Record 93 million Americans not working

[AceRothstein]

So from the time Bush was inaugurated it was around 64 and dropped to 60 before he left office. When Obama was inaugurated it was around 60 and is now a tad above 59. Who saw the bigger drop?

Let us use actual statistics:

Jan 2001 = 64.4

Jan 2008 = 62.9

Jan 2015 = 59.3

So Bush 1.5, Obama 3.7

Actual data found here: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

yes indeed ... LET US

• The average prime working age LFPR since 2007 is 82.0%, and the average 55-and-over LFPR since 2007 is 40.1%

• The size of the 55-and-over population has increased by 15.619 million relative to that of the prime working age population since 2007

• 15.619 million multiplied by the difference between the two participation rates (82.0% - 40.1%) implies that this simple demographic shift alone has left only 6.544 million workers at the end of 2013 where there were 15.619 million at the end of 2007

• Subtract that 6.544 million still in the labor force from the 15.619 million who made the shift from the first bucket to the second bucket and you get 9.075 million people 55 years of age or over who have left the labor force over the past six years

Read more: Baby Boomers Are Retiring - Business Insider

What is your point? We all know that the retirees are leaving the labor force thus not counted in the job participation rate. This has all been provided to everyone within this thread.

Retirees are counted. Where did you get the impression that they aren't? Everyone 16 and over is counted unless they are in a prison, psych facility or retirement home.

From post 15:

While studying employment, another important figure to determine is the labor force participation rate. Here, we compare the size of the labor force with the number of people that could potentially be a part of the labor force. It is important to note that we do not include people under the age of 16 in this figure. In addition, students, retirees, the disabled, homemakers, and the voluntarily idle are not counted in the labor force. The labor force as the percentage of the total population over the minimum working age is called labor force participation rate.

Labor Force Participation Rate = (Labor Force / Total Population over Age 16) * 100

EconPort - Defining the Labor Force

That is why in a population of 314 million the labor force is 157 million.

Yes, they aren't considered part of the labor force but they are considered part of the population that is used to calculate the labor force participation rate.

 

[Freewill]

Are you guys unaware that you can do this yourself? Or is your point innuendo? So there was a drop after Clinton's recession, it wasn't a plunge by any means. Thanks be to GWB. Matter of fact look at the chart, it started dropping when? When the democrats took control of congress and ignored GWB.

So from the time Bush was inaugurated it was around 64 and dropped to 60 before he left office. When Obama was inaugurated it was around 60 and is now a tad above 59. Who saw the bigger drop?

Let us use actual statistics:

Jan 2001 = 64.4

Jan 2008 = 62.9

Jan 2015 = 59.3

So Bush 1.5, Obama 3.7

Actual data found here: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Your chart and stats don't match. Also, Obama wasn't inaugurate in 2008.

Go to the site provided and there is a chart on that page that supplies the numbers that I used. They obviously match the chart.

Your link is dead. Which data set are you using?

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

You can do a search if you want to go back 15 years.

 

[AceRothstein]

So from the time Bush was inaugurated it was around 64 and dropped to 60 before he left office. When Obama was inaugurated it was around 60 and is now a tad above 59. Who saw the bigger drop?

Let us use actual statistics:

Jan 2001 = 64.4

Jan 2008 = 62.9

Jan 2015 = 59.3

So Bush 1.5, Obama 3.7

Actual data found here: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Your chart and stats don't match. Also, Obama wasn't inaugurate in 2008.

Go to the site provided and there is a chart on that page that supplies the numbers that I used. They obviously match the chart.

Your link is dead. Which data set are you using?

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

You can do a search if you want to go back 15 years.

What is the series ID? You can't link a BLS search that you've performed.

 

[Siete]

Let us use actual statistics:

Jan 2001 = 64.4

Jan 2008 = 62.9

Jan 2015 = 59.3

So Bush 1.5, Obama 3.7

Actual data found here: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

yes indeed ... LET US

• The average prime working age LFPR since 2007 is 82.0%, and the average 55-and-over LFPR since 2007 is 40.1%

• The size of the 55-and-over population has increased by 15.619 million relative to that of the prime working age population since 2007

• 15.619 million multiplied by the difference between the two participation rates (82.0% - 40.1%) implies that this simple demographic shift alone has left only 6.544 million workers at the end of 2013 where there were 15.619 million at the end of 2007

• Subtract that 6.544 million still in the labor force from the 15.619 million who made the shift from the first bucket to the second bucket and you get 9.075 million people 55 years of age or over who have left the labor force over the past six years

Read more: Baby Boomers Are Retiring - Business Insider

What is your point? We all know that the retirees are leaving the labor force thus not counted in the job participation rate. This has all been provided to everyone within this thread.

Retirees are counted. Where did you get the impression that they aren't? Everyone 16 and over is counted unless they are in a prison, psych facility or retirement home.

From post 15:

While studying employment, another important figure to determine is the labor force participation rate. Here, we compare the size of the labor force with the number of people that could potentially be a part of the labor force. It is important to note that we do not include people under the age of 16 in this figure. In addition, students, retirees, the disabled, homemakers, and the voluntarily idle are not counted in the labor force. The labor force as the percentage of the total population over the minimum working age is called labor force participation rate.

Labor Force Participation Rate = (Labor Force / Total Population over Age 16) * 100

EconPort - Defining the Labor Force

That is why in a population of 314 million the labor force is 157 million.

Yes, they aren't considered part of the labor force but they are considered part of the population that is used to calculate the labor force participation rate.

and magically counted as unemployed by idiots ... take freewilly for instance.

 

[Freewill]

Are you guys unaware that you can do this yourself? Or is your point innuendo? So there was a drop after Clinton's recession, it wasn't a plunge by any means. Thanks be to GWB. Matter of fact look at the chart, it started dropping when? When the democrats took control of congress and ignored GWB.

So from the time Bush was inaugurated it was around 64 and dropped to 60 before he left office. When Obama was inaugurated it was around 60 and is now a tad above 59. Who saw the bigger drop?

Let us use actual statistics:

Jan 2001 = 64.4

Jan 2008 = 62.9

Jan 2015 = 59.3

So Bush 1.5, Obama 3.7

Actual data found here: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

yes indeed ... LET US

• The average prime working age LFPR since 2007 is 82.0%, and the average 55-and-over LFPR since 2007 is 40.1%

• The size of the 55-and-over population has increased by 15.619 million relative to that of the prime working age population since 2007

• 15.619 million multiplied by the difference between the two participation rates (82.0% - 40.1%) implies that this simple demographic shift alone has left only 6.544 million workers at the end of 2013 where there were 15.619 million at the end of 2007

• Subtract that 6.544 million still in the labor force from the 15.619 million who made the shift from the first bucket to the second bucket and you get 9.075 million people 55 years of age or over who have left the labor force over the past six years

Read more: Baby Boomers Are Retiring - Business Insider

What is your point? We all know that the retirees are leaving the labor force thus not counted in the job participation rate. This has all been provided to everyone within this thread.

the entire point is simple ... you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

1/3d of the country unemployed ?

Simple enough, show me the statistics that prove me wrong. You have not and can not. Typical liberal innuendo and BS.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Heard on BBC radio that the latest unemployment data puts jobs created each month (excluding temporary agricultural work) down from 250,000 to 175,000 a month.

retiring and LEAVING the labor force is TOTALLY different than being unemployed.

have a 3rd grader explain it ...

If that were happening you wouldn't see stories about millenials still not working in large numbers since there are far fewer of them than baby boomers

 

[JakeStarkey]

Freewill's conclusions does not coincide with his use of statistics.

They use the product like his to teach students how to lie with stats.

 

[Manonthestreet]

And you would think black unemployment numbers would not still be disastrous.

 

[Siete]

So from the time Bush was inaugurated it was around 64 and dropped to 60 before he left office. When Obama was inaugurated it was around 60 and is now a tad above 59. Who saw the bigger drop?

Let us use actual statistics:

Jan 2001 = 64.4

Jan 2008 = 62.9

Jan 2015 = 59.3

So Bush 1.5, Obama 3.7

Actual data found here: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

yes indeed ... LET US

• The average prime working age LFPR since 2007 is 82.0%, and the average 55-and-over LFPR since 2007 is 40.1%

• The size of the 55-and-over population has increased by 15.619 million relative to that of the prime working age population since 2007

• 15.619 million multiplied by the difference between the two participation rates (82.0% - 40.1%) implies that this simple demographic shift alone has left only 6.544 million workers at the end of 2013 where there were 15.619 million at the end of 2007

• Subtract that 6.544 million still in the labor force from the 15.619 million who made the shift from the first bucket to the second bucket and you get 9.075 million people 55 years of age or over who have left the labor force over the past six years

Read more: Baby Boomers Are Retiring - Business Insider

What is your point? We all know that the retirees are leaving the labor force thus not counted in the job participation rate. This has all been provided to everyone within this thread.

the entire point is simple ... you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

1/3d of the country unemployed ?

Simple enough, show me the statistics that prove me wrong. You have not and can not. Typical liberal innuendo and BS.

the stats are correct ..



According to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a record 92,898,000 Americans did not participate in the workforce last month.

which is totally different than 92,898,000 being UNEMPLOYED just like I said

spin away, facts are facts.

 

[Freewill]

From the BLS How are the labor force components i.e. civilian noninstitutional population civilian labor force employed unemployed and unemployment rate defined

• Civilian labor force: All persons in the civilian noninstitutional population classified as either employed or unemployed.
• Employed persons: All persons who, during the reference week (week including the twelfth day of the month), (a) did any work as paid employees, worked in their own business or profession or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of their family, or (b) were not working but who had jobs from which they were temporarily absent. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job.
• Unemployed persons: All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4 week-period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

 

[hipeter924]

Heard on BBC radio that the latest unemployment data puts jobs created each month (excluding temporary agricultural work) down from 250,000 to 175,000 a month.

retiring and LEAVING the labor force is TOTALLY different than being unemployed.

have a 3rd grader explain it ...

I am quoting job creation data, so people being retired, developing a brain cell, or drowning in vodka don't exist, as it is jobs being added.

If anyone needs third grade math, it is you, since you can't tell the difference between job creation data and the general unemployment rate.

 

[Freewill]

Let us use actual statistics:

Jan 2001 = 64.4

Jan 2008 = 62.9

Jan 2015 = 59.3

So Bush 1.5, Obama 3.7

Actual data found here: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

yes indeed ... LET US

• The average prime working age LFPR since 2007 is 82.0%, and the average 55-and-over LFPR since 2007 is 40.1%

• The size of the 55-and-over population has increased by 15.619 million relative to that of the prime working age population since 2007

• 15.619 million multiplied by the difference between the two participation rates (82.0% - 40.1%) implies that this simple demographic shift alone has left only 6.544 million workers at the end of 2013 where there were 15.619 million at the end of 2007

• Subtract that 6.544 million still in the labor force from the 15.619 million who made the shift from the first bucket to the second bucket and you get 9.075 million people 55 years of age or over who have left the labor force over the past six years

Read more: Baby Boomers Are Retiring - Business Insider

What is your point? We all know that the retirees are leaving the labor force thus not counted in the job participation rate. This has all been provided to everyone within this thread.

the entire point is simple ... you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

1/3d of the country unemployed ?

Simple enough, show me the statistics that prove me wrong. You have not and can not. Typical liberal innuendo and BS.

the stats are correct ..



According to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a record 92,898,000 Americans did not participate in the workforce last month.

which is totally different than 92,898,000 being UNEMPLOYED just like I said

spin away, facts are facts.

of course the stats I provide are correct, I don't lie like you infer.

Now that progress is made and you now agree with the 93 million not working can be agree that your semantics is flawed in trying to make a distinction between no participation, not working, and being unemployed? The difference is that not participation includes those who could work and don't and those who are actively seeking work. Either way the effect is the same. As sad as it sounds 1/3 of the population could be working but are not.

 

[Freewill]

Let us use actual statistics:

Jan 2001 = 64.4

Jan 2008 = 62.9

Jan 2015 = 59.3

So Bush 1.5, Obama 3.7

Actual data found here: Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Your chart and stats don't match. Also, Obama wasn't inaugurate in 2008.

Go to the site provided and there is a chart on that page that supplies the numbers that I used. They obviously match the chart.

Your link is dead. Which data set are you using?

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

You can do a search if you want to go back 15 years.

What is the series ID? You can't link a BLS search that you've performed.

i am trying again, this is why I didn't post the 15 years in the first place it wouldn't come up but that didn't stop someone from inferring I was being dishonest.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[AceRothstein]

Your chart and stats don't match. Also, Obama wasn't inaugurate in 2008.

Go to the site provided and there is a chart on that page that supplies the numbers that I used. They obviously match the chart.

Your link is dead. Which data set are you using?

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

You can do a search if you want to go back 15 years.

What is the series ID? You can't link a BLS search that you've performed.

i am trying again, this is why I didn't post the 15 years in the first place it wouldn't come up but that didn't stop someone from inferring I was being dishonest.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Thank you. It worked that time and the numbers come up as I suspected.

Jan 2001: 64.4
Jan 2009: 60.6
Mar 2015: 59.3

A drop of 3.8 under Bush and a drop of 1.3 under Obama.

 

[pinqy]

yes indeed ... LET US

• The average prime working age LFPR since 2007 is 82.0%, and the average 55-and-over LFPR since 2007 is 40.1%

• The size of the 55-and-over population has increased by 15.619 million relative to that of the prime working age population since 2007

• 15.619 million multiplied by the difference between the two participation rates (82.0% - 40.1%) implies that this simple demographic shift alone has left only 6.544 million workers at the end of 2013 where there were 15.619 million at the end of 2007

• Subtract that 6.544 million still in the labor force from the 15.619 million who made the shift from the first bucket to the second bucket and you get 9.075 million people 55 years of age or over who have left the labor force over the past six years

Read more: Baby Boomers Are Retiring - Business Insider

What is your point? We all know that the retirees are leaving the labor force thus not counted in the job participation rate. This has all been provided to everyone within this thread.

the entire point is simple ... you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

1/3d of the country unemployed ?

Simple enough, show me the statistics that prove me wrong. You have not and can not. Typical liberal innuendo and BS.

the stats are correct ..



According to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a record 92,898,000 Americans did not participate in the workforce last month.

which is totally different than 92,898,000 being UNEMPLOYED just like I said

spin away, facts are facts.

of course the stats I provide are correct, I don't lie like you infer.

Now that progress is made and you now agree with the 93 million not working can be agree that your semantics is flawed in trying to make a distinction between no participation, not working, and being unemployed? The difference is that not participation includes those who could work and don't and those who are actively seeking work. Either way the effect is the same. As sad as it sounds 1/3 of the population could be working but are not.

You do realize that the 93 million you're citing doesn't include the 8.6 million unemployed?

First there's the Population: Those 16 and older excluding those in the military or in prison or other institution. That's 250 million people.
Under the Population, there's the Labor Force...those doing something about work...the Employed (148.3 million) and the Unemployed (8.6 million)
So that's a Labor Force of 156.9 million and a participation rate (percent of the population doing something about work) at 62.7%...a number that's been declining for 15 years now.

Everyone else in the population (93.2 million people) are "Not in the Labor Force," meaning they're not working and they're not trying to work. 86.8 million say they don't want a job.

 

[Freewill]

Go to the site provided and there is a chart on that page that supplies the numbers that I used. They obviously match the chart.

Your link is dead. Which data set are you using?

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

You can do a search if you want to go back 15 years.

What is the series ID? You can't link a BLS search that you've performed.

i am trying again, this is why I didn't post the 15 years in the first place it wouldn't come up but that didn't stop someone from inferring I was being dishonest.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Thank you. It worked that time and the numbers come up as I suspected.

Jan 2001: 64.4
Jan 2009: 60.6
Mar 2015: 59.3

A drop of 3.8 under Bush and a drop of 1.3 under Obama.

I stand corrected. Obama had more opportunity for improvement.

 

[Freewill]

What is your point? We all know that the retirees are leaving the labor force thus not counted in the job participation rate. This has all been provided to everyone within this thread.

the entire point is simple ... you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

1/3d of the country unemployed ?

Simple enough, show me the statistics that prove me wrong. You have not and can not. Typical liberal innuendo and BS.

the stats are correct ..



According to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a record 92,898,000 Americans did not participate in the workforce last month.

which is totally different than 92,898,000 being UNEMPLOYED just like I said

spin away, facts are facts.

of course the stats I provide are correct, I don't lie like you infer.

Now that progress is made and you now agree with the 93 million not working can be agree that your semantics is flawed in trying to make a distinction between no participation, not working, and being unemployed? The difference is that not participation includes those who could work and don't and those who are actively seeking work. Either way the effect is the same. As sad as it sounds 1/3 of the population could be working but are not.

You do realize that the 93 million you're citing doesn't include the 8.6 million unemployed?

First there's the Population: Those 16 and older excluding those in the military or in prison or other institution. That's 250 million people.
Under the Population, there's the Labor Force...those doing something about work...the Employed (148.3 million) and the Unemployed (8.6 million)
So that's a Labor Force of 156.9 million and a participation rate (percent of the population doing something about work) at 62.7%...a number that's been declining for 15 years now.

Everyone else in the population (93.2 million people) are "Not in the Labor Force," meaning they're not working and they're not trying to work. 86.8 million say they don't want a job.

Yes, I do believe it does include them according the the BLS site which has been provided.

157 million is the BLS labor force number. That excludes those under 16 retirees, institutionalized, housewives, and others I don't remember but the definitions were provided. So out of those 157 million according to the BLS 59.3 is the participation rate.59.3 March 2015. The unemployed is included in that number.

 

[edthecynic]

Notice Data not available U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
You can do a search if you want to go back 15 years.

Again, your link is dead. You have to post the link before the page you posted and then indicate the check boxes you used.

For example:

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
And use check box seasonally adjusted participation rate, scroll to bottom and click retrieve data.
When chart loads change output options at top from 2005 to 2000 and click go.

 

[Siete]

Your link is dead. Which data set are you using?

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

You can do a search if you want to go back 15 years.

What is the series ID? You can't link a BLS search that you've performed.

i am trying again, this is why I didn't post the 15 years in the first place it wouldn't come up but that didn't stop someone from inferring I was being dishonest.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Thank you. It worked that time and the numbers come up as I suspected.

Jan 2001: 64.4
Jan 2009: 60.6
Mar 2015: 59.3

A drop of 3.8 under Bush and a drop of 1.3 under Obama.

I stand corrected. Obama had more opportunity for improvement.

so using your own stats provided by the BLS you're admitting BLS unemployment #'s are correct?

good boy.

 

[Clementine]

Links provided for discussion.

RECORD 93,175,000 AMERICANS NOT WORKING...
Record 12,202,000 Blacks Not In Labor Force...
Record 56,131,000 Women...
January, February jobs numbers revised down dramatically...
Fed Cuts Growth Forecast to ZERO...

This is what the left calls success. More people turning to government. That is what they want.