Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The BLS has a very narrow definition of "unemployed". While that is fine when you compare that rate over time and see it shoot up in a recession, then slowly float down afterwards, I have not seen anyone calculate this simple ratio: number of people employed divided by total population.
I am using the number of employed persons by the BLS and the population age 18-64 by the census bureau as of year-end 2014.
One problem is that people between 55 and 64 can retire and I'm not able to locate that data. It would reduce the 26% figure somewhat. On the other hand, people are counted as "employed" even if they work just 5 hours a week, which is silly. People who work part-time but would like full-time work should be counted as 1/2 employed. So I think the early retirees and involuntary part-timers should cancel each other out. Round this off to 25% if you want. Point is, that is a HUGE number.
I think it is just absolutely terrible that 1 in 4 working age Americans does not have a job. While some are independently wealthy, those are very few in number. Some don't need to work because they live in a household with someone else who earns enough to run the household. That's not a large number of people.
The reason the official unemployment rate is so much lower is because it ignores people who are disabled, in prison, or unemployed but not looking for work. While I agree they are not in the labor force, it is nondebatable that they do exist and require resources.
Thoughts? Is 26% unemployment normal? Acceptable? Or disgusting?
I think it is just absolutely terrible that 1 in 4 working age Americans does not have a job. While some are independently wealthy, those are very few in number. Some don't need to work because they live in a household with someone else who earns enough to run the household. That's not a large number of people.
So how many is it? The ones that are independently wealthy, or homemakers, or students, or people who retired early, or people taking time for family issues, or slackers who don't want a job since living off parents, etc.
You say it isn't a large number so surely you know what it is, so curious how many we're talking.
How many people do you know who are homemakers? I don't know of anyone.
I will continue my research to find numbers for the people in the 26% who aren't in the government propaganda 5% unemployed, broken out by category. If someone else has the numbers handy, please post them here. Thanks!
The civilian labor force participation rate has dropped from about 66 1/2% in 2005 to 62 1/2% today. There is a long list of reasons why that happened. I'll list some:
* In the Great Recession, corporations trimmed an awful lot of deadwood. Those were unproductive, usually older workers who were both expensive and with obsolete job skills. An awful lot of those never re-entered the workforce. If they were married, they continued to sit on the sidelines since the only work they could get with their skill set and job history is low wage work.
* The "everybody is a unique snowflake" generation entering the labor force completely lacks the work ethic and 21st century job skills employers want to hire. Failed parenting. Failed school systems. Failed culture. The children of the Asian tiger parents are doing just fine. Junior is still sitting on his parents sofa playing video games and Junior's parents continue to enable it.
* The impact of automation.
* The impact of global competition.
* The permanent underclass problem. If you don't speak "American business English", can't write a coherent paragraph, can't perform even basic arithmetic, and you popped out 2 or 3 children by 2 or 3 different daddies, you're not going to get yourself onto a career track. Basically, we've written off the bottom 20% of the population as being unemployable.
One thing I don't like about "labor force participation rate" is that it goes down when people retire. This makes no sense. Why doesn't the government exclude retirees? You can't both retire and work. They are mutually exclusive.
Is it because they would have to admit that the real unemployment rate is 25%?
How many people do you know who are homemakers? I don't know of anyone.
So what is your point here? Are you thinking that since you don't know any homemakers they don't exist? Nobody is a stay at home Mom, like when you stop by the grocery store at lunch time and see women pushing around strollers with kids they are all actually on their lunch break from their full time jobs and have the kids with them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Oakwood
I will continue my research to find numbers for the people in the 26% who aren't in the government propaganda 5% unemployed, broken out by category. If someone else has the numbers handy, please post them here. Thanks!
That is strange then, you rolled into this thread confidently titled as "real unemployment rate" but apparently you are in the midst of research and have no idea what the real numbers are.
Quote:
Why doesn't the government exclude retirees? You can't both retire and work. They are mutually exclusive.
What? Why do you think retirees are included in the labor force? Here:
"Labor Force - A term used by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to describe the subset of Americans who have jobs or are seeking a job, are at least 16 years old, are not serving in the military and are not institutionalized. In other words, all Americans who are eligible to work in the everyday U.S. economy."
Retirees are neither working or seeking work, right?
One thing I don't like about "labor force participation rate" is that it goes down when people retire. This makes no sense. Why doesn't the government exclude retirees? You can't both retire and work. They are mutually exclusive.
Is it because they would have to admit that the real unemployment rate is 25%?
The thing you fail to understand is that the United States has a labor shortage. The problem is that there is a complete mismatch between the skill set (or lack thereof) of the people not working and what employers want to hire. At this point, the country probably has 20% of the population that cannot be hired for anything but the most trivial minimum wage job and even then, much of that 20% would be fired shortly afterwards.
The U1 headline unemployment rate only counts recently unemployed people. For the most part, those are people who have at least some kind of chance of finding another job. That's about 5% of the labor force. At 5%, we're at full employment and hiring employers start seeing upwards wage pressure. Most of the long-term unemployed and non-working aren't qualified for any of those jobs.
That is strange then, you rolled into this thread confidently titled as "real unemployment rate" but apparently you are in the midst of research and have no idea what the real numbers are.
No, I was referring to breaking out by category those who are not in the labor force. I have the total numbers and that won't change by a category breakdown -- prison, homemaker, slacker, etc.
Quote:
What? Why do you think retirees are included in the labor force? Here:
"Labor Force - A term used by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to describe the subset of Americans who have jobs or are seeking a job, are at least 16 years old, are not serving in the military and are not institutionalized. In other words, all Americans who are eligible to work in the everyday U.S. economy."
Retirees are neither working or seeking work, right?
No, I said labor force participation rate, which is the ratio of the labor force to the total population. Retirees are not in the labor force but they are in the population. That is why the figure goes down when people retire.
The figure I used for the denominator is the population age 18-64 so that it excludes retirees (the mathematical equivalent of retired = dead). Granted not everyone who is 65+ is retired and some people under 65 are retired, which are numbers I am working on collecting.
The labor force participation rate is 63%, meaning that 37% of the 18+ population does not work. However, that figure includes retirees, and the retiree population is not small. It makes no sense to say "unemployment is 37%".
The thing you fail to understand is that the United States has a labor shortage. The problem is that there is a complete mismatch between the skill set (or lack thereof) of the people not working and what employers want to hire. At this point, the country probably has 20% of the population that cannot be hired for anything but the most trivial minimum wage job and even then, much of that 20% would be fired shortly afterwards.
The U1 headline unemployment rate only counts recently unemployed people. For the most part, those are people who have at least some kind of chance of finding another job. That's about 5% of the labor force. At 5%, we're at full employment and hiring employers start seeing upwards wage pressure. Most of the long-term unemployed and non-working aren't qualified for any of those jobs.
Absolutely. What I am saying is that when the government brags about a "5% unemployment rate" it's a farce.
What's so hilarious about it? If labor force participation were 2%, would you feel good? Or would you be planting a garden because of massive starvation?
Because it is the last desperate straw for the pessimists to grasp at. Our economy is thoroughly strong today, and it is hilarious that the doomsday people need to bring up our slowly declining labor force participation rate for their fix.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
