Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
A key part of the reason the labor force has declined is the age brackets that traditionally have a larger portion of those who aren't in the labor force have increased at a higher proportion than others. Primarily those 55-64 (boomers) and those 16-24.
|
The labor force has not declined, rather it has increased. The labor force are those over over age 16 seeking employment. In general, you have an average 115,000 new entrants every month, and another 35,000 returning entrants to the labor force, ~150,000.
I use unadjusted data, because there's no logic to seasonally adjusting data, and because seasonally adjusting skews the data.
The population 16 years and older is 242,269,000
88,784,000 Americans are not in the labor force for whatever reason, whether retired, home-makers, at school, in hospital, no desire to work, or are totally and completely discouraged and have given up.
The civilian labor force is the difference between the population and and those not in the labor force.
242,269,000
-88,784,000
------------
153,485,000 in labor force
139,944,000 Americans are employed.
The unemployed are the difference between the labor force and the employed:
153,485,000
139,944,000
------------
13,541,000
The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed divided by the number of employed or:
9.68% (the government claims a lower rate due to, um, "seasonal adjustment")
The labor participation rate is the labor force divided by the population or:
63.4%
The employment to population ratio is the number employed divided by the population or:
57.8%
Some comparisons:
Employment-to-Population Ratio
January 1999: 63.5%
January 2012: 57.8%
Highest level: 64.9% June 2000
Labor Participation Rate
January 1999: 66.7%
January 2012: 63.4%
Highest level: 67.7% June 2000
Unemployment Rate
January 1999: 5.03%
January 2012: 9.68%
Lowest Level: 3.75% October 2000
Highest Level: 11.8% January 2010
That's straight from the BLS website.
---The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 415,094 in the week ending January 28, a decrease of 1,786 from the previous week. There were 464,775 initial claims in the comparable week in 2011. ---
That is from DOL's web-site, and as you can see, not much difference between this year and last year.
What you can see is that your population has steadily increased, while your employment-to-population ratio and labor participation rate have steadily decreased.
The last time your unemployment rate was below 9% was December 2008 when it was 7.67%.
Over the last 49 months (January 2009 through January 2012) your unemployment rate was lowest at 9.02% and highest at 11.8%.
Assuming no changes in the labor participation rate then:
175,000 jobs per month for 206 consecutive months will reduce unemployment to 5.00%
in April of 2029.
200,000 jobs per month for 100 consecutive months will reduce unemployment to 5.00%
in June 2020.
225,000 jobs per month for 70 consecutive months will reduce unemployment to 5.00%
in December 2017.
250,000 jobs per month for 55 consecutive months will reduce unemployment to 4.97%
in September 2016.
In reviewing the CBO report, they are of the opinion that the end of the FICA tax holiday, coupled with rising property and sales taxes and the ignoble end of the Bush Tax Cuts will limit both job and economic growth for the next several years.
If the FICA tax holiday did come into play at all, you'll know in about 90 days (right around May/June).
Not adjusting...
Mircea