Labor Force Participation Rate - The Big Lie

So you have about 1/2 the drop in the LFPR coming from economic factors, and about 1/2 coming from the population aging. Sounds about right. But how does that mean you are retracting your concession that people moving into retirement age had no effect on the lower overall LFPR?

Why would that matter when you are looking at net increases.

Depends on what you look at. You're just focusing on LFPR and not other factors, such as employment.

 

You're so far away from being right it's beneath my ability to dumb down to that low of a level to even respond in a way you could comprehend. Not that it would matter anyway. I proved before how completely wrong you were on this claim but you keep repeating the same silly nonsense.

If anyone else wants to see the data showing once again that PP doesn't have a clue about what his yammering about, let me know and I'll be glad to post it.

Sure. Tell us how Romney is going to win in a landslide and the Republicans are going to sweep the Senate in 2012 again. Enjoy!

 

I think that is the problem. You're just looking at marginal changes without considering the relative size of the group.

 

It is only because you are focusing on the labor force, and not on employment. When you look at employment, we see a different picture:

Jan 2010-Mar 2013:

Age: 65+
Population increase: 4.5 million
Labor force increase: 1.4 million
Employment increase: 1.4 million

Of the 4.5 million additional seniors, 1.4 million or 31% have jobs, which is a significant increase over the 17.6% overall employment level for the group. In fact, more seniors got jobs than the labor force increased.

Age: 16-64
Population increase: 3.6 million
Labor force increase: .2 million
Employment increase: 3.5 million

When you include the employment situation, we get an entirely different picture. While it is true the LFPR for 16-64 declined, the question you have to ask is, so what? Because the increase in jobs for the 16-64 was almost the same as the entire increase in population. The increase in jobs produced by the economy was able to absorb the entire population growth of the group, not withstanding the fact that a smaller percentage of the group wanted a job.

Not quite as bad of a picture when you fit in more of the pieces.

 

That is horse(*)(*)(*)(*). The LFPR has fallen by what, 3 % since Obama took office ? More ? According to BLS, less than 0.4% is attributable to aging. That is simple Census stuff. They already figured it out. Here's their report:

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

You will have to sturdy the tables, but based on Census numbers (aging), the LFPR was projected to drop all of 0.4% from 2004 to 2014. You can't change the ages of people, so all drop above that is due to other factors. Obamanomics tops the list.

 

Some excerpts:

The baby boomers’ exit from the prime-aged workforce and their movement into older age groups will lower the overall labor force participation rate, leading to a slowdown in the growth of the labor force

Between 1946 and 1964, the U.S. fertility rate increased substantially, and approximately 78 million people were born. This huge segment of the population, called the “baby boomers,” were between the ages of 40 and 58 years in 2004 and will be between the ages of 50 and 68 years in 2014.

Between 1965 and 1976, the number of births de-creased once again. The population born during this time, called the “baby bust,” will constitute part of the prime-aged worker group 25 to 54 years of age from 2004 to 2014. The baby-bust population is much smaller than the baby-boom population, and this difference in their numbers will contribute to the decrease in the growth of the labor force during those years.

All consistent with what we've been discussing.

That report is from 2005. But putting aside it if making projections and not looking at actual data, where does it say that .4% of the reduction in the LF is due to aging or retirement?

 

In other words, I'm right, thanks for verifying that for me. Your a good man Iremon!

 

No, you got it wrong again, Peebody. You're on a roll.

 

Look at table 5. Top line. Everyone in the labor force now was alive in 2004. Everyone. So its simple math. Based on aging, the LFPR was projected to drop by 0.4% from 2004 to 2014. That means that about 0.2% (half) of the drop on Obama is due to aging. Not 50-50 as you hoped earlier. Are you gonna argue with hard Census numbers now ? Is the count no longer accurate when it puts Obama in the harsh light of ineptitude ?

There are other tables supporting these numbers. Read and learn if you want. But I will not waste time showing you what you refuse to see.

 

"Obama's ineptitude"? Oh yeah, I forgot, the Great Recession is all Obaaaaamaaaaa's fault.



Say it bleatingly like sheep do.

 

Just his part since the Recovery Summer #1. Which makes my position intact. And yours foolish still.

 

Deuce, how comical is it that we have the same workforce participation rate as we did in 1979 as we do today, only with 90 million more people. What a dismal failure Obama and the Democrats have been for the last five years. Hopefully after Obama Care train wrecks our health care system people will have had enough of Democrats.

 

Pardon me if I don't believe the spin from your posts, they simply do not correspond with reality...........as usual.

 

Hey libs. This is Recovery Summer #4 soon upon us. Wow !!!

 

All points I agree with. The only question to answer was which age groups were causing the labor force drop, and what percentage drop they were causing, and a subtopic of the unemployment rate.

- - - Updated - - -

Its not a problem at all. I don't discuss their sizes because its completely irrelevant to my thesis. Group A grew this much, group B, this much. This is how much didnt enter in group A, this is how much didnt enter in group B. I'm not making any other conclusions, besides group A, isn't growing like it should, regardless of economic factors.

 

Its 50 / 50 as the BLS household survey indicates. Its math really.

 

I'm sorry, I'll be happy to explain it to our other members who don't get it, but I apparently can't dumb it down to a level you could understand.

 

Another take:

UBS's Drew Matus argues that this dropping participation rate is largely due to shifting American population dynamics. Specifically, we're running out of workers. Matus is re-circulating a report he published in January: ... In 2012 the participation rate declined from 64.1 percent to 63.7 percent. This decline was the result of a decline in the prime working age (aged 25-54 years) population that was only partially offset by rising participation among older workers (aged 55 years and over).

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-labor-force-participation-rate-falls-2013-4#ixzz2S0QKVPhX

 

No its not. That's foolish stupidity. You cannot link anything to support your stupid assertion. I supported mine with the hard BLS numbers. You would need some anti Benjamin Button device to support your position.

- - - Updated - - -

Yup ! Prime working-age folks quit looking for work !!

 

Some of us can do math ourselves. Challenge something I've said, and I can show you using these skills.

 

Declining as a percent of the total population. The "baby bust" referred to in your article.

 

I already provided the BLS report, and the hard numbers it contains from the Census.

If you want to ignore that, I won't waste a (*)(*)(*)(*)-in-the-weeds on you. Why should I ? An aging and retiring workforce accounts for 0.2% of the 3% drop in the LFPR under Obama. Its beyond refute. Unless one wants to remain stupid. As I said, I won't even waste urinating on that stupidity.

 

I'm using BLS numbers published this month. Their projections weren't accurate.

 

The report as to the participation rate in 2014 isn't "hard numbers," it was a forecast done in 2005. Not that economists are ever off on their projections.

 

First sentence in your very old report -
"The U.S. labor force—the number of
persons working or looking for work—is
projected to reach 162.1 million in 2014, an
increase of nearly 15 million from the size of the
labor force in 2004.1"

They were only off by about 6-7 million. Today it is 155 million.

That report can be completely trashed at this point, because everything said going forward from that point will also be based on completely incorrect speculations.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref1