More men are single than women?

[initforme]

Perhaps not earth shattering but certainly concerning. Remember the more businesses have to pay for labor to attract them to work, the higher and higher our costs go to get those products or services. That's where some of our inflation is coming from.

Nobody goes to work to help the country nor the company. That's over.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nobody goes to work to help the country nor the company. That's over.

You obviously didn't understand what I was getting at.

 

[initforme]

Bottom line is some jobs don't need filling and if they do then it's all on the employer to step up. Employers should not have an easy time finding people that's not a good thing.

 

[whitehall]

Maybe the women are marrying each other.

Maybe the post is full of bullshit. It beats talking about real current events.

 

[Likkmee]

Most young men are single. Most young women are not.

More than 60 percent of young men are single, nearly twice the rate of unattached young women, signaling a larger breakdown in the social, romantic and sexual life of the American male. Men i…

thehill.com

I reckon with increasing LGTB stuff, with more women hitting for the other side, that makes sense.

Otherwise, it doesn't

Then again, what is a woman?



Well, once again good news for democrats, more LGTB types and a decreasing population

It's a win/win

Madonna wrote a song on the topic. Gurlz juss wanna habb fun = hohoo 14 times a day. That requires about 7 dudes under 35 or two of Mee at age 22-25. When I was 'roidin' I could pop a volleyball... and a nut... almost hourly.
Now I have to call the pharmacy and order blue boys buy the kilo for next Fridays 3-4 hour event....15 minutes, in reality, if my back holds up

 

[Marener]

Because again, they base the labor participation force rate from the unemployment numbers.

Let's say we have 10 million people that are not working or looking for work, but they are of working age just living off the dole or still living with their parents. Those people are not counted as unemployed. When they calculate the labor force participation rate, they use unemployment numbers which means those 10 million people are not counted as people who can potentially work. That falsely increases the labor participation rate.

But you’re wrong. Those 10 million people are counted in the population as not participating in the labor force. If the labor force participation rate is 85%, it means 15% of the population aren’t employed and aren’t looking for work.

The unemployed are only one small part of that equation.

 

[Marener]

Who said all women? They never seem to run out of different women saying it. Yes there are still good women out there. Evidently there are enough superficial that it is screwing stats.

And it wouldn’t be difficult to find women who say otherwise.

When you’re not looking at anecdote, you’d find that men, even those of very average or lower looks, still only message and try to match with the most attractive women.

 

[evenflow1969]

And it wouldn’t be difficult to find women who say otherwise.

When you’re not looking at anecdote, you’d find that men, even those of very average or lower looks, still only message and try to match with the most attractive women.

Would not know don't use dating sites. Anecdote is what you are going o. Where as you caN watch video all day long of women saying minimum requirements is 6ft 6 figures.

 

[Marener]

Would not know don't use dating sites. Anecdote is what you are going o. Where as you caN watch video all day long of women saying minimum requirements is 6ft 6 figures.

And you can’t find men who have unrealistic expectations all day long too. Where does that get you?

 

[Unkotare]

That has nothing to do with it. We don't have enough people to take these jobs. Therefore we have a labor shortage.

And some pathetic excuses for men attempt to boast about running from all the responsibilities of a man all their lives?

 

[Unkotare]

Nobody goes to work to help the country nor the company. That's over.

Bullshit

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But you’re wrong. Those 10 million people are counted in the population as not participating in the labor force. If the labor force participation rate is 85%, it means 15% of the population aren’t employed and aren’t looking for work.

The unemployed are only one small part of that equation.

Wrong. What they do is measure the amount of people unemployed (not working but looking for work) against the actual amount of people working. If those 10 million people were added to the unemployment statistics, it would lower the labor participation rate.

 

[Marener]

Wrong. What they do is measure the amount of people unemployed (not working but looking for work) against the actual amount of people working. If those 10 million people were added to the unemployment statistics, it would lower the labor participation rate.

No, you're wrong.

The unemployed (not working but looking for work) are considered to be part of the labor force. Labor force participation adds the unemployed and the employed and divides that by the entire population (which includes people who aren't working or looking for work.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/pdf/labor-force-participation-what-has-happened-since-the-peak.pdf

If those 10 million people who aren't looking for work started looking for work, it would decrease the labor force participation rate.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/pdf/labor-force-participation-what-has-happened-since-the-peak.pdf

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, you're wrong.

The unemployed (not working but looking for work) are considered to be part of the labor force. Labor force participation adds the unemployed and the employed and divides that by the entire population (which includes people who aren't working or looking for work.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/pdf/labor-force-participation-what-has-happened-since-the-peak.pdf

If those 10 million people who aren't looking for work started looking for work, it would decrease the labor force participation rate.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/article/pdf/labor-force-participation-what-has-happened-since-the-peak.pdf

You can't divide it by the population because that would include children, retirees, illegals (which we have no Fn idea how many those are) the disabled, prisoners, military, everybody. So they can only divide that by people of working age that can work but don't.

Labor Force Participation Rate Formula​

The formula for labor force participation is:

(Number Employed+Number Seeking Work)×100Civilian Non-Institutional PopulationCivilian Non-Institutional Population

(Number Employed+Number Seeking Work)×100

This applies to all members of the population at age 16 or older.(Number Employed+Number Seeking Work)×100Civilian Non-Institutional PopulationCivilian Non-Institutional Population

(Number Employed+Number Seeking Work)×100

Economic Factors​

Short- and long-term economic trends can influence the labor force participation rate. In the long run, industrialization and the accumulation of wealth can have an impact.


Industrialization tends to increase participation by creating employment opportunities. High levels of accumulated wealth can reduce participation because wealthier people simply have less need to work for a living.

Labor Force Participation Rate: Purpose, Formula, and Trends

The labor force participation rate is a measurement of an economy’s active workforce.

www.investopedia.com

So what they are saying here is the less people looking for work, the lower the labor participation rate is. They applied the theory to wealthy people but what's the difference between the wealthy and those on the dole? Nothing because neither are looking for work, and that lowers the participation rate.

 

[Marener]

You can't divide it by the population because that would include children, retirees, illegals (which we have no Fn idea how many those are) the disabled, prisoners, military, everybody. So they can only divide that by people of working age that can work but don't.

Well, if you want to get into the weeds, then we can. The graph I first provided you was prime working age, which was 25 to 55. They divide by the civilian non-institutional population. That would exclude active duty military, anyone in prison, anyone who is living in a mental institution, anyone who is living in a nursing home. It would include illegal immigrants. It might include some retirees but very few people are retired at 55. It would not include children since it only includes people older than 25.

So when I presented the labor force participation rate of prime age workers, it was how many people were working (or looking for work) out of everyone that theoretically could work between the ages of 25 to 55 when you would expect the highest likelihood to work.

Yes, people "living on the dole" would lower the labor force participation rate, which is why I was showing you this graph in the first place.

Your theory about all these people living on the dole just doesn't hold up with the data. As I said earlier, the labor force participation rate is extremely high historically. The highest it's ever been was in the 1990s when welfare benefits were the most generous they've ever been (welfare reform passed in the 1990s under Clinton/Gingrich). Even now, we are at nearly historic highs as the labor force participation rate is less than 2% off the peak.

So if there are so many people living off the dole as you complain about, why is the labor force participation rate so damn high?

Labor Force Participation Rate - 25-54 Yrs.

Graph and download economic data for Labor Force Participation Rate - 25-54 Yrs. (LNS11300060) from Jan 1948 to May 2025 about 25 to 54 years, participation, civilian, labor force, labor, household survey, rate, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

 

[Andrew_Jackson_FTW]

Some folks here are putting their political spin on this thread. It should be more about relationships.

we should definitely have a thread(s) on relationships. I just made one but I did not realize that this thread got so many responses and it appears that a lot of folks are talking about dating, marriage and such in our modern era. It is a very important topic to discuss.

 

[Andrew_Jackson_FTW]

But hasn't women marrying older men always been the case, so this 60% figure on single young men is higher than normal in their age range?

What I've been reading on it is that social media, and social media manipulative skill lacking, and less one on one contact hurt worse by COVID restrictions, is failing both young males and younger teen females, leading to higher suicides in girls.... It's a mess alright!

When I was younger, before social media on the internet, they...whomever "they" are... were saying that Video gaming, was the problem....

I think less contact with females, equals less chance of sparks being fired, and Cupid to shoot his arrow....

This is certainly an issue my friend. So many young men in this country are zonked out on marijuana all the time, they’re on Instagram all the time. Unfortunately some of them have been brainwashed by the ultra feminized left wing and they might not even wanna go on dates they might think that staying single their whole life is normal. Here’s the thing check this out what if every person in the world stayed single their whole life here’s what would happen no more children will be produced.

 

[Andrew_Jackson_FTW]

OK so some men might be bald. Some might be over 300 lbs. Check this out that’s no problem at all look at Jason Statham. And for bigger guys well there’s plenty of women out there who are into bigger man. There you go there’s someone out there for everyone

 

[Circe]

So is 6ft and six figures a requirement for you?

Odd you should ask. . . . . .

Huh. That's what I got.

Hold out for the good ones, gals.

 

[evenflow1969]

Odd you should ask. . . . . .

Huh. That's what I got.

Hold out for the good ones, gals.

Lol, so if not 6ft and 6 figures the man is in your words no good losers? Lol, and sure ya did! Sure ya did.