Workforce participation rate is so low because Obama sucks! Or maybe it's just family values.

[SwimExpert]

That is to say, this is a part of the equation. Child care is expensive. It's perfectly reasonable for one parent to become a stay at home parent in lieu of working a job that nets very little after childcare costs. Our economy will probably be better for it in the long run.

According to the Care.com survey, 69% of parents say that the cost of care has impacted their career decisions, and a quarter of parents have switched jobs for better family benefits. Some parents—women in particular—are leaving the workforce altogether. The share of mothers who stay at home has been rising over the past dozen or so years—a reversal of a long-term trend of women entering the workforce. According to the Pew Research Center, 29% of mothers did not work outside the home in 2012, compared to 23% in 1999.

When childcare costs more than rent, fewer women choose to work - Fortune

 

[NightFox]

That is to say, this is a part of the equation. Child care is expensive. It's perfectly reasonable for one parent to become a stay at home parent in lieu of working a job that nets very little after childcare costs. Our economy will probably be better for it in the long run.

According to the Care.com survey, 69% of parents say that the cost of care has impacted their career decisions, and a quarter of parents have switched jobs for better family benefits. Some parents—women in particular—are leaving the workforce altogether. The share of mothers who stay at home has been rising over the past dozen or so years—a reversal of a long-term trend of women entering the workforce. According to the Pew Research Center, 29% of mothers did not work outside the home in 2012, compared to 23% in 1999.

When childcare costs more than rent, fewer women choose to work - Fortune

As far as I know the workforce participation rate doesn't include homemakers/stay at home parents as "unemployed" since they are considered as not actively seeking employment, in essence the BLS considers them neither employed nor unemployed, so they are not considered part of the labor force for the purposes of the calculation.

 

[gipper]

That is to say, this is a part of the equation. Child care is expensive. It's perfectly reasonable for one parent to become a stay at home parent in lieu of working a job that nets very little after childcare costs. Our economy will probably be better for it in the long run.

According to the Care.com survey, 69% of parents say that the cost of care has impacted their career decisions, and a quarter of parents have switched jobs for better family benefits. Some parents—women in particular—are leaving the workforce altogether. The share of mothers who stay at home has been rising over the past dozen or so years—a reversal of a long-term trend of women entering the workforce. According to the Pew Research Center, 29% of mothers did not work outside the home in 2012, compared to 23% in 1999.

When childcare costs more than rent, fewer women choose to work - Fortune

As far as I know the workforce participation rate doesn't include homemakers/stay at home parents as "unemployed" since they are considered as not actively seeking employment, in essence the BLS considers them neither employed nor unemployed, so that are not considered part of the labor force for the purposes of the calculation.

No. It includes all over the age 16. You are referring to the bogus U-3 rate our lying government likes to cite.

 

[bedowin62]

That is to say, this is a part of the equation. Child care is expensive. It's perfectly reasonable for one parent to become a stay at home parent in lieu of working a job that nets very little after childcare costs. Our economy will probably be better for it in the long run.

According to the Care.com survey, 69% of parents say that the cost of care has impacted their career decisions, and a quarter of parents have switched jobs for better family benefits. Some parents—women in particular—are leaving the workforce altogether. The share of mothers who stay at home has been rising over the past dozen or so years—a reversal of a long-term trend of women entering the workforce. According to the Pew Research Center, 29% of mothers did not work outside the home in 2012, compared to 23% in 1999.

When childcare costs more than rent, fewer women choose to work - Fortune

amazing stuff that!!! i could have sworn i heard the Left crying all day long how working people keep getting screwed by the mean ol Right-wing. that doesnt exactly fly with the idea that people are now able to just stay at home. childcare has always been a burdensome cost; did it suddenly skyrocket in cost???

 

[bedowin62]

That is to say, this is a part of the equation. Child care is expensive. It's perfectly reasonable for one parent to become a stay at home parent in lieu of working a job that nets very little after childcare costs. Our economy will probably be better for it in the long run.

According to the Care.com survey, 69% of parents say that the cost of care has impacted their career decisions, and a quarter of parents have switched jobs for better family benefits. Some parents—women in particular—are leaving the workforce altogether. The share of mothers who stay at home has been rising over the past dozen or so years—a reversal of a long-term trend of women entering the workforce. According to the Pew Research Center, 29% of mothers did not work outside the home in 2012, compared to 23% in 1999.

When childcare costs more than rent, fewer women choose to work - Fortune

As far as I know the workforce participation rate doesn't include homemakers/stay at home parents as "unemployed" since they are considered as not actively seeking employment, in essence the BLS considers them neither employed nor unemployed, so they are not considered part of the labor force for the purposes of the calculation.

it doesnt. they arent counted in as unemployed or even as discouraged workers if they choose to remain at home. they arent being counted. their numbers (people choosing not to work) are estimated basically by process of elimination if they arent in any of the other categories

 

[NightFox]

That is to say, this is a part of the equation. Child care is expensive. It's perfectly reasonable for one parent to become a stay at home parent in lieu of working a job that nets very little after childcare costs. Our economy will probably be better for it in the long run.

According to the Care.com survey, 69% of parents say that the cost of care has impacted their career decisions, and a quarter of parents have switched jobs for better family benefits. Some parents—women in particular—are leaving the workforce altogether. The share of mothers who stay at home has been rising over the past dozen or so years—a reversal of a long-term trend of women entering the workforce. According to the Pew Research Center, 29% of mothers did not work outside the home in 2012, compared to 23% in 1999.

When childcare costs more than rent, fewer women choose to work - Fortune

As far as I know the workforce participation rate doesn't include homemakers/stay at home parents as "unemployed" since they are considered as not actively seeking employment, in essence the BLS considers them neither employed nor unemployed, so that are not considered part of the labor force for the purposes of the calculation.

No. It includes all over the age 16. You are referring to the bogus U-3 rate our lying government likes to cite.

No it's what I thought it was ...
"Labor force: You need to know the total number of people in the labor force. The labor force consists of only those people that are economically active in the economy, which means they are working or looking for work."

Homemakers/Stay at home parents are not considered to be actively looking for work and thus are not included in the labor force for the purposes of the calculation.

The Labor Force Participation Rate: Equation & Concept | Study.com

 

[saveliberty]

Since I don't witness a large increase in people living on the streets since the housing bubble crashed years ago, I assume people adapted. Some used unemployment benefits, SS disability, off-the-books jobs or a combination.

 

[saveliberty]

Workforce participation decreasing means people have found a way to not meet formal job descriptions as used by government.

 

[SwimExpert]

childcare has always been a burdensome cost; did it suddenly skyrocket in cost???

Yes.

 

[SwimExpert]

As far as I know the workforce participation rate doesn't include homemakers/stay at home parents as "unemployed" since they are considered as not actively seeking employment, in essence the BLS considers them neither employed nor unemployed, so they are not considered part of the labor force for the purposes of the calculation.

That is correct.

ERGO...

If an individual is a stay at home parent, they are not participating in the workforce.

 

[SwimExpert]

No. It includes all over the age 16. You are referring to the bogus U-3 rate our lying government likes to cite.

Nooooooooo! You idiot.

The U-3 measures people who are without jobs and who have looked for work in the past four weeks. By contrast, the workforce participation rate is the number of adults in the country who are participating in the workforce, by either having a job or by searching for a job.

 

[bedowin62]

childcare has always been a burdensome cost; did it suddenly skyrocket in cost???

Yes.

when?

what year? how? why/??

 

[NightFox]

As far as I know the workforce participation rate doesn't include homemakers/stay at home parents as "unemployed" since they are considered as not actively seeking employment, in essence the BLS considers them neither employed nor unemployed, so they are not considered part of the labor force for the purposes of the calculation.

That is correct.

ERGO...

If an individual is a stay at home parent, they are not participating in the workforce.

So er umm....I'm curious as to why you would bring up the labor force participation rate in the first place? Since you apparently already know that it doesn't apply to the premise of your OP? You should probably delete that part and just focus on the cost of child care, huh?

 

[SwimExpert]

So er umm....I'm curious as to why you would bring up the labor force participation rate in the first place? Since you apparently already know that it doesn't apply to the premise of your OP?

The premise of my OP is that the cost of child care is contributing to a low workforce participation rate.

How the fuck does that premise not have any relation to the workforce participation rate?
God DAMN I'm so sick of stupid mother fuckers around here.

 

[SwimExpert]

when?

what year? how? why/??

It's all in the link. Did you not read the link? Please do not comment until you read the link. You will find the link linked in the OP, where you will find a link you can click on in order to read the link.

 

[bedowin62]

how did people get so much disposable income suddenly allowing them to not participate in the workforce when it was always a conundrum that much of what you earn was going to go toward child care costs. in the past you had to choose to work even if you only came out ahead by a few dollars.

 

[g5000]

Workforce participation rate is so low because Obama sucks! Or maybe it's just family values.

False dichotomy.

The LFPR has been falling since before anyone even heard of Obama. And for more than a year, the LFPR has leveled off.

The primary cause of the low LFPR is public and private debt.

Everybody wants to blame somebody else. They never want to blame themselves.

It's open season on scapegoats.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

That is to say, this is a part of the equation. Child care is expensive. It's perfectly reasonable for one parent to become a stay at home parent in lieu of working a job that nets very little after childcare costs. Our economy will probably be better for it in the long run.

According to the Care.com survey, 69% of parents say that the cost of care has impacted their career decisions, and a quarter of parents have switched jobs for better family benefits. Some parents—women in particular—are leaving the workforce altogether. The share of mothers who stay at home has been rising over the past dozen or so years—a reversal of a long-term trend of women entering the workforce. According to the Pew Research Center, 29% of mothers did not work outside the home in 2012, compared to 23% in 1999.

When childcare costs more than rent, fewer women choose to work - Fortune

amazing stuff that!!! i could have sworn i heard the Left crying all day long how working people keep getting screwed by the mean ol Right-wing. that doesnt exactly fly with the idea that people are now able to just stay at home. childcare has always been a burdensome cost; did it suddenly skyrocket in cost???

No, my daughter pays only slightly more for my grandson than I did for her.

 

[bedowin62]

So er umm....I'm curious as to why you would bring up the labor force participation rate in the first place? Since you apparently already know that it doesn't apply to the premise of your OP?

The premise of my OP is that the cost of child care is contributing to a low workforce participation rate.

How the fuck does that premise not have any relation to the workforce participation rate?
God DAMN I'm so sick of stupid mother fuckers around here.

you're frustrated because you cant make your case idiot. you got frustrated with me in a similar fashion

go cry

 

[bedowin62]

since it is men more than women disappearing from the workforce i still dont understand your premise dummy. it may or may not be true but hardly matters