Record 95,102,000 Americans Not in Labor Force;

We have 72 million in the age bracket of 0-18, 45 million 65 and older, that leaves 208 million in the age bracket of 19-64. How many of them are working full time?

 

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2016/03/28/president_obamas_overrated_unemployment_story_102083.html

 

Just make sure you don't work normal hours or you would lose your stamps and other help. Essentially working more gets u you less.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...07/24/do-10000-baby-boomers-retire-every-day/
Seems it's a double edged sword.

 

Well which is it? First I read that we lost 78 million under Bush, now I'm reading that we lost 338,000. Hundreds of thousands lost their jobs in the oilfield under Obama.

 

Get rid of the minimum wage and there would be a job for everyone in the workforce. The minimum wage is designed to idle and crush working class, and it does that very well.

 

You're all wrong.

More Seniors are in the work-force and working than ever before. You can see the data here:

LNU01300097 Labor Force Participation Rate 65+ Years

2000 12.9%
2001 13.0
2002 13.2
2003 14.0
2004 14.4
2005 15.0
2006 15.4
2007 16.0
2008 16.8
2009 17.2
2010 17.4
2011 17.9
2012 18.5
2013 18.7
2014 18.6
2015 18.9
2016 19.4

More Boomers are working longer.

The same holds true for the 55-59 Years group which has increased from 69.3% in 2000 to 71.5% in 2016 and the 60-64 Year age group, increasing from 47.5% to 61.3% over the same time period.

No matter how you look at it, older people are staying in the work force longer.

So who dropped out of the Labor Force?

Mostly the 16-24 year old and 25-54 year old crowds. We can see that here:

LNU01324887 Labor Force Participation Rate 16-24 Years

2000 65.8%
2001 64.5
2002 63.3
2003 61.6
2004 61.1
2005 60.8
2006 60.6
2007 59.4
2008 58.8
2009 56.9
2010 55.2
2011 55.0
2012 54.9
2013 55.1
2014 55.0
2015 55.0
2016 55.3

That's a 10 point decline. And then here:

LNU01300060 Labor Force Participation Rate 25-54 Years

2000 84.0%
2001 83.7
2002 83.3
2003 83.0
2004 82.8
2005 82.8
2006 82.9
2007 83.0
2008 83.1
2009 82.6
2010 82.2
2011 81.6
2012 81.5
2013 81.0
2014 80.9
2015 80.9
2016 81.3

A 3 point decline

The bottom line is that based on the Employment-to-Population Ratio, there are 13,881,835 fewer Americans are working now than in Year 2000.

 

You keep mixing apples and oranges. You want to say a record number of people are not in the workforce and then you use percentages to support that statement as being somehow a bad thing.
Yes, as a percentage more seniors are working after 65, but there are a lot more seniors, it is the fastest growing segment of our population. There are more seniors retired than ever before despite the increased percentage working longer. They are also living longer and unless you plan on starting up death panels that is not likely to change and it's the reason why health care professions are also the fastest growing. Of course you could be like scrooge "then they should hurry up about it and decrease the surplus population".

The second fastest growing segment is the 16-24 year olds. More kids are finishing high school and going on to college. In fact, over half of high school graduates go on to tertiary educational institutions. More are taking 5 years rather than 4 and many more are going on to grad school. They're not entering the workforce as fast because they are staying in school. This is a good thing if we are to stop the race to the bottom, as recommended by a previous poster's suggestion of eliminating minimum wage. A more highly educated population would keep us at the top where the others want to go rather than we drop to their level.

Over the next 5 years the boomers will finish reaching 65. There will be more people not working than ever before but that will be offset some by the oldest boomers will start dying of old age and the 16-24 year olds will enter the job market and since the 10-15 year olds did not increase as much as the group ahead of them that will mean fewer in the 16-24 age group. By 2025 the not working number should go down unless something really bad happens but until then it will continue to rise.

Unemployment has been measured the same way for a long time, it is still the most accurate means of measuring the state of employment level in the US.

 

The snowflake generation whines about no good jobs out there thus proving my point that Obama's economy is a failure.

 

And illegal immigration taking jobs from Americans and good jobs leaving America and over regulation killing jobs in America and obama care creating part time jobs

 

This is the standard half the story liberal media way of reporting. A growing economy will negate the retirement number and birth rates are down in America

 

But now we have reached the point where a very large percentage of these college graduates are moving back in with mom and dad because there's no jobs for them with their five year degrees.

 

If a 62.7% labor force participation is so bad, then what should the participation rate be?

 

So, if a baby boomer retires doesn't that mean that there is job open for every person that retires? I'm no economist so help me out.

 

Yes. When that happens, the unemployment rate falls, because one person left the labor market voluntarily, while another one looking for a new job, just found it. Meanwhile, the labor force participation rate stays the same. The labor force participation rate is dropping for another reason related to baby boomers retiring. It's because in the 1950s the birth rate was much higher than around the 1990s, where today's workers are coming from. There are much more retirees compared to young workers than ever before.



A low labor force participation rate is not necessarily an indicator of dire economic times though. On the contrary, it could also be a sign of wealth and prosperity in the right circumstances. Imagine a world where many workers earn enough to easily put some money aside for more dire times. If they have enough to survive well on that for a few years, they're free to choose not to work for a while and leave the labor market. Some do that already today (albeit only a few though). There are also historical examples of lower labor force participation rate, that is, pretty much all of US history older than about 50 years. You could see it as a sign of prosperity when one man is able to provide a living for a whole family. If one breadwinner per household suffices and staying at home is not looked down upon in society, you can expect the labor force participation rate to drop. After all, why work yourself to death if you can enjoy family life?

 

By your argument there should be more baby boomers retiring than 90's kids looking for work, right?

 

when Obama took office in January 2009, there were 142 million Americans with jobs.

Today, there are 152 million Americans with jobs.

that's a 10 million increase.

Nice job Obama!!!!

 

OK - 153 million working now, 142 million then (142/152 = .934 = 6.6% workforce increase)
When Obama was elected the population was 304 million. When he leaves it will be 325 million. (304/325 =.935 = 6.5% population increase)

The math does say that under Obama's 8 years in office, employment numbers are better - but if we account for the population growth, Obama's increase is only ***** about 1/10 of 1 percent *******
Apparently the millions of Americans who say the economy has been stagnate during his administration are right.

 

We had 52 months of full employment and average labor participation rates during the Bush/Republican years. We didn't need to produce a lot of new jobs. Then the Democrats took majority control of the government and because of their failed policies we had and still have a desperate need to create millions of jobs.

Which is better?

 

We have passed the peak baby boomer retirement and old workers are the only group that has increased its labor participation rate during this period.

 

How many were there when the democrats took control of congress in 2007?

 

Well ver few since the republicans tanked the economy.

 

145 million

 

That's not quite what I wanted to say. There are still fewer people retiring every year than young people entering the workforce. Some baby boomers died before retirement age and even though the number of children per woman has dropped, there are also more women in total now than back then. The US population is still growing, although more slowly and due to immigration. As a percentage of the whole population, the amount of retirees has risen during the last few decades though.

By the way, I don't claim to be overly knowledgeable when it comes to labor markets, demographics or economics in general. I'm merely saying that the labor force participation rate is only one of many macroeconomic indicators that needs a lot of context to be of any value. A sinking labor force participation rate is not necessarily a doom and gloom scenario.

 

from all available data, there are more Americans with jobs today then at any time in our history.

nice job Obama!!!!