[SeekAndFind]

This was written in 2013. Since then, the number being presented has been 93 million ( not 90 million as was the case two years ago ).

However, the argument presented in this article does not change.

This is FYI.

Comments/rebuttals welcome

[SeekAndFind]

[VanShuyten]

I’m not sure, but I don’t think that those over 65 are counted in the labor pool.

[no-to-illegals]

FYI.

Are they armed and do they want a change of regime?

[LambSlave]

Since as many as 25% of the 65 and over are still working (not retiring), I’d add 10 million back in.

[Parley Baer]

I think what people are also referring to are the people who have fallen off the radar screen and are not on the labor statistics.

[Steve_Seattle]

"A reader recently asked us to check a claim that’s been widely repeated on conservative websites -- that 90 million Americans either aren’t working or aren’t looking for work."

When conservatives cite the 90 million figure, they are not suggesting that 90 million people are looking for jobs and can't find them, but that the number of people not working constitutes a drain on government resources in one form or another, ranging from social security, Medicare, and unemployment benefits, to student loans and other forms of subsidy.

If you are not working - even for legitimate reasons such as retirement - you are by definition not productive an in economic sense. Therefore the claim is not "mostly false."

[Chgogal]

FYI - a thread that will make you happy. ; )

[cicero2k]

It all boils down to real income. Whether it is from multiple part time jobs or overtime from one job.

Real income has continued to go down since the recession. Around 8% decline. So with prices going up (gas at $4.00 again in CA) it’s no wonder families are back to hunker down mode. That means recession.

It’s not like they can lower interest rates to spur growth.

The biggest casualty is the opportunity cost of the unborn. Babies are not being had because parents are not optimistic.

[proxy_user]

The biggest flaw I see is not counting married women with children who chose not to work while their children are young. There must be at least ten or fifteen million such women.

[Chewbarkah]

Rebutting this claim ignores what really matters, which I’ll call the “Carry Ratio”. How many people are working to carry the entire population, including those who do not work, for whatever reason, in different time periods?

For starters, compare that ratio over time to see major trends.
The Aging of the population is a significant factor we can’t blame politicians for, directly (though it is why many of them support massive immigration to expand the base of the pyramid).
There will probably be a strong correlation to falling Carry Ratios and increased deficit spending by government.

More sophisticated research should get into how the trends bracket by demographic factors, the effects of earnings disparity (and how many earn enough to carry more than themselves), and whether those earnings are derived from wealth creation or government redistribution.

And what are the effects of investment, as opposed to wage income on the whole picture? The Leftist plan is to tap investment income to carry a large non-working population.

[Starstruck]

Throwing out the total number of people in each of the groups is disingenuous since a number of those groups are still working even though they are high school age, going to college and are of retirement age.

[NTHockey]

Figures lie; and liars figure. Any conclusion based on a false assumption cannot be true. Not even in a liberal’s mind (such as it is). A labor force participation rate of 63.5% means that the remaining population (36.5%) is not participating, i.e. unemployed.