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.
Here is the E-pop information and LFPR.
Population numbers and employed/unemployed classifications then factor in. There are soft number areas, but it it is important to connect the dots.
This group consists of people who are classified as being either employed or unemployed.
A key item to note - you have to be actively looking for a job in order to be considered "unemployed".
....
First off, what is the "total non-institutionalized civilian population"?
This is the total population minus a few key groups, including:
-kids under the age of 16
-people in prisons or other institutions
-military personnel
I'm not sure if your post was a reply to my post or not.
I would point out for the purposes of calculating the LFPR there is no upper limit for the working age population. The working age qualification only eliminates younger people from the calculation.
Dont remember people whining about the number of people unemployed under Bush, when the rate was under 5%?
The broader measures of unemployment, the numbers people now like to call the real unemployment rates, were a lot higher than the U3 5%. It was over 10% and hit a high over 14%.
I'm not sure if your post was a reply to my post or not.
I would point out for the purposes of calculating the LFPR there is no upper limit for the working age population. The working age qualification only eliminates younger people from the calculation.
Not really a reply was just a clarification on the defs for people.
True. That one def I quoted a segment from referring to age, could be misread, though it is accurate. This is clearer.
From BLS glossary.
Employment-population ratio (Current Population Survey)
The proportion of the civilian noninstitutional population aged 16 years and over that is employed.
Civilian noninstitutional population (Current Population Survey)
Included are persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.
We are currently in a market where a lot of people went back to college or became house moms and dads because they gave up looking for work.
Labor Participation Rate is hardly a partisan stat. It really doesn't discriminate at all. Bill Clinton oversaw the best 8 years of LPR in American history. Reagan and Bush Sr oversaw the most rapid increase in LPR in American history. George W comes away looking awful for losing 2% LPR in his 8 years in office. Saint Hope and Change Obama was supposed to make things better, but the LPR decline has accelerated since he took office and hasn't really slowed down.
The LFPR had an upward trend for multiple decades; regardless of market downs turns and recessions.
The LFPR started a downward trend during the George W Bush's administration because Baby boomers started reaching the age when they start to stop working.
The downward trend was predicted, prior to Obama entering office, to last for multiple decades.
Quote:
Obama pushed lot of incentives to encourage more people to go to college. He's gotten a pretty solid response. It's also moved a lot of people who cannot find work into the unemployment rate's blind spot. I know quite a few of them and they wouldn't be back in school if they hadn't lost their jobs in the first place. Every such person going back to college artificially boosts the UE rate.
Sally Smith might actually want to work, but gave up looking. So did Joe Blow. But the Unemployment rate can't see them. It hides people who have given up and stopped looking.
The number of people over 55 that are still working has shot up significantly. The percentage of Americans over 65 still working has doubled. Over 75 has tripled. You don't have to count anyone over a certain age (I believe it's 55 or 60) despite the fact that the number of that age-group still working is skyrocketing. Another huge blind spot.
There is no upper age limit for being included in the calculations.
While it is true that recently those over 55 have continued to work at rates higher than prior generations, their participation rates are well below what they were when they were younger than 55.
Bottom line, there is still a large drop off in participation as people age even if the measured drop isn't as large as it used to be.
Quote:
One of the most useful things about LPR: With things like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare, college tuition, operating costs for public schools and other public facilities, the LPR tells you the number of Americans who are actually footing the bill for all of it. The lower the LPR, the harder it is for taxpayers to afford everything.
That is about the only thing the LFPR is good for. The predicted decline in LFPR is why there has been an issue about funding Social Security in the future.
Quote:
LPR should be your baseline number for discussing things. It ignores nothing and just tells the straight story of how many working aged Americans have jobs. After that, feel free to bring in other statistics. UE rate is used by both parties because it paints a prettier picture, not because it is more accurate.
The LFPR is based on the same survey and data that are used to calculate the UE numbers.
The LFPR calculation uses the U3 number to count the unemployed. If the LFPR calculation used the broader U6 unemployment number, that accounts for some of those "blind spots", then the LFPR would actually move higher. Since U6 was 6.2% higher than the U3 number. If you count those 6.2% as participating then the LFPR would be 69.2% instead of 63%.
LFPR is just not a good statistic to determine the health of the employment situation. As you noted it is good at showing the burden of supporting those on Social Security and Medicare.
Dont remember people whining about the number of people unemployed under Bush, when the rate was under 5%?
And Bush had two recessions (one he didn't control because of the fact is it was months into his presidency before many of his plans could be put in place.) The 5% happened within those recessions. The first had a jobless recovery...
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth
The broader measures of unemployment, the numbers people now like to call the real unemployment rates, were a lot higher than the U3 5%. It was over 10% and hit a high over 14%.
That may be true, I don't recall because I wasn't really following politics (thanks being warn out at high school at the time.)
The LFPR had an upward trend for multiple decades; regardless of market downs turns and recessions.
Thank you for proving you have no idea what you're talking about.
The definition of "Employed" should be obvious, even to you.
The definition of "Unemployed" is based on a three-prong test:
1] Are you available to work?; and
2] Do you want to work?; and
3] Are you actively seeking work?
The definition of "actively seeking work" was changed in 1994 from having looked for a job in the last 12 months to having looked for a job in the last month --- the 4 week period prior to the survey date, which is the 16th of each month.
Q: Are you available to work?
A: No.
Then by definition you are not unemployed.
Q: Are you available to work?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you want to work?
A: No.
Then by definition you are not unemployed.
Q: Are you available to work?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you want to work?
A: Yes.
Q: Have you applied for a job in the last 4 weeks?
A: No.
Then by definition you are not unemployed.
UE Benefits are not now, and were never part of the equation.
Labor Force = Employed + Unemployed
155,046,000 = 144,775,000 + 10,271,000
You just got schooled.
The LFPR increased, due to the fact that women started entering the work-force in the mid-1970s.
Women were not part of the work-force prior to the mid-1970s. Women were home-makers and house-wives. A girl was graduated from high school at 17-18 years, took a job in clerical or some other work deemed "for women only", then got married and quit their jobs to raise the family. Women sometimes when back to work after the children left the nest.
That's how it worked.
Since the overwhelming vast majority of women answered "No" to...
Are you available to work?
Do you want to work?
Have you looked for work in the last 12 months?
....they were never part of the Labor Force.
When women started answering "Yes" to all 3 questions, they became part of the Labor Force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth
The LFPR started a downward trend during the George W Bush's administration because Baby boomers started reaching the age when they start to stop working.
Wrong....
Labor Force = Employed + Unemployed
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth
The downward trend was predicted, prior to Obama entering office, to last for multiple decades.
Wrong....and I challenge to cite a source to back up your ridiculous claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth
There is no upper age limit for being included in the calculations.
Wrong....
Labor Force = Employed + Unemployed
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth
While it is true that recently those over 55 have continued to work at rates higher than prior generations, their participation rates are well below what they were when they were younger than 55. Bottom line, there is still a large drop off in participation as people age even if the measured drop isn't as large as it used to be.
Wrong....
Labor Force = Employed + Unemployed
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth
That is about the only thing the LFPR is good for. The predicted decline in LFPR is why there has been an issue about funding Social Security in the future.
Wrong.....the E-Pop Ratio indicates that....the number of people working to support those who are not working.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth
The LFPR is based on the same survey and data that are used to calculate the UE numbers.
The LFPR calculation uses the U3 number to count the unemployed. If the LFPR calculation used the broader U6 unemployment number, that accounts for some of those "blind spots", then the LFPR would actually move higher. Since U6 was 6.2% higher than the U3 number. If you count those 6.2% as participating then the LFPR would be 69.2% instead of 63%.
Wrong....
Labor Force = Employed + Unemployed
As of December 6, 2013
155,046,000 = 144,775,000 + 10,271,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth
LFPR is just not a good statistic to determine the health of the employment situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth
What is the participation of someone in their 30s vs someone in their 50s? The participation rate declines as people get older. As the percentage of those over 50 increases the overall LFPR rate will tend to decline.
Bottom Line the LFPR is not a very useful statistic for determining the health of the employment situation.
Yes, it is. The fact that you don't understand it, and don't know how to interpret it, doesn't mean it is not a good statistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth
I would point out for the purposes of calculating the LFPR there is no upper limit for the working age population. The working age qualification only eliminates younger people from the calculation.
Wrong....
Labor Force = Employed + Unemployed
As of December 6, 2013
155,046,000 = 144,775,000 + 10,271,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth
Retiring Boomers are removed from the numerator portion, but remain in the denominator portion of the LFPR, which is why as the retire they will lower the LFPR. At least until they die or are institutionalized.
That pretty much ends the argument.
The numbers do not support your claims.
2012 November
Employed: 143,549,000
Full-Time: 115,515,000
Part-Time: 28,034,000
Not in Labor Force: 89,221,000
2013 November
Employed: 144,775,000
Full-Time: 116,875,000
Part-Time: 27,900,000
Not in Labor Force: 91,521,000
Difference
Employed: +1,206,000
Full-Time: +1,360,000
Part-Time: -134,000
Not in Labor Force: +2,300,000
Average: Note that November to November is 13 months
"Jobs created" per month = 92,769
"Full-Time Jobs created" per month = 104,615
"Part-Time Jobs Lost" per month = 10,307
People leaving the work-force per month = 176,923
I leave you with this reminder....
New York Times August 8, 2003
Employment grew by 126,000 jobs in October, the best showing in nine months, and job growth in August and September was stronger than the government initially estimated, the Labor Department reported yesterday. It was the greatest job growth over three months since late 2000. Still, the recent job gains remain modest by many measures. They are not large enough to keep up with the growth of the labor force over the long termand are far smaller than the average gain over the last 50 years when the economy was growing as rapidly as it has been recently. The economy must add about 150,000 jobs or more each month to keep up with population growth and bring down the jobless rate over a long period of time.
San Fransisco Chronicle, April 3, 2004
Total jobs outside the farm sector soared by 308,000, the Labor Department reported Friday, the biggest monthly gain since March 2000, when the air was just beginning to rush out of the Internet bubble. Still, some experts cautioned that one month of roaring payroll growth doesn’t mean that the labor market has been restored to full health. "It’s a bit too early to celebrate," said Wells Fargo economist Sung Won Sohn. "If you look at the average for the last eight months, it’s been only 95, 000 jobs per month. That’s far below the 150,000 to 200,000 we need to absorb the new entrants to the labor force."
Washington Post, September 4, 2004 Employers added 144,000 jobs to their non-farm payrolls in August on a seasonally adjusted basis, an improvement after two months in which job growth essentially stalled, but barely enough to keep pace with population growth. The nation needs to add about 150,000 jobs a month to keep pace with population growth, according to economists.
Los Angeles Times September 4, 2004
U.S. employers added a net 144,000 jobs to their payrolls in August and the nation’s unemployment rate dropped a notch to 5.4%. Employers need to add 125,000 to 150,000 net new jobs every month just to keep up with population growth, economists estimate.It would take even more growth to substantially reduce the unemployment rate, which climbed from 3.8% in April 2000 to a post-recession peak of 6.3% in June 2003.
The Boston Globe January 8, 2005
US employers boosted payrolls by 157,000 jobs in December, keeping the economy on a path of moderate expansion and completing the first year of job growth since 2000. The month’s job gains were slightly less than analysts expected, andjust enough to keep up with the natural growth of the labor force and prevent unemployment from rising.
Data collected on a telephone survey on the 16th of each month.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Unemployment rate should mean, "How many working aged Americans do not have jobs?"
Says who?
What if people don't want to work? Gonna put a gun to their head and force them to work anyway?
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
If for example Job Blow is a college student and Sally Smith is a housewife, the UE does not count them.
That's false, and obviously you're a false god, since you don't even understand how unemployment is calculated.
If they are working full-time or part-time, they are counted as employed.
If they are not working, but seeking work, and have sought work in the last 4 weeks prior to the survey, they are counted as unemployed.
If they are not working, and seeking work, but have not sought work in the last 4 weeks, then they are part of the
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Nevermind that Joe Blow only went back to college and Sally Smith became a housewife because both of them got laid off of work. Nevermind that both of them would rather have jobs. The UE ignores them. The UE ignores far too many people.
How would you know?
For the record, there are only 260,000 Americans who cannot work, because they are in school or training.
And for the record, there are only 238,000 Americans who cannot work, because they have family responsibilities.
That's barely 500,000 Americans.
You're going to have to find a better excuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj
Show me ONE place in history where people have demanded a livable wage to flip BURGERS or bag fries?
It's never happened because people didn't need (or expect) to work those jobs to survive. Those jobs were traditionally for kids, not adults trying to support a household.
Yeah? So what? That's life...get used to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
We are currently in a market where a lot of people went back to college or became house moms and dads because they gave up looking for work.
A lot of people?
Um, ~500,000 as I pointed out earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Labor Participation Rate is hardly a partisan stat.
Red Herring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Sally Smith might actually want to work, but gave up looking. So did Joe Blow. But the Unemployment rate can't see them. It hides people who have given up and stopped looking.
I guess your god powers aren't as good as mine, since I can see them, and they number 768,000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
I guess people suddenly got educated and became experts on UE data in 2009, no question the economy is bad but don't recall use work force participation rates and other data.
That's probably because you weren't paying attention.
God-busting...
Sure, but the Monthly jobs report shows the NET CHANGE in jobs - meaning the difference between jobs lost and jobs gained - NOT job openings because of RETIREMENTS. Thats why when there are major layoffs in a recession - like what what happened in 2008 and 2009 the monthly jobs report is a MINUS number and when there are job gains due to economic growth the monthly jobs report is a POSTITVE number.
It shows no such thing.
What it shows is net employed, not net jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Yes, 2 out of 3 job OPENINGS come from retiring boomers, but JOB OPENINGs due to retirements are NOT reflected in the monthly jobs report. ALL the month jobs report shows in the NET CHANGE in the NUMBER of jobs - meaning "after all the job openings left by retiring folks are filled - 200,000 ADDITIONAL jobs were created last month".
I never said 2 out of 3 job openings came from retiring Boomers.
What I said was the BLS Job Projections 2008-2018 claimed 2 out of 3 jobs would come from retiring Boomers.
For the record, that is not true....
2012 November
Employed: 143,549,000
Full-Time: 115,515,000
Part-Time: 28,034,000
Not in Labor Force: 89,221,000
2013 November
Employed: 144,775,000
Full-Time: 116,875,000
Part-Time: 27,900,000
Not in Labor Force: 91,521,000
Difference
Employed: +1,206,000
Full-Time: +1,360,000
Part-Time: -134,000
Not in Labor Force: +2,300,000
Average: Note that November to November is 13 months
"Jobs created" per month = 92,769
"Full-Time Jobs created" per month = 104,615
"Part-Time Jobs Lost" per month = 10,307
People leaving the work-force per month = 176,923
As you can see, twice as many people are leaving the work-force than people are being hired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
More bullsh*t.
As long as a senior is not "institutionalized" (which is the VAST MAJORITY of seniors) he/she is counted in the LFPR rate numbers.
Yes, the LFPR rate was steady for a few years (after dropping for a few years before that) prior to the recession and dropped as a result - THEN the babyboomers began to reach retirement age, so rather than bounce up again, the LFPR simply continue to fall. What part of the text below do you not understand?
Which part of this do you not understand?
2012 November
Employed: 143,549,000
Full-Time: 115,515,000
Part-Time: 28,034,000
Not in Labor Force: 89,221,000
2013 November
Employed: 144,775,000
Full-Time: 116,875,000
Part-Time: 27,900,000
Not in Labor Force: 91,521,000
Difference
Employed: +1,206,000
Full-Time: +1,360,000
Part-Time: -134,000
Not in Labor Force: +2,300,000
Average: Note that November to November is 13 months
"Jobs created" per month = 92,769
"Full-Time Jobs created" per month = 104,615
"Part-Time Jobs Lost" per month = 10,307
People leaving the work-force per month = 176,923
Persons 65+ receiving OASI
Jan 2013 38,518,000
Nov 2013 39,513,000
---------------------
+995,000 persons 65+ receiving OSAI benefits
Jan 2013 89,868,000 Americans Not in Labor Force
Nov 2013 91,521,000
--------------------
+1,653,000 Not in Labor Force
You cannot blame the LFPR on retiring Boomers, because that the numbers do not prove it.
I'm even giving you the benefit of the doubt, since in the US one can work and receive OASI benefits.
But not any more, I'm gonna slam the door on this one.
65+ Employed
Jan 2013 7,424,000
Nov 2013 7,785,000
-------------------- +361,000 employment gains for the 65+ group.
How freaking embarrassing is that?
What little thing do you use? Oh yeah.......
So, do you and the other incompetent topah want to continue claiming that retiring Boomers are causing the LFPR to drop?
Boomers are entering the Work-Force at the rate of +32,818 per month.
: smack::s mack::sm ack:
Both of you need to pull your heads out of your full point of contact and quit lying.
.....So, do you and the other incompetent topah want to continue claiming that retiring Boomers are causing the LFPR to drop?
Boomers are entering the Work-Force at the rate of +32,818 per month.
: smack::s mack::sm ack:
Both of you need to pull your heads out of your full point of contact and quit lying.
...
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
After all is said and done, your claim is that boomers are not driving down the LFPR because the number of babyboomers over 65 add "32,818 per month" to the workforce.
OK - the problem with your claim is that while the +65 workforce jumps by 32,818 per/month (the numbers YOU just gave), the number of babyboomers turning 65 is 10,000 PER/DAY. So, 300,000 turn 65 each month, while 32,818 of those are in the workforce - which means that of those newly 65+ folks, the net impact is a 10.9% LFPR - FAR below the average LFPR of 60+%.
Let me repeat that so that maybe you can finally understand the impact to the overall LFPR:
The nations' fastest-growing age demographic - the 65+ age group - adds 300,000 new members a month, while the 65+ workforce grows by only 32,818 a month.
What's the WFPR rate for that particular group of people?
Now explain to me again how that DOESN'T negatively affect the overall WFPR.
Now, admittedly, this leaves out the fact that some folks on the upper end of that 65+ demographic are dying each day, but since there are more people turning 65 each day than are dying (at over 65) each day - as evidenced by the fact that the 65+ age group is growing (and growing FAST) - the net result is still a rise in the 65+ age group (a group with a much lower LFPR rate than the population as a whole) and thus a downward pressure on the overall LFPR.
So, this group of 65+ people - the fastest growing age demographic in the nation, has a LFPR rate wayyyyyy below the average, and you don't think that affects the overall average?
Your "logic" (if you even can call it that) is HORRIBLE.
Use a little common sense - even using YOUR computations, it drives the overall LFPR rate down. If the fastest-gowing demographic age group in the country has a far lower LFPR than the population overall, then the LFPR for the population overall WILL be driven down - PERIOD. It shouldn't take an advanced degree in mathematics to understand that, that's simply basic math and basic common sense.
Why the h*ll do you think there's so much concern about future SS and medicare costs? The ratio of retired people vs working aged people is going UP - meaning fewer workers supporting each retired person - in other words, the nations' LFPR rate is going to (and already doing so) go DOWN.
"...Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years...
...Currently, just 13% of Americans are ages 65 and older. By 2030, when all members of the Baby Boom generation have reached that age, fully 18% of the nation will be at least that age..."
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
After all is said and done, your claim is that boomers are not driving down the LFPR because the number of babyboomers over 65 add "32,818 per month" to the workforce.
OK - the problem with your claim is that while the +65 workforce jumps by 32,818 per/month (the numbers YOU just gave), the number of babyboomers turning 65 is 10,000 PER/DAY. So, 300,000 turn 65 each month, while 32,818 of those are in the workforce - which means that of those newly 65+ folks, the net impact is a 10.9% LFPR - FAR below the average LFPR of 60+%.
Let me repeat that so that maybe you can finally understand the impact to the overall LFPR:
The nations' fastest-growing age demographic - the 65+ age group - adds 300,000 new members a month, while the 65+ workforce grows by only 32,818 a month.
What's the WFPR rate for that particular group of people?
Now explain to me again how that DOESN'T negatively affect the overall WFPR.
Now, admittedly, this leaves out the fact that some folks on the upper end of that 65+ demographic are dying each day, but since there are more people turning 65 each day than are dying (at over 65) each day - as evidenced by the fact that the 65+ age group is growing (and growing FAST) - the net result is still a rise in the 65+ age group (a group with a much lower LFPR rate than the population as a whole) and thus a downward pressure on the overall LFPR.
So, this group of 65+ people - the fastest growing age demographic in the nation, has a LFPR rate wayyyyyy below the average, and you don't think that affects the overall average?
Your "logic" (if you even can call it that) is HORRIBLE.
Use a little common sense - even using YOUR computations, it drives the overall LFPR rate down. If the fastest-gowing demographic age group in the country has a far lower LFPR than the population overall, then the LFPR for the population overall WILL be driven down - PERIOD. It shouldn't take an advanced degree in mathematics to understand that, that's simply basic math and basic common sense.
Why the h*ll do you think there's so much concern about future SS and medicare costs? The ratio of retired people vs working aged people is going UP - meaning fewer workers supporting each retired person - in other words, the nations' LFPR rate is going to (and already doing so) go DOWN.
"...Roughly 10,000 Baby Boomers will turn 65 today, and about 10,000 more will cross that threshold every day for the next 19 years...
...Currently, just 13% of Americans are ages 65 and older. By 2030, when all members of the Baby Boom generation have reached that age, fully 18% of the nation will be at least that age..."
do you really want the numbers????? can you handle them????........they dont help your agenda.....
the fact remains:
number of people turning 65 on a DAILY BASIS....10,000
number of people turning 18 on a DAILY BASIS....13,000
so the argument that 10,000 boomers(65+) retire everyday is NULLIFIED by the fact that over 13,000 turn 18 every day
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.
