Labor Force Participation Rate - The Big Lie

It is not "off". It was a projection based on an economy staying where it was, and folks otherwise joining, and leaving, the labor force based on factual aging. What you have illustrated is my point exactly. That many more folks have left the labor force for reasons other than aging. That reason is now rooted in the Obama economy.

 

Half of the labor force decrease from 2010 through today, is in the age group 65+, the other half, between the ages of 16-64.

Thats 50% for 65+ and 50% everyone else. Get it now? No one is talking about 2004-2009.

You do realize the labor force stopped growing before Obama got through his first year of office don't you?

 

This is what happens when you use old data to try and make a point.

Table 5 from your BLS study:

Projected participation rate, 2014, 16 and over ..... 65.6%

Actual participation rates:

Jan 2009, 16 and over ..... 65.4% <- Obama's first year in office (recession).
Jan 2010, 16 and over ..... 64.6%
Jan 2011, 16 and over ..... 63.9%
Jan 2012, 16 and over ..... 63.4%
Jan 2013, 16 and over ..... 63.3%

Yeah, so your .4 (actually a .6%) occurred before Obama even did anything, and dropped another .8% in his first full year. Is that his fault? Basically, first year, I give him a pass. The 1.3% drop from Jan 2010 to now, yeah thats his.

Its freakin scary how far off the BLS was on this one. These people are responsible for helping make policy, projections, numbers. They weren't even close. Feel like you are in good hands?

 

Updated after todays labor reports.

Labor force: Same, 63.3%
65+ Labor force, increased to 19%, from 18.8%

Population increased 180k, workforce increased 227k
Breakdown:
65+ population: +85k, workforce: +107k
16-64 population +95k, workforce +120k

Employment Overall:
+26k
65+ Employment: +156k
16-64 Employment: -130k

Part Time: +278k
Full Time: -113K
Total: 165k

 

Yes. I would like that.

 

Saddening information:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=220385

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls decreased by 0.2 hour in April to 34.4 hours. Within manufacturing, the workweek decreased by 0.1 hour to 40.7 hours, and overtime declined by 0.1 hour to 3.3 hours. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls decreased by 0.1 hour to 33.7 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

This is a problem. If we look at the "employed" figure of 143,724,000 people a drop of 0.2 hours is a full-time-equivalent decrease of 1/2%. Applied to the employed population this amounts to an imputed economic decrease of 718,620 jobs!

That is, the loss of work-week hours of just 0.2 is the same economic impact as firing 700,000 people!

There is a huge problem coming this year and into next in this regard as the trend of cutting hours back to get under Obamacare limits is picking up steam and will continue.

Do not underestimate the economic impact of those hours-worked changes -- you'd have to post up a +700k jobs figure to offset just this one month's change in hourly workweek!

 

It's basically the same as it was 6 years ago, and aside from a dip in 2009, has been steadily within a range of 34.1-34.6 for the past 6 years.

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab2.htm

Seems like making a mountain out of a moe-hill to me.

 

True, however the only time it has ever dropped .2 in a single month were both in 2008, 2009. You are right though, could mean nothing.

 

WTF stat of the day.

Since January 2010, Population aged 16-54 has grown....

.
.
.
.
.

132k.