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.
It would be nice if you knew what you were talking about and would quit misleading people. The labor force is:
"The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary."
Obviously if they're not in the labor force they're not employed or unemployed:
"Includes persons aged 16 years and older in the civilian noninstitutional population who are neither employed nor unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching."
The civilian noninstitutional population is:
"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."
You keep conflating the two as if they're the same. You're either being purposefully dishonest or you have no clue wtf you're talking about.
What the h*ll are you talking about - how does ANY of that chang the fact that the labor force does NOT exclude elderly non-working people? There is NO upper boundary on the labor force. It is ANY 16+ who is not institutionalized and not in the military. They ONLY elderly people excluded are those who are in old-folks homes etc. Any elderly person who lives on their own no matter what their age is INCLUDED in the labor force.
Bullsh*t. The labor force does NOT exclude elderly non-working people. There is NO upper boundary on the labor force. It is ANY 16+ who is not institutionalized and not in the military. They ONLY elderly people excluded are those who are in old-folks homes etc. Any elderly person who lives on their own no matter what their age is INCLUDED in the labor force.Ken
Is English not your first language?
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU00000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Population Level
Labor force status: Civilian noninstitutional population
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1947 to 2014
249,027,000 December 2014
That's the number of working age people. There's no such thing as a "Seasonally Adjusted" Population Level.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU01000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1947 to 2014
155,521,000 December 2014
That's your Labor Force. That's every non-institutionalized person over Age 16 who:
1] Is available to work; and
2] Wants to work; and
3] Has sought employment in the 4 weeks prior to the survey, or is presently employed.
If you looked for work 5 weeks prior to the survey, then you are not in the Labor Force.
See, Ken, when we apply the Secrets of 6th Grade Math and subtract the Labor Force from the Working Age Population, we get this number....
249,027,000 December 2014
155,521,000 December 2014
--------------
93,506,000
....which happens to be this...
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU05000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1947 to 2014
Let's look at some age groups.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU00024942
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Population Level - 75 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Civilian noninstitutional population
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 75 years and over
Years: 1967 to 2014
19,037,000 December 2014
19+ Million is the number of Americans Age 75 or older, who are not in hospital, not in hospice, not in a convalescent home or rehabilitation facility or nursing home or a prison.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU01024942
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Civilian Labor Force Level - 75 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 75 years and over
Years: 1967 to 2014
1,517,000 December 2014
About 1.5 Million Americans Age 75 or older are still part of the Labor Force
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU02024942
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Employment Level - 75 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 75 years and over
Years: 1967 to 2014
1,474,000 December 2014
Nearly 1.5 Million Americans Age 75 or older are employed.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU03024942
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Unemployment Level - 75 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 75 years and over
Years: 1967 to 2014
43,000 December 2014
That's the number of Americans Age 75 or older who have looked for work in the last 4 Weeks.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU05024942
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, 75 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 75 years and over
Years: 1987 to 2014
17,520,000 December 2014
About 17.5 Million Americans Age 75 or older are not in the Labor Force.
I'm sure you learned nothing, but hopefully others have.
So? Stock Markets are irrelevant -- they are not a requirement for any economy to function.
The stock market lost 40.9% of its "value" over a period of 959 days, yet during that time the GDP was clocking in at 12.5% per quarter.
What's the relationship between economic performance and stock values? None.
The stock market sets continuous records over a period of 651 days, yet you were in the midst of the 1957-1961 Recession.
Note that the recession was the primary reason JFK reduced the 91% upper tax bracket.
What's the relationship between economic performance and stock values? None.
The stock market lost 45.1% of its value over a period of 694 days between January 1973 to December 1974, yet GDP grew at rates of 1.03% per quarter to as much as 3.77% per quarter, averaging 2.24% per quarter over those 8 quarters.
What's the relationship between economic performance and stock values? None.
Historically, the DJIA has performed best when the economy was not good.
You've proven yourself to be a bad investment adviser.
But, then, you're one of the Liberal Elite so you don't really give a damn about the common people.
Your economy has not turned around.
BLS projected that through 2018 there would be 50.6 Million jobs, or 5.06 Million per year.
That breaks down to 421,666 jobs per month.
The BLS also projected that 67% of those jobs would be available because Boomers retired (or died).
That would be about 282,516 jobs per month.
Your job growth is so anemic, you aren't even replacing the Boomers who retire.
Need I remind you,....
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.
Those articles are from 10+ years ago --- your population has increased since then, meaning you need even more jobs per month to absorb new and returning entrants, in addition to keeping pace with population growth.
As a point of fact, you are 13.4 Million workers short of where you need to be.
If your economy turned around as you claim it has, then you wouldn't be short 13.4 Million workers.
So? What's that got to do with Economics?
I did not make any predictions about elections.
I'm not a Republican, so I would have never voted for McCan't or Robamney....and didn't.
So what?
Oh, I forgot....you're a Liberal Elitist.
The Common People have more important things on their mind....like corn prices....
09-07-2011
I did, too, but the difference is that I explained why that was so, whereas you just spouted the Party motto over and over, without any understanding.
And yet federal debt is growing faster than any agency projected.
Meanwhile, 32+% of unemployed persons are unemployed for more than 27 Weeks (see LNU03025703).
This thread isn't about predictions, it's about admitting that Seasonally Adjusted Workers aren't alive.
Really....
Mircea
Your post is just more of the same ignorant nonsense. Your contention that the BLS uses seasonally adjusted data to somehow make the economy look better doesn't match the facts nor does it even make any sense. The fact is seasonally adjusted numbers sometimes bring the monthly job numbers up and sometimes bring the monthly job numbers down.
Here's the last 5 months of SEASONALLY ADJUSTED JOB numbers (in thousands):
Aug: 139,210
Sept: 139,481
Oct: 139,742
Nov: 140,095
Dec: 140,347
Total change in # of employed between Aug and Dec: +1.137 MILLION employed
Aug: 139,061
Sept: 139,753
Oct: 140,811
Nov: 141,321
Dec: 141,256
Total change in # of employed between Aug and Dec: +2.195 MILLION employed
So, the NOT-SEASONALLY ADJUSTED numbers show that the workforce increased by 2.195 MILLION while the SEASONALLY ADJUSTED numbers (you know the ones you seem to think are being used to make the economy somehow look better) show an increase of 1.137 MILLION workers. So IF the BLS is "trying to make the economy look better" why wouldn't they use the "real" NOT-SEASONALLY ADJUSTED numbers that show almost DOUBLE the number of new workers getting jobs over those 5 months.
The fact is SEASONALLY adjusting the monthly jobs numbers does NOT inflate the jobs numbers, nor does it make "the economy look better". During SOME MONTHS the jobs numbers are raised while during OTHER MONTHS the job numbers are lowered. In the final analysis, over the course of a given year - when ALL SEASONS are factored - the SEASONAL ADJUSTED jobs numbers will end up totaling up to pretty much the same things as the NON-SEASONALLY ADJUSTED jobs numbers.
Either you are not educated/smart enough to understand that (which would mean you claims that you have a degree in economics is obviously a lie) OR you are just not being honest.
If you don't like using SEASONALLY ADJUSTED job numbers, fine. Use the NOT-SEASONALLY ADJUSTED numbers - in which case the last 5 months reflect that the number of new workers created over that time is NEARLY DOUBLE the "official" numbers.
Sounds like recovery.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU00000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Population Level
Labor force status: Civilian noninstitutional population
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1947 to 2014
249,027,000 December 2014
That's the number of working age people. There's no such thing as a "Seasonally Adjusted" Population Level.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU01000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1947 to 2014
155,521,000 December 2014
That's your Labor Force. That's every non-institutionalized person over Age 16 who:
1] Is available to work; and
2] Wants to work; and
3] Has sought employment in the 4 weeks prior to the survey, or is presently employed.
If you looked for work 5 weeks prior to the survey, then you are not in the Labor Force.
See, Ken, when we apply the Secrets of 6th Grade Math and subtract the Labor Force from the Working Age Population, we get this number....
249,027,000 December 2014
155,521,000 December 2014
--------------
93,506,000
....which happens to be this...
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU05000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1947 to 2014
Let's look at some age groups.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU00024942
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Population Level - 75 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Civilian noninstitutional population
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 75 years and over
Years: 1967 to 2014
19,037,000 December 2014
19+ Million is the number of Americans Age 75 or older, who are not in hospital, not in hospice, not in a convalescent home or rehabilitation facility or nursing home or a prison.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU01024942
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Civilian Labor Force Level - 75 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 75 years and over
Years: 1967 to 2014
1,517,000 December 2014
About 1.5 Million Americans Age 75 or older are still part of the Labor Force
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU02024942
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Employment Level - 75 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 75 years and over
Years: 1967 to 2014
1,474,000 December 2014
Nearly 1.5 Million Americans Age 75 or older are employed.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU03024942
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Unemployment Level - 75 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 75 years and over
Years: 1967 to 2014
43,000 December 2014
That's the number of Americans Age 75 or older who have looked for work in the last 4 Weeks.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU05024942
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, 75 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 75 years and over
Years: 1987 to 2014
17,520,000 December 2014
About 17.5 Million Americans Age 75 or older are not in the Labor Force.
I'm sure you learned nothing, but hopefully others have.
See if you can figure it out....
Mircea
More utter garbage. The fact that you spout a bunch of stuff doesn't make it RIGHT. For example you said:
[b]"That's your Labor Force. That's every non-institutionalized person over Age 16 who:
1] Is available to work; and
2] Wants to work; and
3] Has sought employment in the 4 weeks prior to the survey, or is presently employed.
If you looked for work 5 weeks prior to the survey, then you are not in the Labor Force."[/]
Whether you looked for work in the last 4 weeks has NOTHING to do with being in the labor force. Heres' the OFFICIAL BLS definition of Labor Force:
Labor force (Current Population Survey)
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.
Here's the definition for Employed Person:
"Employed persons (American Time Use Survey)
Same as definition for Employed persons (Current Population Survey), EXCEPT that in the American Time Use Survey, the definition includes persons 15 years and over and the reference period is the last 7 days prior to the American Time Use Survey interview."
Here's the definition of Unemployed Person:
"Unemployed persons (Current Population Survey)
Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed."
Old age has NOTHING to do with it. What's your point? Do you even HAVE one? It sure doesn't seem like it.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU00000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Population Level
Labor force status: Civilian noninstitutional population
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1947 to 2014
249,027,000 December 2014
That's the number of working age people. There's no such thing as a "Seasonally Adjusted" Population Level.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU01000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1947 to 2014
155,521,000 December 2014
That's your Labor Force. That's every non-institutionalized person over Age 16 who:
1] Is available to work; and
2] Wants to work; and
3] Has sought employment in the 4 weeks prior to the survey, or is presently employed.
If you looked for work 5 weeks prior to the survey, then you are not in the Labor Force.
See, Ken, when we apply the Secrets of 6th Grade Math and subtract the Labor Force from the Working Age Population, we get this number....
249,027,000 December 2014
155,521,000 December 2014
--------------
93,506,000
....which happens to be this...
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU05000000
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1947 to 2014
Let's look at some age groups.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU00024942
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Population Level - 75 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Civilian noninstitutional population
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 75 years and over
Years: 1967 to 2014
19,037,000 December 2014
19+ Million is the number of Americans Age 75 or older, who are not in hospital, not in hospice, not in a convalescent home or rehabilitation facility or nursing home or a prison.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU01024942
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Civilian Labor Force Level - 75 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 75 years and over
Years: 1967 to 2014
1,517,000 December 2014
About 1.5 Million Americans Age 75 or older are still part of the Labor Force
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU02024942
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Employment Level - 75 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 75 years and over
Years: 1967 to 2014
1,474,000 December 2014
Nearly 1.5 Million Americans Age 75 or older are employed.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU03024942
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Unemployment Level - 75 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 75 years and over
Years: 1967 to 2014
43,000 December 2014
That's the number of Americans Age 75 or older who have looked for work in the last 4 Weeks.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value
Series Id: LNU05024942
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, 75 yrs. & over
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 75 years and over
Years: 1987 to 2014
17,520,000 December 2014
About 17.5 Million Americans Age 75 or older are not in the Labor Force.
I'm sure you learned nothing, but hopefully others have.
See if you can figure it out....
Mircea
On second thought, I take back my previous post back. You are referring to the Labor Force, not the Labor Force Participation Rate - so your definition of the Labor Force is correct. So what's your point? So 1.5 million folks over 75 are working - compared to 17.5 million who are not. Again, what's your point? I've said ALL ALONG that older people don't work at the same rate younger people - and that because we have a higher proportion of older people than we used to it pulls down the LFPR for the U.S. population as a whole. All you've really done is verified that the vast majority of older folks (in this case folks 75+) no longer work - which is exactly what I've said many many times.
Now, it is true that the age group between 75-79 shrunk slightly between 2000 and 2000 (down by 1.3%). However, as a group, seniors are the fastest-growing age demographic in the country. The fact is EVERY age category between 80 and 100 grew at double digits (most of them grew by around 30%); Same thing with the age groups from 45 to 69 - they all grew by double digits and the age groups between 55 and 64 grew by roughly 50%.
Meanwhile the younger age groups hardly grew at all, and in fact the age groups between 30 and 44 (the prime working years - those which tend to have the highest LFPR) SHRANK.
All of which are symptoms of an aging population.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 01-17-2015 at 02:40 PM..
Now, it is true that the age group between 75-79 shrunk slightly between 2000 and 2000 (down by 1.3%). However, as a group, seniors are the fastest-growing age demographic in the country. The fact is EVERY age category between 80 and 100 grew at double digits (most of them grew by around 30%); Same thing with the age groups from 45 to 69 - they all grew by double digits and the age groups between 55 and 64 grew by roughly 50%.
No one should ever give credence to your economic posts. Anyone with half a brain knows older people grew by a much smaller amount since percentages don't matter. 100 in a group that adds 10 compared to 2 in a group that adds 1 means the latter is growing faster?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Meanwhile the younger age groups hardly grew at all, and in fact the age groups between 30 and 44 (the prime working years - those which tend to have the highest LFPR) SHRANK.
All of which are symptoms of an aging population.
Ken
So what happened to the 30-44 age group to cause it too shrink? People die off as they hit that group? Or maybe a ton of them hit the lottery and retired?
LPR fell for all groups aged 54 and under from 2002-2012
age 55 and older it grew
The economy has been horrible and people cannot retire http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm
Aging population pffft
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.
