[Jeff Winston]

I would like to know the PERCENTAGE of people not in the labor force (well, it’s pretty easy to compute) and how that compares to past US history.

The raw number isn’t as meaningful as the percentage.

[Cowboy Bob]

You also have to take into consideration that 40 years ago, most women did not work. When I was a kid, most mothers did not work. Women made up a much smaller percentage of the workforce.

What would be a good gauge is the percentage of men who are working.

[csmusaret]

In 2012, the participation rate for the working-age population was 77.5%, down about three percentage points from the peak of 80.2% in 1997

[traderrob6]

Ask and ye shall receive...

The labor force participation is 63.5 percent.

Average since 1950:

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1999/12/art1full.pdf

[Paine in the Neck]

I would like to know the PERCENTAGE of people not in the labor force...and how that compares to past US history.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics makes that info available. Here's a post I made on another thread yesterday that shows the recent history.

Here's the chart of percent of population employed if you don't want to click through:

[CodeToad]

Not to mention, define “participation’. Obama’s administration of propaganda defines three people participating if only one person holds three part time jobs of any sort to include a single hour in the month.

The actual number of people working is very hard to determine as such things as IRS records, Social Security records, and private corporate records are not in the public domain.

However, if you want some good raw numbers search for the “Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States” report and it will give accurate information about incomes, savings, investments, etc.

[usconservative]

That number is roughly 48%, which you can determine by taking those "eligible" to work between the ages of 18-65 (roughly 185,000,000 people) and divide 89,300,000 people by it.

That number of course doesn't separate out those who choose not to work outside the home (housewives, for example or stay at home dad's) or those disabled, or otherwise "not working by choice."

[Always A Marine]

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) measures Unemployment in different ways, although it cooks up a pretty number for "official" public consumption. Here is the list:
U1 : Percentage of labor force unemployed 15 weeks or longer.
U2 : Percentage of labor force who lost jobs or completed temporary work.
U3 : Official unemployment rate per ILO definition.
U4 : U3 + "discouraged workers", or those who have stopped looking for work because current economic conditions make them believe that no work is available for them.
U5 : U4 + other "marginally attached workers", or "loosely attached workers", or those who "would like" and are able to work, but have not looked for work recently.
U6 : U5 + Part time workers who want to work full time, but cannot due to economic reasons.

Here are the current BLS numbers for each:
U1: 4.2%
U2: 4.2%
U3: 7.7% (Official)
U4: 8.3%
U5: 9.2%
U6: 14.3%

Of all the BLS measurements, U6 is closest to the reality of today's economy. Common sense tells us that decreasing total employment in an increasing population cannot possibly square with a lower unemployment rate.

Everyone is lying to prop up the sick economy and delay its collapse. This was never more obvious than yesterday when the other CNBC talking heads angrily shouted Rick Santelli down for daring to ask "Have we gotten that far down the hole?" after it was tacitly admitted that Bernanke's Fed is propping up the stock markets.

Everyone is now fully invested in the lie...

[george76]

The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts