Obama Destroying The Economy: More Than 92 Million Americans Remain Out Of Labor Force (statistics, March)

[RD5050]

Originally Posted by gretsky99

All by design. He's truly the manchurian candidate.

Report: More Than 92 Million Americans Remain Out Of Labor Force « CBS DC

Take a look at how many of those 92 million actually WANT a job:

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

Of the 92 million, 85 Million are NOT looking for work.

They include:

• Retired People
• Stay-At-Home mothers (and fathers)
• Disabled

This high number of NILF (Not In Labor Force) has always existed.

Have a look back at the years 1977-2014:

Year ___Qtr1__

1977 61,140,000
1978 61,005,000
1979 60,558,000
1980 61,340,000
1981 62,101,000
1982 63,131,000
1983 63,739,000
1984 64,272,000
1985 63,702,000
1986 64,003,000
1987 63,994,000
1988 64,087,000
1989 63,698,000
1990 63,792,000
1991 65,232,000
1992 65,614,000
1993 66,551,000
1994 66,460,000
1995 66,832,000
1996 67,748,000
1997 67,604,000
1998 67,994,000
1999 68,688,000
2000 69,877,000
2001 70,904,000
2002 72,722,000
2003 74,511,000
2004 76,107,000
2005 77,532,000
2006 78,163,000
2007 78,826,000
2008 79,985,000
2009 81,253,000
2010 83,726,000
2011 86,121,000
2012 88,465,000
2013 90,150,000
2014 92,074,000

The numbers above were from the BLS website, using their query tool for everyone "Not In The Labor Force"

data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=ln

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by RD5050

Take a look at how many of those 92 million actually WANT a job:

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

Of the 92 million, 85 Million are NOT looking for work.

They include:

• Retired People
• Stay-At-Home mothers (and fathers)
• Disabled

This high number of NILF (Not In Labor Force) has always existed.

Have a look back at the years 1977-2014:

Year Qtr1
1977 61140
1978 61005
1979 60558
1980 61340
1981 62101
1982 63131
1983 63739
1984 64272
1985 63702
1986 64003
1987 63994
1988 64087
1989 63698
1990 63792
1991 65232
1992 65614
1993 66551
1994 66460
1995 66832
1996 67748
1997 67604
1998 67994
1999 68688
2000 69877
2001 70904
2002 72722
2003 74511
2004 76107
2005 77532
2006 78163
2007 78826
2008 79985
2009 81253
2010 83726
2011 86121
2012 88465
2013 90150
2014 92074

Above numbers are in millions (i.e. 92074 = 92,074,000)

The numbers above were from the BLS website, using their query tool for everyone "Not In The Labor Force"

data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=ln

You keep bothering the Obamaphobes with facts.

They're immune to them.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by greywar

Oh look! Those children, disabled, and elderly aren't working! Oh my god!

They also are not counted in the labor force.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


Have to go all the way back to March of 1978 to find a lower participation rate.

[AeroGuyDC]

Originally Posted by RD5050

Take a look at how many of those 92 million actually WANT a job:

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

Of the 92 million, 85 Million are NOT looking for work.

They include:

• Retired People
• Stay-At-Home mothers (and fathers)
• Disabled

This high number of NILF (Not In Labor Force) has always existed.

Have a look back at the years 1977-2014:

Year ___Qtr1__

1977 61,140,000
1978 61,005,000
1979 60,558,000
1980 61,340,000
1981 62,101,000
1982 63,131,000
1983 63,739,000
1984 64,272,000
1985 63,702,000
1986 64,003,000
1987 63,994,000
1988 64,087,000
1989 63,698,000
1990 63,792,000
1991 65,232,000
1992 65,614,000
1993 66,551,000
1994 66,460,000
1995 66,832,000
1996 67,748,000
1997 67,604,000
1998 67,994,000
1999 68,688,000
2000 69,877,000
2001 70,904,000
2002 72,722,000
2003 74,511,000
2004 76,107,000
2005 77,532,000
2006 78,163,000
2007 78,826,000
2008 79,985,000
2009 81,253,000
2010 83,726,000
2011 86,121,000
2012 88,465,000
2013 90,150,000
2014 92,074,000

The numbers above were from the BLS website, using their query tool for everyone "Not In The Labor Force"

data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=ln

Who cares? Under what scenario could you possibly conjure up that it's good for America and the future when the labor participation rate is 62 percent?

Please, enlighten us!

[RD5050]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

Who cares? Under what scenario could you possibly conjure up that it's good for America and the future when the labor participation rate is 62 percent?

Please, enlighten us!

Baby Boomers were born between 1946 - 1964.

In 2001, the Baby Boomers began to turn 55.

Do you actually need further explanation?

Have a look at the growth rate of the NILF beginning in 2001 forward, using the data I provided.

Then compare it to the growth rate of the NILF between 1977 - 2000.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by Grsz11

Yes, an large retirement age population does mean more people will be not working for years to come. Thanks for clearing that up. As for an Obama plan? I'm not so sure he had much impact on people born 10 to 20 years before he was.

People not actively looking for work (retirees) are not counted in the labor pool.


Oh, look!

According to BLS young people can't find jobs.

A-10. Unemployment rates by age, sex, and marital status, seasonally adjusted

[Oldglory]

There are 23 million able-bodied working aged Americans out of work and yet Obama wants to amnesty 11 plus million illegal aliens. Does this make sense to anyone?

[Mr. Opinionated]

No. But neither does calculating that all of are nations social problems built up over several centuries can be attributed to absolutely One individual. That is either very naïve or sinister reasoning, imo.

[Oldhag1]

Originally Posted by momonkey

They also are not counted in the labor force.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


Have to go all the way back to March of 1978 to find a lower participation rate.

Which included a MUCH larger percentage of stay-at-home wives, who were supported by their husbands, not the government.

[AeroGuyDC]

Originally Posted by RD5050

Baby Boomers were born between 1946 - 1964.

In 2001, the Baby Boomers began to turn 55.

Do you actually need further explanation?

Have a look at the growth rate of the NILF beginning in 2001 forward, using the data I provided.

Then compare it to the growth rate of the NILF between 1977 - 2000.

Actually, yes I do need further explanation. What you've said here does not answer my question.

So, i'll ask again:

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

Who cares? Under what scenario could you possibly conjure up that it's good for America and the future when the labor participation rate is 62 percent?

Please, enlighten us!

What part of that question do you need me to explain?