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

[RD5050]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

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

So, i'll ask again:

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?

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

It was less than 62% up until 1978.

Have a look back in history of the Labor Force Participation Rate:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Year Jan
1948 58.6
1949 58.7
1950 58.9
1951 59.1
1952 59.5
1953 59.5
1954 58.6
1955 58.6
1956 60.2
1957 59.5
1958 59.3
1959 59.3
1960 59.1
1961 59.6
1962 58.8
1963 58.6
1964 58.6
1965 58.6
1966 59
1967 59.5
1968 59.2
1969 59.6
1970 60.4
1971 60.4
1972 60.2
1973 60
1974 61.3
1975 61.4
1976 61.3
1977 61.6
1978 62.8
1979 63.6
1980 64
1981 63.9
1982 63.7
1983 63.9
1984 63.9
1985 64.7
1986 64.9
1987 65.4
1988 65.8
1989 66.5
1990 66.8
1991 66.2
1992 66.3
1993 66.2
1994 66.6
1995 66.8
1996 66.4
1997 67
1998 67.1
1999 67.2
2000 67.3
2001 67.2
2002 66.5
2003 66.4
2004 66.1
2005 65.8
2006 66
2007 66.4
2008 66.2
2009 65.7
2010 64.8
2011 64.2
2012 63.7
2013 63.6
2014 63

When Baby Boomers (B: 1946 - 1964) reached working age (1970's - 1990's) , the Labor Force Participation Rate went up.

And now that Baby Boomers are beginning to retire, the Rate is going back down.

[Rapaport]

How dare you to use logic and data to debunk myths on city-data?

Originally Posted by RD5050

It was less than 62% up until 1978.

Have a look back in history of the Labor Force Participation Rate:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Year Jan
1948 58.6
1949 58.7
1950 58.9
1951 59.1
1952 59.5
1953 59.5
1954 58.6
1955 58.6
1956 60.2
1957 59.5
1958 59.3
1959 59.3
1960 59.1
1961 59.6
1962 58.8
1963 58.6
1964 58.6
1965 58.6
1966 59
1967 59.5
1968 59.2
1969 59.6
1970 60.4
1971 60.4
1972 60.2
1973 60
1974 61.3
1975 61.4
1976 61.3
1977 61.6
1978 62.8
1979 63.6
1980 64
1981 63.9
1982 63.7
1983 63.9
1984 63.9
1985 64.7
1986 64.9
1987 65.4
1988 65.8
1989 66.5
1990 66.8
1991 66.2
1992 66.3
1993 66.2
1994 66.6
1995 66.8
1996 66.4
1997 67
1998 67.1
1999 67.2
2000 67.3
2001 67.2
2002 66.5
2003 66.4
2004 66.1
2005 65.8
2006 66
2007 66.4
2008 66.2
2009 65.7
2010 64.8
2011 64.2
2012 63.7
2013 63.6
2014 63

When Baby Boomers reached working age (1970's - 1990's) , the Labor Force Participation Rate went up.

And now that Baby Boomers are beginning to retire, the Rate is going back down.

[lycos679]

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.

Everybody over 16 is counted in the calculation unless they are institutionalized, in the military, or in a long term care facility.

Labor Force = Number of Employed + Number of Unemployed
[SIZE=2]Labor Force Participation Rate =Labor Force / Total Non-institutionalized Civilian Population[/SIZE]

[lycos679]

Originally Posted by momonkey

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

They are counted in the LFPR denominator unless they are institutionalized.

[AeroGuyDC]

Originally Posted by RD5050

It was less than 62% up until 1978.

Have a look back in history of the Labor Force Participation Rate:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Year Jan
1948 58.6
1949 58.7
1950 58.9
1951 59.1
1952 59.5
1953 59.5
1954 58.6
1955 58.6
1956 60.2
1957 59.5
1958 59.3
1959 59.3
1960 59.1
1961 59.6
1962 58.8
1963 58.6
1964 58.6
1965 58.6
1966 59
1967 59.5
1968 59.2
1969 59.6
1970 60.4
1971 60.4
1972 60.2
1973 60
1974 61.3
1975 61.4
1976 61.3
1977 61.6
1978 62.8
1979 63.6
1980 64
1981 63.9
1982 63.7
1983 63.9
1984 63.9
1985 64.7
1986 64.9
1987 65.4
1988 65.8
1989 66.5
1990 66.8
1991 66.2
1992 66.3
1993 66.2
1994 66.6
1995 66.8
1996 66.4
1997 67
1998 67.1
1999 67.2
2000 67.3
2001 67.2
2002 66.5
2003 66.4
2004 66.1
2005 65.8
2006 66
2007 66.4
2008 66.2
2009 65.7
2010 64.8
2011 64.2
2012 63.7
2013 63.6
2014 63

When Baby Boomers (B: 1946 - 1964) reached working age (1970's - 1990's) , the Labor Force Participation Rate went up.

And now that Baby Boomers are beginning to retire, the Rate is going back down.

Too simplistic. The dynamics of today's economy resembles nothing of that of 1948, or even 1973.

Either you're purposely being disingenuous, or this is the reach of your analytical capabilities.

[AeroGuyDC]

Originally Posted by Rapaport

How dare you to use logic and data to debunk myths on city-data?

He has debunked nothing.

(Can we get a liberal intellectual heavyweight on this forum??? At least one. That's all I ask. None seems to exist)

[RD5050]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

Too simplistic. The dynamics of today's economy resembles nothing of that of 1948, or even 1973.

Either you're purposely being disingenuous, or this is the reach of your analytical capabilities.

Or perhaps the answer isn't as "complicated" as you would like it to be?

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by RD5050

It was less than 62% up until 1978.

Have a look back in history of the Labor Force Participation Rate:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


When Baby Boomers (B: 1946 - 1964) reached working age (1970's - 1990's) , the Labor Force Participation Rate went up.

And now that Baby Boomers are beginning to retire, the Rate is going back down.

Besides you who else is dumb enough to believe that more people are retiring, especially in this economy, than there are people being born and hitting the age where they count in the labor participation rate?

[lycos679]

Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry

Besides you who else is dumb enough to believe that more people are retiring, especially in this economy, than there are people being born and hitting the age where they count in the labor participation rate?

Retirees are still counted in the LFPR denominator.

[RD5050]

Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry

Besides you who else is dumb enough to believe that more people are retiring, especially in this economy, than there are people being born and hitting the age where they count in the labor participation rate?

This:

U.S birth rate falls to record low - Sep. 6, 2013

The U.S. fertility rate fell to another record low in 2012, with 63.0 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44 years old, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That's down slightly from the previous low of 63.2 in 2011.
It marked the fifth year in a row the U.S. birth rate has declined, and the lowest rate on record since the government started tracking the fertility rate in 1909. In 2007, the rate was 69.3.
Falling birth rates can be considered a challenge to future economic growth and the labor pool.