58 straight months of jobs growth, ACA working great where allowed to, where is this bad economy?

[Faun]

people collecting a non-military related disability are at record numbers under obama. you dont like that article; there are literally hundreds more. you would find something wrong with anything that flies in the face of your spoon-fed narrative; just like you laughably did when it was clearly pointed out to you that retiring Baby Boomers arent the main cause for the 40 year low in labor market participation under obama.

what a clown

Again, just as the disabled set records EVERY year of the Bush Regime, but the Right never made a peep.
Again your 3% article disagrees with you and also attributes the increase in disability to the aging Boomers!!!

From your own link:

"a growing number of prime-age men are citing
disability or illness as their reason for not working
in the past year ( Juahn and Potter 2006). From
1969 to 2004, the proportion of 25-54 year-olds
citing disability grew from 1.9% to 5.5%. In
Montana, the number of people on disability has
almost doubled from about 16,000 to 31,000,
most of which came since 2000. The majority
of this increase is the result of the baby-boomer
population getting older, and thus reaching the
age group most likely to pursue disability benefits.

LMAO!!

I guess you missed the part of "MY OWN LINK" where that particular thing you put in bold letters says "IN MONTANA"??

and you're trying to apply it to the whole country


because you're simply a clown and a loser. I already posted several topics saying that the 40-year low in labor market participation isn't because of retiring baby boomers FOR THE MOST PART.
your pathetic attempt at a comeback was to quote something I posted that clearly refers to one state, and one of the least populated states at that, montana

you and your idiot brother faun are just laughable losers who aren't man enough to admit when you're wrong

Spits the forum retard who thinks one of the factors driving down the labor force participation rate is kids under 16 collecting disability.

 

[bedowin62]

people collecting a non-military related disability are at record numbers under obama. you dont like that article; there are literally hundreds more. you would find something wrong with anything that flies in the face of your spoon-fed narrative; just like you laughably did when it was clearly pointed out to you that retiring Baby Boomers arent the main cause for the 40 year low in labor market participation under obama.

what a clown

Again, just as the disabled set records EVERY year of the Bush Regime, but the Right never made a peep.
Again your 3% article disagrees with you and also attributes the increase in disability to the aging Boomers!!!

From your own link:

"a growing number of prime-age men are citing
disability or illness as their reason for not working
in the past year ( Juahn and Potter 2006). From
1969 to 2004, the proportion of 25-54 year-olds
citing disability grew from 1.9% to 5.5%. In
Montana, the number of people on disability has
almost doubled from about 16,000 to 31,000,
most of which came since 2000. The majority
of this increase is the result of the baby-boomer
population getting older, and thus reaching the
age group most likely to pursue disability benefits.

LMAO!!

I guess you missed the part of "MY OWN LINK" where that particular thing you put in bold letters says "IN MONTANA"??

and you're trying to apply it to the whole country


because you're simply a clown and a loser. I already posted several topics saying that the 40-year low in labor market participation isn't because of retiring baby boomers FOR THE MOST PART.
your pathetic attempt at a comeback was to quote something I posted that clearly refers to one state, and one of the least populated states at that, montana

you and your idiot brother faun are just laughable losers who aren't man enough to admit when you're wrong

Spits the forum retard who thinks one of the factors driving down the labor force participation rate is kids under 16 collecting disability.

people collecting a non-military related disability are at record numbers under obama. you dont like that article; there are literally hundreds more. you would find something wrong with anything that flies in the face of your spoon-fed narrative; just like you laughably did when it was clearly pointed out to you that retiring Baby Boomers arent the main cause for the 40 year low in labor market participation under obama.

what a clown

Again, just as the disabled set records EVERY year of the Bush Regime, but the Right never made a peep.
Again your 3% article disagrees with you and also attributes the increase in disability to the aging Boomers!!!

From your own link:

"a growing number of prime-age men are citing
disability or illness as their reason for not working
in the past year ( Juahn and Potter 2006). From
1969 to 2004, the proportion of 25-54 year-olds
citing disability grew from 1.9% to 5.5%. In
Montana, the number of people on disability has
almost doubled from about 16,000 to 31,000,
most of which came since 2000. The majority
of this increase is the result of the baby-boomer
population getting older, and thus reaching the
age group most likely to pursue disability benefits.

LMAO!!

I guess you missed the part of "MY OWN LINK" where that particular thing you put in bold letters says "IN MONTANA"??

and you're trying to apply it to the whole country


because you're simply a clown and a loser. I already posted several topics saying that the 40-year low in labor market participation isn't because of retiring baby boomers FOR THE MOST PART.
your pathetic attempt at a comeback was to quote something I posted that clearly refers to one state, and one of the least populated states at that, montana

you and your idiot brother faun are just laughable losers who aren't man enough to admit when you're wrong

Spits the forum retard who thinks one of the factors driving down the labor force participation rate is kids under 16 collecting disability.

you insist on embarrassing yourself like a petulant little loser

 

[Faun]

people collecting a non-military related disability are at record numbers under obama. you dont like that article; there are literally hundreds more. you would find something wrong with anything that flies in the face of your spoon-fed narrative; just like you laughably did when it was clearly pointed out to you that retiring Baby Boomers arent the main cause for the 40 year low in labor market participation under obama.

what a clown

Again, just as the disabled set records EVERY year of the Bush Regime, but the Right never made a peep.
Again your 3% article disagrees with you and also attributes the increase in disability to the aging Boomers!!!

From your own link:

"a growing number of prime-age men are citing
disability or illness as their reason for not working
in the past year ( Juahn and Potter 2006). From
1969 to 2004, the proportion of 25-54 year-olds
citing disability grew from 1.9% to 5.5%. In
Montana, the number of people on disability has
almost doubled from about 16,000 to 31,000,
most of which came since 2000. The majority
of this increase is the result of the baby-boomer
population getting older, and thus reaching the
age group most likely to pursue disability benefits.

LMAO!!

I guess you missed the part of "MY OWN LINK" where that particular thing you put in bold letters says "IN MONTANA"??

and you're trying to apply it to the whole country


because you're simply a clown and a loser. I already posted several topics saying that the 40-year low in labor market participation isn't because of retiring baby boomers FOR THE MOST PART.
your pathetic attempt at a comeback was to quote something I posted that clearly refers to one state, and one of the least populated states at that, montana

you and your idiot brother faun are just laughable losers who aren't man enough to admit when you're wrong

Spits the forum retard who thinks one of the factors driving down the labor force participation rate is kids under 16 collecting disability.

people collecting a non-military related disability are at record numbers under obama. you dont like that article; there are literally hundreds more. you would find something wrong with anything that flies in the face of your spoon-fed narrative; just like you laughably did when it was clearly pointed out to you that retiring Baby Boomers arent the main cause for the 40 year low in labor market participation under obama.

what a clown

Again, just as the disabled set records EVERY year of the Bush Regime, but the Right never made a peep.
Again your 3% article disagrees with you and also attributes the increase in disability to the aging Boomers!!!

From your own link:

"a growing number of prime-age men are citing
disability or illness as their reason for not working
in the past year ( Juahn and Potter 2006). From
1969 to 2004, the proportion of 25-54 year-olds
citing disability grew from 1.9% to 5.5%. In
Montana, the number of people on disability has
almost doubled from about 16,000 to 31,000,
most of which came since 2000. The majority
of this increase is the result of the baby-boomer
population getting older, and thus reaching the
age group most likely to pursue disability benefits.

LMAO!!

I guess you missed the part of "MY OWN LINK" where that particular thing you put in bold letters says "IN MONTANA"??

and you're trying to apply it to the whole country


because you're simply a clown and a loser. I already posted several topics saying that the 40-year low in labor market participation isn't because of retiring baby boomers FOR THE MOST PART.
your pathetic attempt at a comeback was to quote something I posted that clearly refers to one state, and one of the least populated states at that, montana

you and your idiot brother faun are just laughable losers who aren't man enough to admit when you're wrong

Spits the forum retard who thinks one of the factors driving down the labor force participation rate is kids under 16 collecting disability.

you insist on embarrassing yourself like a petulant little loser

Too funny.

You posted numbers you claim are a key factor in driving down the labor force participation rate .... numbers which included minors under 16 who are not a factor in the labor force participation rate .... and you're so retarded, you think I'm the one here embarrassing himself.

 

[bedowin62]

people collecting a non-military related disability are at record numbers under obama. you dont like that article; there are literally hundreds more. you would find something wrong with anything that flies in the face of your spoon-fed narrative; just like you laughably did when it was clearly pointed out to you that retiring Baby Boomers arent the main cause for the 40 year low in labor market participation under obama.

what a clown

Again, just as the disabled set records EVERY year of the Bush Regime, but the Right never made a peep.
Again your 3% article disagrees with you and also attributes the increase in disability to the aging Boomers!!!

From your own link:

"a growing number of prime-age men are citing
disability or illness as their reason for not working
in the past year ( Juahn and Potter 2006). From
1969 to 2004, the proportion of 25-54 year-olds
citing disability grew from 1.9% to 5.5%. In
Montana, the number of people on disability has
almost doubled from about 16,000 to 31,000,
most of which came since 2000. The majority
of this increase is the result of the baby-boomer
population getting older, and thus reaching the
age group most likely to pursue disability benefits.

LMAO!!

I guess you missed the part of "MY OWN LINK" where that particular thing you put in bold letters says "IN MONTANA"??

and you're trying to apply it to the whole country


because you're simply a clown and a loser. I already posted several topics saying that the 40-year low in labor market participation isn't because of retiring baby boomers FOR THE MOST PART.
your pathetic attempt at a comeback was to quote something I posted that clearly refers to one state, and one of the least populated states at that, montana

you and your idiot brother faun are just laughable losers who aren't man enough to admit when you're wrong

Spits the forum retard who thinks one of the factors driving down the labor force participation rate is kids under 16 collecting disability.

people collecting a non-military related disability are at record numbers under obama. you dont like that article; there are literally hundreds more. you would find something wrong with anything that flies in the face of your spoon-fed narrative; just like you laughably did when it was clearly pointed out to you that retiring Baby Boomers arent the main cause for the 40 year low in labor market participation under obama.

what a clown

Again, just as the disabled set records EVERY year of the Bush Regime, but the Right never made a peep.
Again your 3% article disagrees with you and also attributes the increase in disability to the aging Boomers!!!

From your own link:

"a growing number of prime-age men are citing
disability or illness as their reason for not working
in the past year ( Juahn and Potter 2006). From
1969 to 2004, the proportion of 25-54 year-olds
citing disability grew from 1.9% to 5.5%. In
Montana, the number of people on disability has
almost doubled from about 16,000 to 31,000,
most of which came since 2000. The majority
of this increase is the result of the baby-boomer
population getting older, and thus reaching the
age group most likely to pursue disability benefits.

LMAO!!

I guess you missed the part of "MY OWN LINK" where that particular thing you put in bold letters says "IN MONTANA"??

and you're trying to apply it to the whole country


because you're simply a clown and a loser. I already posted several topics saying that the 40-year low in labor market participation isn't because of retiring baby boomers FOR THE MOST PART.
your pathetic attempt at a comeback was to quote something I posted that clearly refers to one state, and one of the least populated states at that, montana

you and your idiot brother faun are just laughable losers who aren't man enough to admit when you're wrong

Spits the forum retard who thinks one of the factors driving down the labor force participation rate is kids under 16 collecting disability.

you insist on embarrassing yourself like a petulant little loser

Too funny.

You posted numbers you claim are a key factor in driving down the labor force participation rate .... numbers which included minors under 16 who are not a factor in the labor force participation rate .... and you're so retarded, you think I'm the one here embarrassing himself.

I POSTED SEVERAL articles that show the 40-year low in LFPR isnt because of retiring Baby boomers

cry leftard cry

just cry

 

[bedowin62]

there are record numbers of WORKING-AGE Americans not participating in the Labor Market

ok continue embarrassing yourself

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

U.S. Unemployment: Retirees Are Not The Labor Exodus Problem
Comment Now
Follow Comments
By Robert Romano

Retirees playing shuffleboard in Sarasota, Florida (Photo credit: State Library and Archives of Florida)

Since 2008, the civilian non-institutional population has jumped by 11.9 million, yet the civilian labor force has only increased by 1.1 million, according to annual figures published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The above numbers speak to a pronounced drop in labor force participation—that is, those working or looking for work—with the participation rate dropping from almost 66 percent throughout 2008 to its current level of 62.8 percent, the lowest it’s been since 1978.

If the labor force participation rate had held steady at its 2008 level, unemployment would be 11.2 percent instead of the current reported rate of 6.7 percent.

That labor force participation has been dropping is undisputed. The question is why.

Is the decline in labor force participation a result of older people retiring en masse, younger people failing to enter the work force, or both?

If it is the former, then Americans can take confidence in the reported unemployment rate of 6.7 percent, that its steady drop is very real and means labor market conditions are in fact improving.

If, however, younger Americans are not entering the labor force and/or middle-aged people are dropping out, quite the opposite. The reported unemployment rate then understates the reality of current labor market conditions. Then, individuals are not looking for work conceivably because there is little work to be found and so they are giving up — in short, an economic calamity.

On one side are those who take the view that what is being observed are actually Baby Boomers leaving the workforce and retiring, such as minnpost.com’s Erik Hare, writing in a piece, “Decline in labor force driven by retirement, not discouragement.”

Hare calls it a “lie” that “this is the result of people giving up looking for work, a sign that the ‘recovery’ is weak.” Instead, Hare points to a Philadelphia Federal Reserve study on the topic that takes a narrow look at Bureau nonparticipation data, concluding that retirements beginning in 2010 began to play a role in driving down the participation rate.

The trouble with the study is that labor participation has been declining a lot longer than since 2010. In fact, it peaked in 1997 at 67.1 percent, and has dropped annually ever since. As the study notes, “retirement had not played much of a role until around 2010.” By then, the rate had already dropped 2.4 percent.

Meaning, retirement cannot be thought to have played much of a role in the participation rates up until that point, and may only be tangentially affecting it now.

On the other side are those such as senior fellow and director of Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute, Diana Furchtgott-Roth who, in a Jan. 14 piece for RealcCearMarkets.com noted that “since 2000 the labor force participation rates of workers 55 and over have been rising steadily, and the labor force participation rates of workers between 16 and 54 have been declining.”

Which is absolutely true. Since 2003, those 65 years and older have seen their labor force participation rate rise from 13.99 percent to 18.7 percent. Those aged 55-64 saw their rate rise from 62.44 percent to 64.36 percent, a recent Americans for Limited Government (ALG) study of Bureau data from 2003-2013 shows.

Meanwhile, participation by those aged 16-24 dropped from 61.56 percent in 2003 to 55.05 percent in 2013, and for those aged 25-54, it dropped from 82.98 percent to 82.01 percent.
So, does older Americans working longer, younger people failing to enter the labor force, and the middle-aged dropping out account for the decrease in labor force participation?

Yes on all counts, the ALG study shows.

Specifically, 16-24 year olds failing to enter the labor force alone took 1.29 percent off the overall labor force participation rate. 25-54 year olds took a whopping 5.24 percent off the rate.

Meanwhile, these losses were offset by 55-64 year olds adding 2.39 percent back to the rate, and 65 years old and above adding another 1.13 percent.

By far the biggest contributors to the drop in participation were:

1. 
   
2. that the population of those aged 25-54 increased by 1.12 million, and yet its labor force actually shrank by 1.53 million—a net loss of 2.65 million; and
3. 2.53 million people aged 16-24 failed to enter the labor force compared to the rate in 2003..

In fact, if older Americans were not working longer — in the process adding 2.79 million to the civilian labor force — participation would be even lower than it already is at about 61.7 percent, instead of the 62.8 percent rate reported.

To avoid seasonal variations, the ALG study uses average, annual figures published by the Bureau rather than monthly data.

Individuals can draw their own conclusions from the ALG study, but one conclusion they cannot make is that there is some sort of retirement wave that is driving down labor force participation and making the unemployment rate look a lot better than it really is.

U.S. Unemployment Retirees Are Not The Labor Exodus Problem - Forbes

 

[Faun]

Again, just as the disabled set records EVERY year of the Bush Regime, but the Right never made a peep.
Again your 3% article disagrees with you and also attributes the increase in disability to the aging Boomers!!!

From your own link:

"a growing number of prime-age men are citing
disability or illness as their reason for not working
in the past year ( Juahn and Potter 2006). From
1969 to 2004, the proportion of 25-54 year-olds
citing disability grew from 1.9% to 5.5%. In
Montana, the number of people on disability has
almost doubled from about 16,000 to 31,000,
most of which came since 2000. The majority
of this increase is the result of the baby-boomer
population getting older, and thus reaching the
age group most likely to pursue disability benefits.

LMAO!!

I guess you missed the part of "MY OWN LINK" where that particular thing you put in bold letters says "IN MONTANA"??

and you're trying to apply it to the whole country


because you're simply a clown and a loser. I already posted several topics saying that the 40-year low in labor market participation isn't because of retiring baby boomers FOR THE MOST PART.
your pathetic attempt at a comeback was to quote something I posted that clearly refers to one state, and one of the least populated states at that, montana

you and your idiot brother faun are just laughable losers who aren't man enough to admit when you're wrong

Spits the forum retard who thinks one of the factors driving down the labor force participation rate is kids under 16 collecting disability.

Again, just as the disabled set records EVERY year of the Bush Regime, but the Right never made a peep.
Again your 3% article disagrees with you and also attributes the increase in disability to the aging Boomers!!!

From your own link:

"a growing number of prime-age men are citing
disability or illness as their reason for not working
in the past year ( Juahn and Potter 2006). From
1969 to 2004, the proportion of 25-54 year-olds
citing disability grew from 1.9% to 5.5%. In
Montana, the number of people on disability has
almost doubled from about 16,000 to 31,000,
most of which came since 2000. The majority
of this increase is the result of the baby-boomer
population getting older, and thus reaching the
age group most likely to pursue disability benefits.

LMAO!!

I guess you missed the part of "MY OWN LINK" where that particular thing you put in bold letters says "IN MONTANA"??

and you're trying to apply it to the whole country


because you're simply a clown and a loser. I already posted several topics saying that the 40-year low in labor market participation isn't because of retiring baby boomers FOR THE MOST PART.
your pathetic attempt at a comeback was to quote something I posted that clearly refers to one state, and one of the least populated states at that, montana

you and your idiot brother faun are just laughable losers who aren't man enough to admit when you're wrong

Spits the forum retard who thinks one of the factors driving down the labor force participation rate is kids under 16 collecting disability.

you insist on embarrassing yourself like a petulant little loser

Too funny.

You posted numbers you claim are a key factor in driving down the labor force participation rate .... numbers which included minors under 16 who are not a factor in the labor force participation rate .... and you're so retarded, you think I'm the one here embarrassing himself.

I POSTED SEVERAL articles that show the 40-year low in LFPR isnt because of retiring Baby boomers

cry leftard cry

just cry

Why would I cry? Nothing you posted backs up your claim about baby boomers being the key factor since Obama's been president.

Sure, you posted a report that said between 2000-2011, it wasn't the key factor, but that is meaningless to your argument since most of those years were before Obama became president and before baby boomers began turning 62.

Meanwhile, and this is the key to your stupidity ... no article you post can refute the actual numbers. Since Obama has been president ... and that is what we're talking about ... 4.5 times more people are retired than are on disability. 7 million more people are retired than 6.5 years ago; compared to 1.5 million more people on disability than 6.5 years ago.

You have to be completely fucking brain-dead, and you are, to think people on disability are a greater weight on the labor force participation rate than people retiring.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Again, just as the disabled set records EVERY year of the Bush Regime, but the Right never made a peep.
Again your 3% article disagrees with you and also attributes the increase in disability to the aging Boomers!!!

From your own link:

"a growing number of prime-age men are citing
disability or illness as their reason for not working
in the past year ( Juahn and Potter 2006). From
1969 to 2004, the proportion of 25-54 year-olds
citing disability grew from 1.9% to 5.5%. In
Montana, the number of people on disability has
almost doubled from about 16,000 to 31,000,
most of which came since 2000. The majority
of this increase is the result of the baby-boomer
population getting older, and thus reaching the
age group most likely to pursue disability benefits.

LMAO!!

I guess you missed the part of "MY OWN LINK" where that particular thing you put in bold letters says "IN MONTANA"??

and you're trying to apply it to the whole country


because you're simply a clown and a loser. I already posted several topics saying that the 40-year low in labor market participation isn't because of retiring baby boomers FOR THE MOST PART.
your pathetic attempt at a comeback was to quote something I posted that clearly refers to one state, and one of the least populated states at that, montana

you and your idiot brother faun are just laughable losers who aren't man enough to admit when you're wrong

Spits the forum retard who thinks one of the factors driving down the labor force participation rate is kids under 16 collecting disability.

Again, just as the disabled set records EVERY year of the Bush Regime, but the Right never made a peep.
Again your 3% article disagrees with you and also attributes the increase in disability to the aging Boomers!!!

From your own link:

"a growing number of prime-age men are citing
disability or illness as their reason for not working
in the past year ( Juahn and Potter 2006). From
1969 to 2004, the proportion of 25-54 year-olds
citing disability grew from 1.9% to 5.5%. In
Montana, the number of people on disability has
almost doubled from about 16,000 to 31,000,
most of which came since 2000. The majority
of this increase is the result of the baby-boomer
population getting older, and thus reaching the
age group most likely to pursue disability benefits.

LMAO!!

I guess you missed the part of "MY OWN LINK" where that particular thing you put in bold letters says "IN MONTANA"??

and you're trying to apply it to the whole country


because you're simply a clown and a loser. I already posted several topics saying that the 40-year low in labor market participation isn't because of retiring baby boomers FOR THE MOST PART.
your pathetic attempt at a comeback was to quote something I posted that clearly refers to one state, and one of the least populated states at that, montana

you and your idiot brother faun are just laughable losers who aren't man enough to admit when you're wrong

Spits the forum retard who thinks one of the factors driving down the labor force participation rate is kids under 16 collecting disability.

you insist on embarrassing yourself like a petulant little loser

Too funny.

You posted numbers you claim are a key factor in driving down the labor force participation rate .... numbers which included minors under 16 who are not a factor in the labor force participation rate .... and you're so retarded, you think I'm the one here embarrassing himself.

I POSTED SEVERAL articles that show the 40-year low in LFPR isnt because of retiring Baby boomers

cry leftard cry

just cry

The boomer curve is obvious.
The entrance of early boomers into the workforce starting in the mid 60's corresponds to drops in the early 2000's and has escalated since. Just as the growth escalated through the 70's. There are certainly other reasons for the drop but none as significant as boomers.

Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

[Faun]

U.S. Unemployment: Retirees Are Not The Labor Exodus Problem
Comment Now
Follow Comments
By Robert Romano

Retirees playing shuffleboard in Sarasota, Florida (Photo credit: State Library and Archives of Florida)

Since 2008, the civilian non-institutional population has jumped by 11.9 million, yet the civilian labor force has only increased by 1.1 million, according to annual figures published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The above numbers speak to a pronounced drop in labor force participation—that is, those working or looking for work—with the participation rate dropping from almost 66 percent throughout 2008 to its current level of 62.8 percent, the lowest it’s been since 1978.

If the labor force participation rate had held steady at its 2008 level, unemployment would be 11.2 percent instead of the current reported rate of 6.7 percent.

That labor force participation has been dropping is undisputed. The question is why.

Is the decline in labor force participation a result of older people retiring en masse, younger people failing to enter the work force, or both?

If it is the former, then Americans can take confidence in the reported unemployment rate of 6.7 percent, that its steady drop is very real and means labor market conditions are in fact improving.

If, however, younger Americans are not entering the labor force and/or middle-aged people are dropping out, quite the opposite. The reported unemployment rate then understates the reality of current labor market conditions. Then, individuals are not looking for work conceivably because there is little work to be found and so they are giving up — in short, an economic calamity.

On one side are those who take the view that what is being observed are actually Baby Boomers leaving the workforce and retiring, such as minnpost.com’s Erik Hare, writing in a piece, “Decline in labor force driven by retirement, not discouragement.”

Hare calls it a “lie” that “this is the result of people giving up looking for work, a sign that the ‘recovery’ is weak.” Instead, Hare points to a Philadelphia Federal Reserve study on the topic that takes a narrow look at Bureau nonparticipation data, concluding that retirements beginning in 2010 began to play a role in driving down the participation rate.

The trouble with the study is that labor participation has been declining a lot longer than since 2010. In fact, it peaked in 1997 at 67.1 percent, and has dropped annually ever since. As the study notes, “retirement had not played much of a role until around 2010.” By then, the rate had already dropped 2.4 percent.

Meaning, retirement cannot be thought to have played much of a role in the participation rates up until that point, and may only be tangentially affecting it now.

On the other side are those such as senior fellow and director of Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute, Diana Furchtgott-Roth who, in a Jan. 14 piece for RealcCearMarkets.com noted that “since 2000 the labor force participation rates of workers 55 and over have been rising steadily, and the labor force participation rates of workers between 16 and 54 have been declining.”

Which is absolutely true. Since 2003, those 65 years and older have seen their labor force participation rate rise from 13.99 percent to 18.7 percent. Those aged 55-64 saw their rate rise from 62.44 percent to 64.36 percent, a recent Americans for Limited Government (ALG) study of Bureau data from 2003-2013 shows.

Meanwhile, participation by those aged 16-24 dropped from 61.56 percent in 2003 to 55.05 percent in 2013, and for those aged 25-54, it dropped from 82.98 percent to 82.01 percent.
So, does older Americans working longer, younger people failing to enter the labor force, and the middle-aged dropping out account for the decrease in labor force participation?

Yes on all counts, the ALG study shows.

Specifically, 16-24 year olds failing to enter the labor force alone took 1.29 percent off the overall labor force participation rate. 25-54 year olds took a whopping 5.24 percent off the rate.

Meanwhile, these losses were offset by 55-64 year olds adding 2.39 percent back to the rate, and 65 years old and above adding another 1.13 percent.

By far the biggest contributors to the drop in participation were:

1. 
   
2. that the population of those aged 25-54 increased by 1.12 million, and yet its labor force actually shrank by 1.53 million—a net loss of 2.65 million; and
3. 2.53 million people aged 16-24 failed to enter the labor force compared to the rate in 2003..

In fact, if older Americans were not working longer — in the process adding 2.79 million to the civilian labor force — participation would be even lower than it already is at about 61.7 percent, instead of the 62.8 percent rate reported.

To avoid seasonal variations, the ALG study uses average, annual figures published by the Bureau rather than monthly data.

Individuals can draw their own conclusions from the ALG study, but one conclusion they cannot make is that there is some sort of retirement wave that is driving down labor force participation and making the unemployment rate look a lot better than it really is.

U.S. Unemployment Retirees Are Not The Labor Exodus Problem - Forbes

Baby Boomers Not Recession Behind Drop In Workforce

 

[bedowin62]

how come neither of you left-wing losers will just man up and say exactly what the percentage of the declining participation is caused by retiring Baby boomers?

your own source says 1/3 of them are people who still want a job. so you're starting with 66%

 

[Faun]

how come neither of you left-wing losers will just man up and say exactly what the percentage of the declining participation is caused by retiring Baby boomers?

your own source says 1/3 of them are people who still want a job. so you're starting with 66%

So? No one is saying baby boomers are 100% of the cause. Just that they are a major factor. You been told this before, but your brain is stuck on believing that 1.5 million is greater than 7 million. I can't help you there.

 

[bedowin62]

how come neither of you left-wing losers will just man up and say exactly what the percentage of the declining participation is caused by retiring Baby boomers?

your own source says 1/3 of them are people who still want a job. so you're starting with 66%

So? No one is saying baby boomers are 100% of the cause. Just that they are a major factor. You been told this before, but your brain is stuck on believing that 1.5 million is greater than 7 million. I can't help you there.

ok dummy. you just missed one chance to say exactly how much

 

[bedowin62]

oh and to the point of the thread topic; remember that?

welfare and dependency has increased under obama; and its' even affected labor market participation.

that is just one example of what the original left-wing idiot OP misses when he asks where the bad economy is.

keep trying though

 

[Faun]

how come neither of you left-wing losers will just man up and say exactly what the percentage of the declining participation is caused by retiring Baby boomers?

your own source says 1/3 of them are people who still want a job. so you're starting with 66%

So? No one is saying baby boomers are 100% of the cause. Just that they are a major factor. You been told this before, but your brain is stuck on believing that 1.5 million is greater than 7 million. I can't help you there.

ok dummy. you just missed one chance to say exactly how much

I "missed one chance."



You crack me up, rightard.

I could post studies which attempt to designate a percentage, but first, you would have to convince me why it's worth my time trying to educate an abject moron who idiotically thinks 1.5 million is more than 7 million?

 

[bedowin62]

how come neither of you left-wing losers will just man up and say exactly what the percentage of the declining participation is caused by retiring Baby boomers?

your own source says 1/3 of them are people who still want a job. so you're starting with 66%

So? No one is saying baby boomers are 100% of the cause. Just that they are a major factor. You been told this before, but your brain is stuck on believing that 1.5 million is greater than 7 million. I can't help you there.

ok dummy. you just missed one chance to say exactly how much

I "missed one chance."



You crack me up, rightard.

I could post studies which attempt to designate a percentage, but first, you would have to convince me why it's worth my time trying to educate an abject moron who idiotically thinks 1.5 million is more than 7 million?

two chances

you're going to cry all day arent you?

 

[bedowin62]

how come neither of you left-wing losers will just man up and say exactly what the percentage of the declining participation is caused by retiring Baby boomers?

your own source says 1/3 of them are people who still want a job. so you're starting with 66%

So? No one is saying baby boomers are 100% of the cause. Just that they are a major factor. You been told this before, but your brain is stuck on believing that 1.5 million is greater than 7 million. I can't help you there.

ok dummy. you just missed one chance to say exactly how much

I "missed one chance."



You crack me up, rightard.

I could post studies which attempt to designate a percentage, but first, you would have to convince me why it's worth my time trying to educate an abject moron who idiotically thinks 1.5 million is more than 7 million?

i never said that or implied it stupid

try again

 

[sealybobo]

Yep, democrats are no different than republicans. They payoff government for special favors. The only difference is the democratic base isn't smart enough to realize they are corrupt.

Yet the R-Derp's and the Franco's of this board are absolutely convinced that the only politicians in the pockets of big business are Republicans.

Make up your minds. Do the rich own and control our government or not?

You Republicans defend the very rich and powerful that own you.

Does soros, buffet, turner, gates, rockefellers, and vandys all own the Republican Party?

Do you like the things these men push for? What are their evil agendas.

Soros funds several dozen organizations fighting for things that arent in America's interests; like open borders or instance. this has already been pointed out to you

Open borders are coming bro. Same with free trade. If you are a low income blue collar worker I would worry if I were you. Are you?

 

[sealybobo]

Yep, democrats are no different than republicans. They payoff government for special favors. The only difference is the democratic base isn't smart enough to realize they are corrupt.

Yet the R-Derp's and the Franco's of this board are absolutely convinced that the only politicians in the pockets of big business are Republicans.

Make up your minds. Do the rich own and control our government or not?

You Republicans defend the very rich and powerful that own you.

Does soros, buffet, turner, gates, rockefellers, and vandys all own the Republican Party?

Do you like the things these men push for? What are their evil agendas.

Preferential treatment when laws are written to protect their business interests and profits.

Are their business interests hurting Americans? See, a lot of liberal lobbyists aren't so bad because they provide a lot of American jobs. I don't mind Ford wanting preferential treatment when they pay their employees so well.

My dad has a Ford Pension. Ford is a good company. Unfortunately free trade is forcing them to leave the country. Not just the union north but America altogether. Why would they pay a 10% tariff to manufacture in America? They don't have to pay that in Mexico. So open the god damn borders. I'll be alright. A beaner can't do what I do.

 

[bedowin62]

Yet the R-Derp's and the Franco's of this board are absolutely convinced that the only politicians in the pockets of big business are Republicans.

Make up your minds. Do the rich own and control our government or not?

You Republicans defend the very rich and powerful that own you.

Does soros, buffet, turner, gates, rockefellers, and vandys all own the Republican Party?

Do you like the things these men push for? What are their evil agendas.

Soros funds several dozen organizations fighting for things that arent in America's interests; like open borders or instance. this has already been pointed out to you

Open borders are coming bro. Same with free trade. If you are a low income blue collar worker I would worry if I were you. Are you?

open borders regarding ILLEGAL immigration and free trade are not the same thing dullard

 

[edthecynic]

people collecting a non-military related disability are at record numbers under obama. you dont like that article; there are literally hundreds more. you would find something wrong with anything that flies in the face of your spoon-fed narrative; just like you laughably did when it was clearly pointed out to you that retiring Baby Boomers arent the main cause for the 40 year low in labor market participation under obama.

what a clown

Again, just as the disabled set records EVERY year of the Bush Regime, but the Right never made a peep.
Again your 3% article disagrees with you and also attributes the increase in disability to the aging Boomers!!!

From your own link:

"a growing number of prime-age men are citing
disability or illness as their reason for not working
in the past year ( Juahn and Potter 2006). From
1969 to 2004, the proportion of 25-54 year-olds
citing disability grew from 1.9% to 5.5%. In
Montana, the number of people on disability has
almost doubled from about 16,000 to 31,000,
most of which came since 2000. The majority
of this increase is the result of the baby-boomer
population getting older, and thus reaching the
age group most likely to pursue disability benefits.

LMAO!!

I guess you missed the part of "MY OWN LINK" where that particular thing you put in bold letters says "IN MONTANA"??

and you're trying to apply it to the whole country


because you're simply a clown and a loser. I already posted several topics saying that the 40-year low in labor market participation isn't because of retiring baby boomers FOR THE MOST PART.
your pathetic attempt at a comeback was to quote something I posted that clearly refers to one state, and one of the least populated states at that, montana

you and your idiot brother faun are just laughable losers who aren't man enough to admit when you're wrong

Hey dumb ass, that Montana link is what YOU gave for the source of your 3% lie. It was YOU who was applying it to the whole country.

58 straight months of jobs growth, ACA working great where allowed to, where is this bad economy?