Unemployment Rises to 6.2%

[Dad2three]

It's not due to Boomer Retirement:

...the U.S. has had over 3 million high school graduates every year during the Obama administration --- those who would be potentially entering the work force for the very first time, even if they go on to also enroll in college.

So on average, theoretically, the U.S. would need to have 3 million retirees and disabled people every year going on the Social Security "dole" to necessarily break even on the labor force participation rate. But that hasn't been happening.

According to data from the Social Security Administration, as of January 2009 when Obama first took office, the U.S. had a total of 39,927,185 retired and disabled workers receiving a monthly Social Security benefit --- 32,484,808 retired and 7,442,377 disabled.

Almost 5 years later, as of November 2013, the U.S. had a total of 46,775,537 retired and disabled workers --- 37,833,877 retired and 8,941,660 disabled --- for a net gain of 6,848,352 retired and disabled workers (5,349,069 that retired and 1,499,283 who were awarded on a disability claim).

* It's also worth noting that, while disability "claims" were up in the aftermath of the Great Recession, a Congressional Budget Office study says claims are always up during recessions. But actual disability "awards" are down. Source: SSA (See the full post with data here)

Social Security disability awards

As for the high school graduating classes of 2008 through 2013, the U.S. has had an estimated 15,403,905 high school graduates --- a difference of 8,555,553 who might otherwise be in the labor force when compared to the additional 6,848,352 retired and disabled workers during that same period of time.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that only 48.8 percent of the 3.2 million youth who graduated from high school (just from last year alone) were "in the labor force". In a 14-page report by Rutgers, they noted a whopping 44% of high school students were unemployed ----- meaning:

Since Obama's first year in office, the U.S. has had more "non-starters" than "quitters" in the labor force.

Last year, in a study by the Kansas City Fed (that the Wall Street Journal had cited) they reported:

"An analysis of labor market data suggests that there are no structural changes that can explain movements in unemployment rates over recent years. Neither industrial nor demographic shifts nor a mismatch of skills with job vacancies is behind the increased rates of unemployment."...

Falsely Blaming Baby Boomers for Smaller Labor Force | Bud Meyers

Baby Boomers' Impact on Participation Rate Big, Expected

Retirements account for nearly half of the fall in the participation rate

Baby Boomers Are a Big Part of Labor Participation Rate Decline - US News

 

[1776]

Well....lookie here......the UE rate went up when some people decided to quit being counted on the "not looking for work" list....thus Obama's goons have to count them now against the UE rate.

The UE rate falling was always a scam.

 

[boedicca]

It's not due to Boomer Retirement:

...the U.S. has had over 3 million high school graduates every year during the Obama administration --- those who would be potentially entering the work force for the very first time, even if they go on to also enroll in college.

So on average, theoretically, the U.S. would need to have 3 million retirees and disabled people every year going on the Social Security "dole" to necessarily break even on the labor force participation rate. But that hasn't been happening.

According to data from the Social Security Administration, as of January 2009 when Obama first took office, the U.S. had a total of 39,927,185 retired and disabled workers receiving a monthly Social Security benefit --- 32,484,808 retired and 7,442,377 disabled.

Almost 5 years later, as of November 2013, the U.S. had a total of 46,775,537 retired and disabled workers --- 37,833,877 retired and 8,941,660 disabled --- for a net gain of 6,848,352 retired and disabled workers (5,349,069 that retired and 1,499,283 who were awarded on a disability claim).

* It's also worth noting that, while disability "claims" were up in the aftermath of the Great Recession, a Congressional Budget Office study says claims are always up during recessions. But actual disability "awards" are down. Source: SSA (See the full post with data here)

Social Security disability awards

As for the high school graduating classes of 2008 through 2013, the U.S. has had an estimated 15,403,905 high school graduates --- a difference of 8,555,553 who might otherwise be in the labor force when compared to the additional 6,848,352 retired and disabled workers during that same period of time.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that only 48.8 percent of the 3.2 million youth who graduated from high school (just from last year alone) were "in the labor force". In a 14-page report by Rutgers, they noted a whopping 44% of high school students were unemployed ----- meaning:

Since Obama's first year in office, the U.S. has had more "non-starters" than "quitters" in the labor force.

Last year, in a study by the Kansas City Fed (that the Wall Street Journal had cited) they reported:

"An analysis of labor market data suggests that there are no structural changes that can explain movements in unemployment rates over recent years. Neither industrial nor demographic shifts nor a mismatch of skills with job vacancies is behind the increased rates of unemployment."...

Falsely Blaming Baby Boomers for Smaller Labor Force | Bud Meyers

Baby Boomers' Impact on Participation Rate Big, Expected

Retirements account for nearly half of the fall in the participation rate

Baby Boomers Are a Big Part of Labor Participation Rate Decline - US News

I provided the stats that show this claim is false, but I understand how comparing numbers would overwhelm you.

 

[1776]

Add on the millions of Americans out of work with the millions of illegals and those Obama wants to keep adding from the illegals pool....that is a disaster in the making....to "remake America."

Hope and Change....

 

[Peach]

Did Bush ever see six straight months of 200,000+ jobs?

Obama has added more jobs in the last six months than Bush did in eight years

More are looking, and the recovery is slow, no question.

 

[edthecynic]

It's not due to Boomer Retirement:

...the U.S. has had over 3 million high school graduates every year during the Obama administration --- those who would be potentially entering the work force for the very first time, even if they go on to also enroll in college.

So on average, theoretically, the U.S. would need to have 3 million retirees and disabled people every year going on the Social Security "dole" to necessarily break even on the labor force participation rate. But that hasn't been happening.

According to data from the Social Security Administration, as of January 2009 when Obama first took office, the U.S. had a total of 39,927,185 retired and disabled workers receiving a monthly Social Security benefit --- 32,484,808 retired and 7,442,377 disabled.

Almost 5 years later, as of November 2013, the U.S. had a total of 46,775,537 retired and disabled workers --- 37,833,877 retired and 8,941,660 disabled --- for a net gain of 6,848,352 retired and disabled workers (5,349,069 that retired and 1,499,283 who were awarded on a disability claim).

* It's also worth noting that, while disability "claims" were up in the aftermath of the Great Recession, a Congressional Budget Office study says claims are always up during recessions. But actual disability "awards" are down. Source: SSA (See the full post with data here)

Social Security disability awards

As for the high school graduating classes of 2008 through 2013, the U.S. has had an estimated 15,403,905 high school graduates --- a difference of 8,555,553 who might otherwise be in the labor force when compared to the additional 6,848,352 retired and disabled workers during that same period of time.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that only 48.8 percent of the 3.2 million youth who graduated from high school (just from last year alone) were "in the labor force". In a 14-page report by Rutgers, they noted a whopping 44% of high school students were unemployed ----- meaning:

Since Obama's first year in office, the U.S. has had more "non-starters" than "quitters" in the labor force.

Last year, in a study by the Kansas City Fed (that the Wall Street Journal had cited) they reported:

"An analysis of labor market data suggests that there are no structural changes that can explain movements in unemployment rates over recent years. Neither industrial nor demographic shifts nor a mismatch of skills with job vacancies is behind the increased rates of unemployment."...

Falsely Blaming Baby Boomers for Smaller Labor Force | Bud Meyers

WOW! His numbers are way off on everything!

First of all, he doesn't count the number of people who leave the labor force or the Social Security rolls because they died. If he were honest, he would have used the number of new SS retiree awards each year rather than the total remaining each year after the dead are subtracted, as he did. He had a net gain of 5,349,069 that retired using that dishonest method of calculating the number of workers who left the workforce due to retirement. Whereas there were 2,740,917 who retired in 2009, and 2,635,330 in 2010, 2,598,067 in 2011, 2,744,110 in 2012 and 2,804,499 in 2013 for a total of 13,522,923 newly retired workers for the same 5 years he used. He did the same thing with the disabled.

You can confirm my numbers here:

Beneficiary Data

The students was another phony calculation, he uses the entire number of graduating HS students as entering the workforce to compare to his phony number of new retirees, but his own source admits only 48% of HS graduates enter the workforce! Obviously many get married or go to college, etc., rather than enter the workforce!

 

[edthecynic]

It's not due to Boomer Retirement:

...the U.S. has had over 3 million high school graduates every year during the Obama administration --- those who would be potentially entering the work force for the very first time, even if they go on to also enroll in college.

So on average, theoretically, the U.S. would need to have 3 million retirees and disabled people every year going on the Social Security "dole" to necessarily break even on the labor force participation rate. But that hasn't been happening.

According to data from the Social Security Administration, as of January 2009 when Obama first took office, the U.S. had a total of 39,927,185 retired and disabled workers receiving a monthly Social Security benefit --- 32,484,808 retired and 7,442,377 disabled.

Almost 5 years later, as of November 2013, the U.S. had a total of 46,775,537 retired and disabled workers --- 37,833,877 retired and 8,941,660 disabled --- for a net gain of 6,848,352 retired and disabled workers (5,349,069 that retired and 1,499,283 who were awarded on a disability claim).

* It's also worth noting that, while disability "claims" were up in the aftermath of the Great Recession, a Congressional Budget Office study says claims are always up during recessions. But actual disability "awards" are down. Source: SSA (See the full post with data here)

Social Security disability awards

As for the high school graduating classes of 2008 through 2013, the U.S. has had an estimated 15,403,905 high school graduates --- a difference of 8,555,553 who might otherwise be in the labor force when compared to the additional 6,848,352 retired and disabled workers during that same period of time.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that only 48.8 percent of the 3.2 million youth who graduated from high school (just from last year alone) were "in the labor force". In a 14-page report by Rutgers, they noted a whopping 44% of high school students were unemployed ----- meaning:

Since Obama's first year in office, the U.S. has had more "non-starters" than "quitters" in the labor force.

Last year, in a study by the Kansas City Fed (that the Wall Street Journal had cited) they reported:

"An analysis of labor market data suggests that there are no structural changes that can explain movements in unemployment rates over recent years. Neither industrial nor demographic shifts nor a mismatch of skills with job vacancies is behind the increased rates of unemployment."...

Falsely Blaming Baby Boomers for Smaller Labor Force | Bud Meyers

Baby Boomers' Impact on Participation Rate Big, Expected

Retirements account for nearly half of the fall in the participation rate

Baby Boomers Are a Big Part of Labor Participation Rate Decline - US News

I provided the stats that show this claim is false, but I understand how comparing numbers would overwhelm you.

No, you provided phony stats that were chosen to deliberately mislead the gullible and you swallowed them whole without thinking or checking.

 

[boedicca]

It's not due to Boomer Retirement:

...the U.S. has had over 3 million high school graduates every year during the Obama administration --- those who would be potentially entering the work force for the very first time, even if they go on to also enroll in college.

So on average, theoretically, the U.S. would need to have 3 million retirees and disabled people every year going on the Social Security "dole" to necessarily break even on the labor force participation rate. But that hasn't been happening.

According to data from the Social Security Administration, as of January 2009 when Obama first took office, the U.S. had a total of 39,927,185 retired and disabled workers receiving a monthly Social Security benefit --- 32,484,808 retired and 7,442,377 disabled.

Almost 5 years later, as of November 2013, the U.S. had a total of 46,775,537 retired and disabled workers --- 37,833,877 retired and 8,941,660 disabled --- for a net gain of 6,848,352 retired and disabled workers (5,349,069 that retired and 1,499,283 who were awarded on a disability claim).

* It's also worth noting that, while disability "claims" were up in the aftermath of the Great Recession, a Congressional Budget Office study says claims are always up during recessions. But actual disability "awards" are down. Source: SSA (See the full post with data here)

Social Security disability awards

As for the high school graduating classes of 2008 through 2013, the U.S. has had an estimated 15,403,905 high school graduates --- a difference of 8,555,553 who might otherwise be in the labor force when compared to the additional 6,848,352 retired and disabled workers during that same period of time.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that only 48.8 percent of the 3.2 million youth who graduated from high school (just from last year alone) were "in the labor force". In a 14-page report by Rutgers, they noted a whopping 44% of high school students were unemployed ----- meaning:

Since Obama's first year in office, the U.S. has had more "non-starters" than "quitters" in the labor force.

Last year, in a study by the Kansas City Fed (that the Wall Street Journal had cited) they reported:

"An analysis of labor market data suggests that there are no structural changes that can explain movements in unemployment rates over recent years. Neither industrial nor demographic shifts nor a mismatch of skills with job vacancies is behind the increased rates of unemployment."...

Falsely Blaming Baby Boomers for Smaller Labor Force | Bud Meyers

WOW! His numbers are way off on everything!

First of all, he doesn't count the number of people who leave the labor force or the Social Security rolls because they died. If he were honest, he would have used the number of new SS retiree awards each year rather than the total remaining each year after the dead are subtracted, as he did. He had a net gain of 5,349,069 that retired using that dishonest method of calculating the number of workers who left the workforce due to retirement. Whereas there were 2,740,917 who retired in 2009, and 2,635,330 in 2010, 2,598,067 in 2011, 2,744,110 in 2012 and 2,804,499 in 2013 for a total of 13,522,923 newly retired workers for the same 5 years he used. He did the same thing with the disabled.

You can confirm my numbers here:

Beneficiary Data

The students was another phony calculation, he uses the entire number of graduating HS students as entering the workforce to compare to his phony number of new retirees, but his own source admits only 48% of HS graduates enter the workforce! Obviously many get married or go to college, etc., rather than enter the workforce!

I used your source and confirmed that the net change in retirees as part of the population accounts for only 5.5M. Deaths are already netted out of the civilian pop stats, so your assessment is inaccurate.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/icp.html

 

[pinqy]

So sorry about your lack of math skillz.

I've posted the math already for the past year, but here's a little test:

(Not In The Labor Force + Unemployed) - Which number is bigger?

July 2013 - (90,062K + 11,408K) = 101,470K
July 2014 - (92,001K + 9,671K) = 101,672K

Right, so all that is is the number of people not working. 0.2 million more people who do not have jobs.

At the same time we look at employed:
July 2013 - 144,285,000
July 2013 - 146,352,000
So....Population increased 146,352,000 +92,001,000 + 9,671,000 - 146,221,000 - 90,062,000 - 11,408,000 = 2,269,000

Population increased 2.3 million.
Employed increased 2.1 million
and not employed increased 0.2 million.
Employed/population went from 58.7% to 59%

Why do you think that the increase of 0.2 million people not working shows the labor market as being worse, despite the 2.1 million increase in employed and the increase in the employment population ratio.

And the employment to population ratio shows that you were mistaken in your claim that jobs weren't keeping up with population growth. It exceeded it.

Labor Force Participation Rate - Which number is bigger?

July 2013 - 63.4%
July 2014 - 62.9%

Why is it lower? The Participation rate is (Employed + Unemployed)/Population.
As we've already seen, population went up 2.3 million and Employment went up 2.1 million and Unemployed went down 1.7 million. So the drop in labor force participation was entirely from fewer unemployed.

Oh...."but if those unemployed still want a job and are just not being counted when they should, then the decrease in unemployed is bad." (I hear you say)

So what's the change in those not in the labor force who want a job?
Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now:
July 2013: 6,562,000
July 2014: 6,259,000
Change of -303,000

So while the number of people not in the labor force increased 1.9 million, the number of people not in the labor force who DO NOT want a job went up 2.2 million.

Is that a bad reason for participation to go down? Fewer people want to work?

We aren't making progress on reducing the number of un/under employed and discouraged workers.

Discouraged workers
July 2013: 988,000
July 2014: 741,000
So you do not consider a change of -247,000 a reduction?

Underemployed isn't really measured (because there's no useful or objective definition), so the closest we have is Part Time for Economic Reasons: People who want to and are available to work 35+ hours/week but worked less than 35 hours due to cut hours from slow or slack business or inability to find full time job.
July 2013: 8,180,000
July 2014: 7,511,000
You do not consider a change of -669,000 a reduction?


It seems to me that you thought that Not in the Labor Force meant "Left the Labor Force" and/or that it was only discouraged or some other negative thing.

 

[Bush92]

Wow, 6.2%. I did not think the economy Was doing that good. Hence we should only have 6.2% of the people on welfare...right?

 

[Bush92]

What was that? How many people on food stamps? 20%? But how can that be?

 

[Sallow]

What was that? How many people on food stamps? 20%? But how can that be?

You really have to ask that question?

United States - Top countries for billionaires - CNNMoney
The World's Billionaires - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have the most billionaires..meaning the most concentrated wealth in the world.

That's the fault of conservatives who believe that wealth = power and wealth is god's plan.

 

[boedicca]

So sorry about your lack of math skillz.

I've posted the math already for the past year, but here's a little test:

(Not In The Labor Force + Unemployed) - Which number is bigger?

July 2013 - (90,062K + 11,408K) = 101,470K
July 2014 - (92,001K + 9,671K) = 101,672K

Right, so all that is is the number of people not working. 0.2 million more people who do not have jobs.

At the same time we look at employed:
July 2013 - 144,285,000
July 2013 - 146,352,000
So....Population increased 146,352,000 +92,001,000 + 9,671,000 - 146,221,000 - 90,062,000 - 11,408,000 = 2,269,000

Population increased 2.3 million.
Employed increased 2.1 million
and not employed increased 0.2 million.
Employed/population went from 58.7% to 59%

Why do you think that the increase of 0.2 million people not working shows the labor market as being worse, despite the 2.1 million increase in employed and the increase in the employment population ratio.

And the employment to population ratio shows that you were mistaken in your claim that jobs weren't keeping up with population growth. It exceeded it.

Labor Force Participation Rate - Which number is bigger?

July 2013 - 63.4%
July 2014 - 62.9%

Why is it lower? The Participation rate is (Employed + Unemployed)/Population.
As we've already seen, population went up 2.3 million and Employment went up 2.1 million and Unemployed went down 1.7 million. So the drop in labor force participation was entirely from fewer unemployed.

Oh...."but if those unemployed still want a job and are just not being counted when they should, then the decrease in unemployed is bad." (I hear you say)

So what's the change in those not in the labor force who want a job?
Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now:
July 2013: 6,562,000
July 2014: 6,259,000
Change of -303,000

So while the number of people not in the labor force increased 1.9 million, the number of people not in the labor force who DO NOT want a job went up 2.2 million.

Is that a bad reason for participation to go down? Fewer people want to work?

We aren't making progress on reducing the number of un/under employed and discouraged workers.

Discouraged workers
July 2013: 988,000
July 2014: 741,000
So you do not consider a change of -247,000 a reduction?

Underemployed isn't really measured (because there's no useful or objective definition), so the closest we have is Part Time for Economic Reasons: People who want to and are available to work 35+ hours/week but worked less than 35 hours due to cut hours from slow or slack business or inability to find full time job.
July 2013: 8,180,000
July 2014: 7,511,000
You do not consider a change of -669,000 a reduction?


It seems to me that you thought that Not in the Labor Force meant "Left the Labor Force" and/or that it was only discouraged or some other negative thing.

Again. Job creation is barely keeping up with population growth, and we are not making a dent in the millions of people who are un and underemployed, and who have given up.

 

[edthecynic]

It's not due to Boomer Retirement:

...the U.S. has had over 3 million high school graduates every year during the Obama administration --- those who would be potentially entering the work force for the very first time, even if they go on to also enroll in college.

So on average, theoretically, the U.S. would need to have 3 million retirees and disabled people every year going on the Social Security "dole" to necessarily break even on the labor force participation rate. But that hasn't been happening.

According to data from the Social Security Administration, as of January 2009 when Obama first took office, the U.S. had a total of 39,927,185 retired and disabled workers receiving a monthly Social Security benefit --- 32,484,808 retired and 7,442,377 disabled.

Almost 5 years later, as of November 2013, the U.S. had a total of 46,775,537 retired and disabled workers --- 37,833,877 retired and 8,941,660 disabled --- for a net gain of 6,848,352 retired and disabled workers (5,349,069 that retired and 1,499,283 who were awarded on a disability claim).

* It's also worth noting that, while disability "claims" were up in the aftermath of the Great Recession, a Congressional Budget Office study says claims are always up during recessions. But actual disability "awards" are down. Source: SSA (See the full post with data here)

Social Security disability awards

As for the high school graduating classes of 2008 through 2013, the U.S. has had an estimated 15,403,905 high school graduates --- a difference of 8,555,553 who might otherwise be in the labor force when compared to the additional 6,848,352 retired and disabled workers during that same period of time.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that only 48.8 percent of the 3.2 million youth who graduated from high school (just from last year alone) were "in the labor force". In a 14-page report by Rutgers, they noted a whopping 44% of high school students were unemployed ----- meaning:

Since Obama's first year in office, the U.S. has had more "non-starters" than "quitters" in the labor force.

Last year, in a study by the Kansas City Fed (that the Wall Street Journal had cited) they reported:

"An analysis of labor market data suggests that there are no structural changes that can explain movements in unemployment rates over recent years. Neither industrial nor demographic shifts nor a mismatch of skills with job vacancies is behind the increased rates of unemployment."...

Falsely Blaming Baby Boomers for Smaller Labor Force | Bud Meyers

WOW! His numbers are way off on everything!

First of all, he doesn't count the number of people who leave the labor force or the Social Security rolls because they died. If he were honest, he would have used the number of new SS retiree awards each year rather than the total remaining each year after the dead are subtracted, as he did. He had a net gain of 5,349,069 that retired using that dishonest method of calculating the number of workers who left the workforce due to retirement. Whereas there were 2,740,917 who retired in 2009, and 2,635,330 in 2010, 2,598,067 in 2011, 2,744,110 in 2012 and 2,804,499 in 2013 for a total of 13,522,923 newly retired workers for the same 5 years he used. He did the same thing with the disabled.

You can confirm my numbers here:

Beneficiary Data

The students was another phony calculation, he uses the entire number of graduating HS students as entering the workforce to compare to his phony number of new retirees, but his own source admits only 48% of HS graduates enter the workforce! Obviously many get married or go to college, etc., rather than enter the workforce!

I used your source and confirmed that the net change in retirees as part of the population accounts for only 5.5M. Deaths are already netted out of the civilian pop stats, so your assessment is inaccurate.

Benefits in current payment status

You simply did the same dishonest thing your source did. Since it was dishonest for him it is still dishonest for you. Your own source says "So on average, theoretically, the U.S. would need to have 3 million retirees and disabled people every year going on the Social Security "dole" to necessarily break even on the labor force participation rate." So it is the number of NEW people entering the rolls each year, not the dishonest and deliberately misleading net change.

 

[boedicca]

WOW! His numbers are way off on everything!

First of all, he doesn't count the number of people who leave the labor force or the Social Security rolls because they died. If he were honest, he would have used the number of new SS retiree awards each year rather than the total remaining each year after the dead are subtracted, as he did. He had a net gain of 5,349,069 that retired using that dishonest method of calculating the number of workers who left the workforce due to retirement. Whereas there were 2,740,917 who retired in 2009, and 2,635,330 in 2010, 2,598,067 in 2011, 2,744,110 in 2012 and 2,804,499 in 2013 for a total of 13,522,923 newly retired workers for the same 5 years he used. He did the same thing with the disabled.

You can confirm my numbers here:

Beneficiary Data

The students was another phony calculation, he uses the entire number of graduating HS students as entering the workforce to compare to his phony number of new retirees, but his own source admits only 48% of HS graduates enter the workforce! Obviously many get married or go to college, etc., rather than enter the workforce!

I used your source and confirmed that the net change in retirees as part of the population accounts for only 5.5M. Deaths are already netted out of the civilian pop stats, so your assessment is inaccurate.

Benefits in current payment status

You simply did the same dishonest thing your source did. Since it was dishonest for him it is still dishonest for you. Your own source says "So on average, theoretically, the U.S. would need to have 3 million retirees and disabled people every year going on the Social Security "dole" to necessarily break even on the labor force participation rate." So it is the number of NEW people entering the rolls each year, not the dishonest and deliberately misleading net change.

Uh. Moron.

I used the Total Retirees Receiving SS at the source you provided.

You are the one being dishonest about the relative impact of retirees on unemployment. If more people were Retiring and DYING than were entering the work force, the overall labor force and civilian population figures would be declining. They're not.

So sorry that the math eludes you.

 

[edthecynic]

So sorry about your lack of math skillz.

I've posted the math already for the past year, but here's a little test:

(Not In The Labor Force + Unemployed) - Which number is bigger?

July 2013 - (90,062K + 11,408K) = 101,470K
July 2014 - (92,001K + 9,671K) = 101,672K

Right, so all that is is the number of people not working. 0.2 million more people who do not have jobs.

At the same time we look at employed:
July 2013 - 144,285,000
July 2013 - 146,352,000
So....Population increased 146,352,000 +92,001,000 + 9,671,000 - 146,221,000 - 90,062,000 - 11,408,000 = 2,269,000

Population increased 2.3 million.
Employed increased 2.1 million
and not employed increased 0.2 million.
Employed/population went from 58.7% to 59%

Why do you think that the increase of 0.2 million people not working shows the labor market as being worse, despite the 2.1 million increase in employed and the increase in the employment population ratio.

And the employment to population ratio shows that you were mistaken in your claim that jobs weren't keeping up with population growth. It exceeded it.

Why is it lower? The Participation rate is (Employed + Unemployed)/Population.
As we've already seen, population went up 2.3 million and Employment went up 2.1 million and Unemployed went down 1.7 million. So the drop in labor force participation was entirely from fewer unemployed.

Oh...."but if those unemployed still want a job and are just not being counted when they should, then the decrease in unemployed is bad." (I hear you say)

So what's the change in those not in the labor force who want a job?
Not in the Labor Force, Want a Job Now:
July 2013: 6,562,000
July 2014: 6,259,000
Change of -303,000

So while the number of people not in the labor force increased 1.9 million, the number of people not in the labor force who DO NOT want a job went up 2.2 million.

Is that a bad reason for participation to go down? Fewer people want to work?

We aren't making progress on reducing the number of un/under employed and discouraged workers.

Discouraged workers
July 2013: 988,000
July 2014: 741,000
So you do not consider a change of -247,000 a reduction?

Underemployed isn't really measured (because there's no useful or objective definition), so the closest we have is Part Time for Economic Reasons: People who want to and are available to work 35+ hours/week but worked less than 35 hours due to cut hours from slow or slack business or inability to find full time job.
July 2013: 8,180,000
July 2014: 7,511,000
You do not consider a change of -669,000 a reduction?


It seems to me that you thought that Not in the Labor Force meant "Left the Labor Force" and/or that it was only discouraged or some other negative thing.

Again. Job creation is barely keeping up with population growth, and we are not making a dent in the millions of people who are un and underemployed, and who have given up.

No matter how many times you repeat it, it is still not true.

 

[boedicca]

You truly are dense.

The population is growing.
The absolute amount of the labor force is growing (while the ratio is declining).

If more people were retiring and dying than the amount of new entrants into the labor force, there would be a declining labor force. That is not what is happening.

It's a shame you are such a brain washed moron that you cannot even do math.

 

[edthecynic]

I used your source and confirmed that the net change in retirees as part of the population accounts for only 5.5M. Deaths are already netted out of the civilian pop stats, so your assessment is inaccurate.

Benefits in current payment status

You simply did the same dishonest thing your source did. Since it was dishonest for him it is still dishonest for you. Your own source says "So on average, theoretically, the U.S. would need to have 3 million retirees and disabled people every year going on the Social Security "dole" to necessarily break even on the labor force participation rate." So it is the number of NEW people entering the rolls each year, not the dishonest and deliberately misleading net change.

Uh. Moron.

I used the Total Retirees Receiving SS at the source you provided.

You are the one being dishonest about the relative impact of retirees on unemployment.

But it is not the total retirees but the NEW retirees and disabled each year "going on the dole" that your own source says is the number that counts.

From your own source:

"So on average, theoretically, the U.S. would need to have 3 million retirees and disabled people every year going on the Social Security "dole" to necessarily break even on the labor force participation rate."

 

[Bush92]

What would unemployment be if had all those jobs back from China? Thought the Democrats were supposed to fight for the American worker? Oh, I forgot, Harry Reid's son works for Chinese company. Aw man...**** me. What? Clinton signed NAFTA with heavy Democratic Party support. Aw man...**** me. What?Democrats have created thousands of government jobs? But what about private sector jobs? Aw man...**** me. Democrats don't create jobs. Well, if things are bad, better have Obama bring in millions of more immigrants to feed.

 

[boedicca]

You simply did the same dishonest thing your source did. Since it was dishonest for him it is still dishonest for you. Your own source says "So on average, theoretically, the U.S. would need to have 3 million retirees and disabled people every year going on the Social Security "dole" to necessarily break even on the labor force participation rate." So it is the number of NEW people entering the rolls each year, not the dishonest and deliberately misleading net change.

Uh. Moron.

I used the Total Retirees Receiving SS at the source you provided.

You are the one being dishonest about the relative impact of retirees on unemployment.

But it is not the total retirees but the NEW retirees and disabled each year "going on the dole" that your own source says is the number that counts.

From your own source:

"So on average, theoretically, the U.S. would need to have 3 million retirees and disabled people every year going on the Social Security "dole" to necessarily break even on the labor force participation rate."

I stand by the math that I did with the figures you provided.

If you can't see that that the Labor Force is Growing despite retirees and deaths, that's your problem not mine.