Labor Force Participation Rate - The Big Lie

I've already done that. The 16-64 and 65+ age groups are making proportionally (based on population growth) the same contribution to the labor force.

- - - Updated - - -

This is all I am saying. ..

Working age population has grown 10m, and those actually working has grown 2m. That means, of the working age population, since 2008, 8m new people are not employed.

 

Isn't it true that the current trend among older Americans working in the private sector is to delay retirement?

 

LOL, what I get a kick out of in this thread is many of our conservative friends just embracing this BLS data.

When the BLS data shows an improvement in the economy, how many posts do we see from them about how the BLS data is unreliable and manipulated and cooked?

Depends on which way the wind is blowing.

- - - Updated - - -

Fair enough. But that was not what the post I responded to asserted. The number of unemployed has not increased significantly since Obama took office, and after rapidly increasing in 2009, has significantly decreased since Jan 2010.

 

You responded with an argument that didn't address what he was saying. I did.

If you are of working age and are not employed, you are unemployed in my book (regardless of why).

 

How do you figure? He asserted the number on unemployed has increased $8 million since Obama took office. I've proved that is completely false, and nothing you've demonstrated says otherwise.

You are talking about the total population and number of are not employed in the total population. He was talking about the unemployed, people who are looking for jobs but don't have them.

 

If you are of working age and are not employed, you are unemployed in my book (regardless of why).

 

Thats what the data says too.

 

Well, you can say anything you want in your book. But in the book of commonly used and official language, a woman or man who chooses to stay at home instead of work, the student who isn't looking for a job, the trust fund baby living off daddy's inheritance, and the couple living in retirement have never been counted as the unemployed.

If you want to talk about people who are not employed, there are lots of reasons they may choose not to work. But that doesn't make them unemployed. The unemployed are people who are looking for a job and want to work, but can't find a job.

 

I have no problem whatsoever with saying - Since 2008, 8 million more people are not employed.

Since 2008, the sad fact is, the working age population has grown 4%, and the employed has grown .4%.

The working age population is growing 10 times faster than the growth of employed workers.

 

We had a very nasty recession. Worst in 80 years. Look at the data since Jan 2010 and the picture looks a lot better.

- - - Updated - - -

We had a very nasty recession. Worst in 80 years. Look at the data since Jan 2010 and the picture looks a lot better.

- - - Updated - - -

We had a very nasty recession. Worst in 80 years. Look at the data since Jan 2010 and the picture looks a lot better.

 

Of course. The world didn't end either.

However, I'm not too impressed with the growth rate of the labor force aged 16-55. In the two years, they have left the workforce in mass (-1.3m). The only growth is in 55+ age group (+2.4m).

 

What about discouraged workers who are now part of the long term unemployed, but who have given up looking for work? Do you know how many people are in that category?

 

And that is based on the low birth rate of this country despite the so called facts you are presenting here.

 

I'm trying to confirm the data and investigate it. But I can't find the labor force broken down by age group. Your link goes to a general BLS page with scores of data base tables. Which ones are you accessing for this data?

 

http://www.bls.gov/data/

Labor Force Statistics
(Current Population Survey - CPS) One screen

The screen that pops up you can get the age range by the labor force. I just use the annual numbers on the far right.

 

OK, thanks. I don't have the right Java environment installed or something to access it, so I'll have to fix it later. But till then, does the data breakdown the labor force by all different age groups? It seems weird to see labor force growth in the 55+ age groups, but in the negative for younger workers. That is completely opposite of what I would have expected. Is the decline in the younger groups because of younger workers? Or more middle aged?

 

Np. Yep, it will need Java.

 

Labor force numbers by agegroup/year

16-24
Year Annual
2002 22366
2003 22098
2004 22268
2005 22290
2006 22394
2007 22217
2008 22032
2009 21361
2010 20934
2011 20997
2012 21285

25-34
Year Annual
2002 32196
2003 32343
2004 32207
2005 32341
2006 32573
2007 33130
2008 33332
2009 33298
2010 33614
2011 33724
2012 33465

35-44
Year Annual
2002 36926
2003 36695
2004 36158
2005 36030
2006 35848
2007 35527
2008 35061
2009 34239
2010 33366
2011 32660
2012 32734

45-54
Year Annual
2002 32597
2003 33270
2004 33758
2005 34402
2006 35146
2007 35697
2008 36003
2009 36205
2010 35960
2011 35360
2012 35054

55-64
Year Annual
2002 16309
2003 17312
2004 18013
2005 18979
2006 19984
2007 20750
2008 21615
2009 22505
2010 23297
2011 23765
2012 24710

65+
Year Annual
2002 4469
2003 4792
2004 4998
2005 5278
2006 5484
2007 5804
2008 6243
2009 6534
2010 6718
2011 7112
2012 7727

 

Ratio of Labor Force Growth to Population Growth by Age Group



The labor force to population growth is only occurring in 55+ age groups. The other groups are either flat or losing labor share.

 

I found it (the person you are referring to). Here it is now, 4 months later and you're still repeating this media meme? Retirees causing labor force to go down? Really? What a lie.

This guy can't be the "idiot" you are referring to, so I might be wrong... It looks like he handed all the facts out straight, and no one was able to rebuttal.

 

Please identify the post I made "repeating the media meme" as you claim.

 

No... too many facts for liberals. Most dare not engage in a discussion based on facts and logic- especially when mathematic truths are provided to them.

It's like a cross to Dracula.

 

Terrific thread, but the BIG LIE is residing in the WH behind a wall of cover being constantly guarded & fortified by his media allies. His policies are draining this nation of it's positive energy, one manufactured, divisive crisis at a time.
Individuals and families are hurting, business is unstable, the economy is very unstable, our troops are still needlessly dying overseas, the middle east is boiling over and the ass clown in the WH is giving lofty speeches, dining with his fellow elites, throwing extravagant parties at the WH and golfing all while pushing for amnesty, gun control and gay marriage. He's a self serving cowardly phony with an uncontrollable ego who's ona mission to "transform" the US, regardless.

 

Translation: I have nothing to refute the facts presented. How about I simply accuse you of lying and hope you don't deliver the goods?

 

Look at the bright side. It could have been far worse. We could have had McCain or Romney.