 1.6 million over 65 left the workforce in the last year, that is a minimum of 132 thousand a month. It is a minimum because you have people under 65 retiring and becoming disabled. Still a significant number, I think.
