You will believe the government, but not Shadowstats. This clearly indicates you need help. You WANT to believe propaganda and denigrate the truth. Sadly, there are too many Americans like you.
I guess the Participation Rate means nothing to you. Statist dupes...they are everywhere.
The LFPR started ascending in the early 60's as baby boomers began reaching working age; and began descending when they started hitting retirement age.
... to wingnuts, this is rocket science.
The mammoth effort of Progressives to live in a world of untruths is awesome to behold.
Here...AGAIN we have Progressives pointing to baby boomers who are retiring...though more are working later in life.
What they want you to ignore is that tens of thousands of SIXTEEN YEAR OLDS ENTER THE JOB MARKET EVERY DAY.
Cute try but...FAILURE AGAIN FOR MY GOOD FRIENDS THE PROGRESSIVES.
Poor try. Failure again for you, dipshit. And I am not a friend of yours, either good or bad. Because I dislike liars. What you ignore, of course, is that Millions of older workers retire every single month. Older retirements are increasing much faster than new entrants are entering the work force. Which you would know if you read the information available to you. But then, as a con troll, you do not like facts.
Don't be a Markle. Millions of seniors are not retiring every month.
Last year, there were slightly more than a million for the entire year.
2014: 39,008,771
2015: 40,089,061
Social Security Beneficiary Statistics
Total increase of folks retiring and collecting SS was 1,080,290 for the year ... or about 90,024 per month.
How many wouldn't retire, if they had access to good paying jobs?
We will never know for sure, but certainly a good many would stay in the work force rather than take social security and retire.
Only a dunce would think nearly 100 million Americans of working age not working, is acceptable and does not affect unemployment.
Actually, only a dunce would say something like what you just said. With no source to back you up. No link, but simply asking people to believe you. You, a person with a really obvious agenda.
Imagine what you could learn if you studied the subject, like actually spent a little time going to impartial sources that had people who had the ability and time to actually STUDY the subject instead of people like you who have no background but lots of agenda.
You see, me boy, the retirement percentage is thought to be largely because people CAN retire. There is health care at reasonable costs prior to medicare age. People largely do not have to wait for medicare, and have to work in order to remain covered.
I know you believe that people are retiring because they can not find a job, which is and has always been true. Perhaps you have not been over 60 looking for a job yet. It is not a pleasant place to be, me boy. Suddenly, for millions, they are in a position of having to settle for much less attractive jobs, making retirement seem like a better option.
But we all understand your agenda. Truth is of no value to you. Which is why you provide no link to independent and impartial information supporting you drivel. Making you irrelevant.
"The same day, RNC Chairman Priebus
issued a statement warning that the “unemployment rate masks the low labor force participation rate” and said that “in the Obama economy” the “percentage of Americans in the labor force has shrunk to levels not seen since the 1970s.”
Priebus, March 6: We also can’t forget that the unemployment rate masks the low labor force participation rate. Too many Americans have given up and stopped looking for work altogether. In fact, in the Obama economy the percentage of Americans in the labor force has shrunk to levels not seen since the 1970s.
That message was echoed by Sen. Graham two days later on
NBC’s Meet the Press, when he said, “I think that the labor participation rate is at an all-time low.”
The labor force participation rate,
as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is “the percentage of the population [16 years and older] that is either employed or unemployed (that is, either working or actively seeking work).”
Graham, who is considering running for president, is wrong about the rate being at an all-time low. However, as Priebus said, it is at its lowest point since the 1970s — 1978 to be exact.
The following graph from BLS shows the civilian labor force participation rate between 1948 and 2015. As the graph shows, the participation rate in February 2015 (62.8 percent) is the lowest since March 1978. But
the rate was lower than that every month between 1948 and 1978.
The low point — according to historical data going back to 1948 — came in December 1954, when the rate was 58.1 percent.
As for Priebus tying the participation rate to the “Obama economy,” there’s more to that story as well.
The labor force participation rate has been declining for more than a decade, and economists predict it will continue to decline for the next decade and more.
Consider a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued in November 2006, more than two years before Obama took office and before the start of the Great Recession. It pegged the start of the decline in participation rates at around 2000, and projected the decline would continue for the next four decades.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2006: Every year after 2000, the rate declined gradually, from 66.8 percent in 2001 to 66.0 percent in 2004 and 2005. A
ccording to the BLS projections, the overall participation rate will continue its gradual decrease each decade and reach 60.4 percent in 2050.
Among the r
easons cited for the trend:
1) The aging of baby boomers. A lower percentage of older Americans choose to work than those who are middle-aged. And so as baby boomers approach retirement age, it lowers the labor force participation rate.
2) A decline in working women. The labor force participation rate for men has been declining since the 1950s. But for a couple decades, a rapid rise in working women more than offset that dip. Women’s labor force participation exploded from nearly 34 percent in 1950 to its peak of 60 percent in 1999. But since then, women’s participation rate has been “displaying a pattern of slow decline.”
3) More young people are going to college. As BLS noted, “Because students are less likely to participate in the labor force, increases in school attendance at the secondary and college levels and, especially, increases in school attendance during the summer, significantly reduce the labor force participation rate of youths.”
So no matter who was president, and independent of the health of the economy, BLS projected in 2006 that labor force participation rates were going to go down.
Declining Labor Participation Rates
Or, another expert description of the participation rate:
"It
was common for boomers to postpone retirement during and immediately following the downturn, but they have gradually begun leaving the domestic labor market. About half of 63-year-old boomers were no longer in the workforce in 2014, according to a recent
Gallup study. By the age of 68, less than a third of boomers were still in the labor market.
It's also important to note that the percentage of older workers participating in the labor market started climbing in the mid-1990s, well before the Dot Com bubble crashed and the Great Recession walloped Americans' nest eggs. The narrative that older workers are still reluctant to retire solely because of the Great Recession just isn't as applicable as it was a few years ago.
"What that means is the low levels of participation we see today are not primarily due to the economic cycle. They're due to a much longer lasting demographic influence," Wolfers said. "It's actually something that's going to continue over the next decade"
Where Are All the Workers?
Con tools love to blame supposed problems on Obama and dems, and so do exactly that. But if you actually use your mind to reason what is going on, you find that cons ar simply being cons, and their conclusions are, as usual, stupid.
