Labor Force Participation Rate - The Big Lie

From 2002-2012

16-55 made up 22.1% of population growth, however accounted for -15.3% of labor force growth.
The 55+ age group has made up 77.9% of population growth, however accounted for 115% of labor force growth.

Meaning...The 16-55 age group as a percentage of the labor force is growing less than the 55+ age group. Easily the 55+ age group is making up most of growth in the labor workforce.

16-55 age group 722,000 not entering/leaving labor force per year. (population grew 5.7m, labor force grew negative! (-1.5m!)
55+ age group 838,000 leaving labor force per year. (population grew 20.1m, labor force grew +11.6m )

The total population growth of these two groups.
16-55 +5678 (22.1%)
55+ +20036 (77.9%)

Those 55+ are entering the workforce at a rate of about 58.2%
The 16-55 are entering the workforce at a rate of -27.3% (negative number)

Obviously the 16-55 age group is dragging down the LPR far more than the 55+.

The claim LFPR is reduced due to retiring citizens is a falsehood.

 

Common knowledge...too high brow?

 

Doesn't fit the progressive left's "recovery" narratives.

 

I guess so. If anyone needs to see how to get these numbers, I have them.

 

what is the source of those numbers? Or did you make them up?

 

It comes from a compilation of data from the BLS.

Here is a screenshot of the data in excel.



Let me know if you have questions.

 

Here is a rolling visualization of the percentage of people by age group not entering the workforce.

 

Good facts and contribution.

We have over 8 million more people unemployed today as compared to when Barack Obama took office.

 

Great thread.

Heads up: Write at the level of your audience if you want to communicate most effectively.

 

As you can see, the chart below shows how far away from nominal growth each age group is making towards the workforce in comparison to their contribution to population growth. (negative number means under contributing, positive means over contributing)

This is the proof that 55+ is not causing the LFPR shrinkage.



- - - Updated - - -

I know....my boss tells me that all the time.

 

Here's another report to tuck away, done in 2004 by the BLS.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/11/art3full.pdf

Based on the real numbers, births/deaths/census, etc., it calculated that the total impact of retiring boomers on the LFPR over the 10 year period 2015-2014, would be a downward contribution of all of 0.2%. That no matter what else the LFPR did, only a 0.2% downward influence was attributable to the normal retirement of boomers. Those are actuarial statistics. They do not lie. Yet you will see the lying libterals attempt to allocate an impact of over a ten-fold magnitude to the boomers influence on the LFPR.

Real unemployment still close to 11%, using the same LFPR that Obama had when he took office.

 

Awesome study. Thanks. They slightly under-predicted the workforce by percentage for those 55+ by about 2%. Not bad though.

 

If we assume income and wealth constant, your graph actually provies that the LFPR decline is accurate. The constant income and wealth accumlalation would mean that as one works from age 16 through age 55, proportionally, the person would accumulate enough income adn wealth to retire at age 55, and therefore removing themselves from the labor force particapation rate.

The problem with your post is that you are making age the single siginificant factor. For that to happen, you have to assume a constant income and wealth accumulation. And unless you are willing to provide other factors to your pseudohypothesis, I would refrain from using this type of logic again.

URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/"]http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/10/13/labor-force-participation-under-obama/[/URL][

http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/econrev/pdf/12q1VanZandweghe.pdf

 

The decline is accurate and never claimed it wasn't. What's inaccurate is the claim that the aging workforce is causing it; 55+ more than the younger 16-55.

 

http://www.bls.gov/data/ <- confirm data

http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambr...recession-lowering-labor-force-participation/ <- false claims

 

I don't think that quite accurate. They were not "predicting" anything. They were using actuarial numbers in a static analysis, that is, with established assumptions. The component percentages can be expected to change for any number of reasons not foreseen, such as a recession, housing plunge, etc., where one segment of the population may be more affected than the other. It is possible that such would explain some of the shifts we have seen in the last few years. Its not that more over 55's are working than before, but rather that more under 55's are not, which then changes everyone's slice-or-the-pie.

The hard fact remains that only -0.2% of any portion of the LFPR is due to boomers getting older. In the words of the pre-Obama numbers fudging.

 

Righties talk About this as if we ever used these these numbers to calculate Unemployment....but we are used to them holding Obama to new fabricated standards

 

Yeah, this thread is just about facts imo. I don't think this is an Obama benefit or negative.

 

Bad facts.

Unemployed:
Jan 2009 12079
Jan 2010 15016
Dec 2012 12206

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

Why do you blaaaaame Obaaaaaama for the Great Recession he inherited?



Say it bleatingly.

 

Age is a factor since once a person reaches a certain age, their body and/or desire to be actively participating in the workforcce also declines. However, there are other factors.

But unforuntately, your op does suggest that age is one significant factor in the decline unless you think it is entirely based on those who are aged between 16 to 55 and are unable to work due to disabilities. You might want to tackle the disability factor, not age to better make your argument assuming you do not use gross generalizations about people who are on disability.

 

Working age folks, +10m, actually working +2m. (10m-2m=8m <= valid number)

 

This is as one would expect from demographics as the baby boomers moved into the 55+ age group.

Most people don't retire until their mid 60s. So we are seeing the 55+ demographic grow as the baby boomers move into that age, but you'd have to look at the 65+ group to see the effects of retirement.

 

The argument is just the facts. The 16-55 are way underperforming the 55+ in the participation of the labor force.

The 16-55 is dragging it down, regardless of why.

 

The data I posted directly contradicts you. Do you mean relative to a steady LFPR? That is not what was stated in the post to which I responded.

 

Lefties want to ignore the phenomenon. The people affected are real and number in the millions. Their existence can't be objectively denied. Forget statistics and start thinking in terms of processes that need to be adjusted, modified, created or terminated to put real people back to work.