Labor Force Participation Rate

[bendog]

It's a combination of people both aging out naturally AND becoming unemployable

Goldman On The Labor Force Participation Rate - Business Insider

 

[g5000]

Gee, the unemployment/underemployment rate for recent college grads is like 40%. This is because there are not entry level jobs for them. Why not? This wasn't a problem under Bush,

And this is where you go off the rails. Un/Underemployment has been a trending problem since the 70s, but you had to throw that lie in there, eh?

Past and projected future growth in college enrollments and the number of graduates exceeds the actual
or projected growth in high-skilled jobs, explaining the development of the underemployment problem
and its probable worsening in future years;

http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/Underemployed Report 2.pdf

 

[g5000]

the LFPR is dropping FASTER under obama than it was under Bush; and it isnt explained away by retiring baby boomers.

I guess you didn't actually read the OP. I plainly said it was not due to retiring baby boomers, and backed it up with evidence.

 

[g5000]

A lot of hay is being made out of the declining labor force participation rate by those who want to distract from the very positive job creation numbers lately. Therefore, it is a good idea to understand what the LFPR is and what it is not. It is also a good idea to understand the actual underlying causes instead of manufacturing a lot of wishful thinking over the matter.

First, the LFPR is defined as "a measure of the active portion of an economy's labor force."

There are some who believe the retiring of baby boomers has a lot to do with the declining LFPR. But when we break the rate down by age, that myth is exploded.

Take a look at this study by the Americans for Limited Government.

You will find the participation rate of the over-65 age group has gone up since 2003.



So what is actually causing the LFPR to drop?

The cause is that younger people are not going to work at the rate they used to.

Damn you wing-nuts are gullible!!!

The LPR is a worthless economic indicator because it is mostly effected by demographics, like the birth rate, retirement rate, immigration, etc., rather than economic health!!!

There are more people in the 55 and older labor force because the Boomers are aging. The youngest Boomers are now 50. There are less young people in the labor force because the birth rate keeps declining.

You suckers will swallow any bullshit you are fed as long as it is what you want to hear. 82% of Boomers are retiring by age 65, which comes to about 3 million Boomers leaving the workforce each year since 2010.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you even understand what the word rate means?

 

[g5000]

I will boil the facts down to some easy to comprehend statements. All of these are supported by evidence in the OP. Links a-plenty.

1. The participation rate for people over 55 has been going UP, not down. That includes the over-65 age group. UP, not down.

2. The participation rate for educated people is HIGHER than for less educated people.

3. The participation rate for people under 55 has been doing DOWN.

4. The participation rate for 16-24 age group has experienced a particularly LARGE DROP.

5. This has been occuring since before anyone even heard of Barack Obama.

 

[edthecynic]

the LFPR is dropping FASTER under obama than it was under Bush; and it isnt explained away by retiring baby boomers.

I guess you didn't actually read the OP. I plainly said it was not due to retiring baby boomers, and backed it up with evidence.

You "backed" it with bullshit you don't even understand!

 

[bendog]

I will boil the facts down to some easy to comprehend statements. All of these are supported by evidence in the OP. Links a-plenty.

1. The participation rate for people over 55 has been going UP, not down. That includes the over-65 age group. UP, not down.

2. The participation rate for educated people is HIGHER than for less educated people.

3. The participation rate for people under 55 has been doing DOWN.

4. The participation rate for 16-24 age group has experienced a particularly LARGE DROP.

5. This has been occuring since before anyone even heard of Barack Obama.

All true. It's also true that in the wake of the great recession, unemployable oldsters took early SS or got on disability. Those trends should abate, if not reverse. And the LFPR should not go down as fast.

the key query, imo, is #3 & 4.

 

[edthecynic]

I will boil the facts down to some easy to comprehend statements. All of these are supported by evidence in the OP. Links a-plenty.

1. The participation rate for people over 55 has been going UP, not down. That includes the over-65 age group. UP, not down.

2. The participation rate for educated people is HIGHER than for less educated people.

3. The participation rate for people under 55 has been doing DOWN.

4. The participation rate for 16-24 age group has experienced a particularly LARGE DROP.

5. This has been occuring since before anyone even heard of Barack Obama.

1. That is because the total population of people over 55 has been going up!

3. That is because the total population of people under 55 has been going down!

4. That is because the birth rate has declined after the Boom years.

Which means the retiring Boomers is the single most factor for the decline in LPR since 2008.

 

[edthecynic]

I will boil the facts down to some easy to comprehend statements. All of these are supported by evidence in the OP. Links a-plenty.

1. The participation rate for people over 55 has been going UP, not down. That includes the over-65 age group. UP, not down.

2. The participation rate for educated people is HIGHER than for less educated people.

3. The participation rate for people under 55 has been doing DOWN.

4. The participation rate for 16-24 age group has experienced a particularly LARGE DROP.

5. This has been occuring since before anyone even heard of Barack Obama.

All true. It's also true that in the wake of the great recession, unemployable oldsters took early SS or got on disability. Those trends should abate, if not reverse. And the LFPR should not go down as fast.

the key query, imo, is #3 & 4.

You can't for the most part just go on disability if you are not disabled. Of course, the Right will cite isolated examples of people who cheated the disability system and got caught and then stereotype all the disabled.

 

[bendog]

I will boil the facts down to some easy to comprehend statements. All of these are supported by evidence in the OP. Links a-plenty.

1. The participation rate for people over 55 has been going UP, not down. That includes the over-65 age group. UP, not down.

2. The participation rate for educated people is HIGHER than for less educated people.

3. The participation rate for people under 55 has been doing DOWN.

4. The participation rate for 16-24 age group has experienced a particularly LARGE DROP.

5. This has been occuring since before anyone even heard of Barack Obama.

1. That is because the total population of people over 55 has been going up!

3. That is because the total population of people under 55 has been going down!

4. That is because the birth rate has declined after the Boom years.

Which means the retiring Boomers is the single most factor for the decline in LPR since 2008.

It's not totally bs. But, yes, given the increase in overall population % being oldsters that is occurring, simply showing an increase in the LFPR by oldsters cannot mean that retirements are not having a increasing effect on LFPR.

However,

http://www.ebri.org/pdf/notespdf/EBRI_Notes_04_Apr-14_LbrPart.pdf

Regardless, two results are clear from the data.
First, the labor-force participation rates of younger workers increased when that of older workers declined or
remained low during the late 1970s to the early 1990s, but as the labor-force participation rates of younger workers
began to decline in the late 1990s, the rates for the older workers continuously increased (Figure 9). Consequently, it
appears either that older workers filled the void left by younger workers’ lower participation, or that higher olderworker
participation limited the opportunities for younger workers or discouraged them from participating in the labor
force.
Second, the percentage of older workers increased steadily from 1997 to 2012, while the percentage of younger
workers declined during this period (Figure 10). In 1997, workers ages 25–54 accounted for 83.9 percent of all
workers ages 25 or older, while those ages 55–64 accounted for 12.0 percent, and those ages 65 or older, 4.1 percent.
By 2012, those ages 55–64 represented 19.2 percent, and those 65 or older 7.0 percent, while the percentage
of workers 25 or older represented by those ages 25–54 had fallen to 73.8 percent. Again, these concurrent trends
raise the question: Are older workers filling the void or displacing opportunities for younger workers?9

Still, an earlier link I put up suggests that while the overall LFPR will continue to decline, at least in part to oldsters retiring, younger workers should leave school to take jobs as the overall employment market eases.

Goldman On The Labor Force Participation Rate - Business Insider

As for disability, if you're an older worker who loses a job, disability is attractive, and the older you get pre 67, the more likely you have something wrong with you. If you keep your job, there's little incentive in disability because it pays less than a job. The numbers are up. Whether we are more disabled or not is questionable.

 

[Darp]

The reason the % of people having jobs is the lowest in about 40 years it the obvious one. The original post ignores the number of jobs available. In 2005 we had people climbing over barbed wire fences by 100s of thousands to get into the USA as there were so many jobs. The official unemployment rate was below 4% and 4% is full employee. I remember that MacDonalds in my area posted on the window, "We pay $2 over the Minimum wage to start", because it was so hard to find workers because there were so many jobs.

Today is the opposite. My neighbor got a college degree 5 years ago and has been jobless for 75% of the time since. This is a Depression, not a recovery.

The worst economy I have ever seen in my life, today 5-5-2014.

Can not post the link, so image is attached.


as this chart proves, clearly a Depression. If you ignore Women's lib increasing women in the workforce, it would not be 40 year lows, it is all time lows for men having jobs.

If we want to get out of this mess we first have to be honest about the worst economic policy mistake in 80 years. On that chart 100% of under-perform to all previous recessions, happened only after Obama got his policies in place, and 6 months after his policies were in place.

 

[mudwhistle]

A lot of hay is being made out of the declining labor force participation rate by those who want to distract from the very positive job creation numbers lately. Therefore, it is a good idea to understand what the LFPR is and what it is not. It is also a good idea to understand the actual underlying causes instead of manufacturing a lot of wishful thinking over the matter.

First, the LFPR is defined as "a measure of the active portion of an economy's labor force."

There are some who believe the retiring of baby boomers has a lot to do with the declining LFPR. But when we break the rate down by age, that myth is exploded.

Take a look at this study by the Americans for Limited Government.

You will find the participation rate of the over-65 age group has gone up since 2003.



So what is actually causing the LFPR to drop?

The cause is that younger people are not going to work at the rate they used to.

Damn you wing-nuts are gullible!!!

The LPR is a worthless economic indicator because it is mostly effected by demographics, like the birth rate, retirement rate, immigration, etc., rather than economic health!!!

There are more people in the 55 and older labor force because the Boomers are aging. The youngest Boomers are now 50. There are less young people in the labor force because the birth rate keeps declining.

You suckers will swallow any bullshitn giving up and just being you are fed as long as it is what you want to hear. 82% of Boomers are retiring by age 65, which comes to about 3 million Boomers leaving the workforce each year since 2010.

The birth rate for whites is declining. The birth rate for everyone else is going up. There is little difference between giving up and sitting on your ass. The difference is opportunities are drying up , some kids don't even bother to look.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The birth rate for whites is declining. The birth rate for everyone else is going up.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[edthecynic]

The reason the % of people having jobs is the lowest in about 40 years it the obvious one. The original post ignores the number of jobs available. In 2005 we had people climbing over barbed wire fences by 100s of thousands to get into the USA as there were so many jobs. The official unemployment rate was below 4% and 4% is full employee. I remember that MacDonalds in my area posted on the window, "We pay $2 over the Minimum wage to start", because it was so hard to find workers because there were so many jobs.

Today is the opposite. My neighbor got a college degree 5 years ago and has been jobless for 75% of the time since. This is a Depression, not a recovery.

The worst economy I have ever seen in my life, today 5-5-2014.

Can not post the link, so image is attached.


as this chart proves, clearly a Depression. If you ignore Women's lib increasing women in the workforce, it would not be 40 year lows, it is all time lows for men having jobs.

If we want to get out of this mess we first have to be honest about the worst economic policy mistake in 80 years. On that chart 100% of under-perform to all previous recessions, happened only after Obama got his policies in place, and 6 months after his policies were in place.

The UE rate was never below 4% under Bush, it was Clinton you are thinking of. Bush nearly doubled the UE rate Clinton left him.

 

[bendog]

The birth rate for whites is declining. The birth rate for everyone else is going up.

What does this have to do with anything?

Please don't let the guy hijack the thread with his lunatic fears.

 

[Darp]

[/QUOTE]

Damn you wing-nuts are gullible!!!

The LPR is a worthless economic indicator because it is mostly effected by demographics, like the birth rate, retirement rate, immigration, etc., rather than economic health!!!

There are more people in the 55 and older labor force because the Boomers are aging. The youngest Boomers are now 50. There are less young people in the labor force because the birth rate keeps declining.

You suckers will swallow any bullshitn giving up and just being you are fed as long as it is what you want to hear. 82% of Boomers are retiring by age 65, which comes to about 3 million Boomers leaving the workforce each year since 2010..[/QUOTE]



So you are saying the unemployment rate today is under 4% things are so good?

Are you saying wages are at all time highs?

Are you saying the time in weeks it takes to get a job is better than average?


For the record, wages today 2014 are below what they were in the 1970s in real dollars, look it up.


Lets look at this logically. Edthe, Name just one of the dozens of economic indicators that is really good? Just one.

What is really good? Lets say 4% unemployment is. Or 6% economic growth is. Or 10 weeks to find a job.

Edthe, pick any of those 3 or any normal indicator that is actually good. BTW all of those type of figures have happened. But just not in the last 6 years.

Wait a second, it would not allow me to post your quote cuss of links. Looking at last paragraph, what is your real point?

Cheers

 

[nodoginnafight]

The birth rate for whites is declining. The birth rate for everyone else is going up.

What does this have to do with anything?

Please don't let the guy hijack the thread with his lunatic fears.

Sorry, my bad. I always tell everyone else not to feed the trolls and there I go .....

 

[g5000]

I will boil the facts down to some easy to comprehend statements. All of these are supported by evidence in the OP. Links a-plenty.

1. The participation rate for people over 55 has been going UP, not down. That includes the over-65 age group. UP, not down.

2. The participation rate for educated people is HIGHER than for less educated people.

3. The participation rate for people under 55 has been doing DOWN.

4. The participation rate for 16-24 age group has experienced a particularly LARGE DROP.

5. This has been occuring since before anyone even heard of Barack Obama.

1. That is because the total population of people over 55 has been going up!

3. That is because the total population of people under 55 has been going down!

4. That is because the birth rate has declined after the Boom years.

Which means the retiring Boomers is the single most factor for the decline in LPR since 2008.

Again, you do not understand what the word "rate" means.

If there were 300 sixteen year olds one year, and only 100 sixteen year olds a few years later, that does not tell you if the labor participation rate has gone up or down.

What matters is the percentage of sixteen year olds who are working during each period.

If 200 out of 300 sixteen year olds were working and then only 20 out of 100 sixteen year olds were working, that drop in the participation rate is not caused by the correlated drop in the number of sixteen year olds.

What the above facts are telling you is that a smaller percentage of people are retiring at 65, and a smaller percentage of young people are going to work. Get it now?

Just because there are MORE people retiring than before does not mean a GREATER PERCENTAGE of older people are retiring. You need to understand the difference. The percentage is what affects the labor force participation rate.

The numbers clearly show the drop in labor force participation rate is the result of a smaller percentage of younger people getting work. If you don't understand the nature of the problem, you can't find the cause. If all you care about is a carefully framed short duration snapshot that only cares about blaming the current occupant of the White House, then you are a part of the problem. You are being a willfully ignorant rube.

 

[bendog]

What does this have to do with anything?

Please don't let the guy hijack the thread with his lunatic fears.

Sorry, my bad. I always tell everyone else not to feed the trolls and there I go .....

Oh, you weren't feeding him. He is literally nuts on the magic negro thing.

 

[g5000]

The evidence plainly shows that more and more younger people are not getting jobs. Older people are doing better and better at finding work, while for younger people it is getting harder and harder.

This strongly suggests we have a skills problem. Our younger people are not being given the tools they need to get the jobs that pay.

This is something I have said often. The days of growing up to work in your daddy's factory are long gone. We need to be educating our work force for the jobs of tomorrow, not the jobs of yesterday.

Digital, hi-tech jobs.

Part of the problem may also be that we are victims of our own prosperity. Kids are getting lazy and fat, living off their parents well into their 20s rather than getting off their asses and getting to work.

Whatever the causes are, they did not happen overnight. This has been trending for a long time, and we better figure it out and do something about it.