Posted on 12/02/2016 8:17:18 AM PST by Rockitz
So much for that much anticipated rebound in the participation rate.
After it had managed to post a modest increase in the early part of the year, hitting the highest level in one year in March at 63%, the disenchantment with working has returned, and the labor force participation rate had flatlined for the next few month, ultimately dropping in November to 62.7%, just shy of its 35 year low of 62.4% hit last October. This can be seen in the surge of Americans who are no longer in the labor force, who spiked by 446,000 in November, hitting an all time high of 95.1 million.
As a result of this the US labor force shrank by 226,000 to 159,486K, down from 159,712K a month ago, and helped the unemployment rate tumble to 4.6%, the lowest level since August 2007.
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
One of the first acts of President Trump should be to fix the phony statistics pumped out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The 95 million out of work Americans should be reflected in that number. Then the numbers should be back-dated through the Obama years to reflect reality.
If we keep up at this rate the unemployment figure might get down to 0, since I saw an earlier thread that had the unemployment rate was down to 4.6. Break open the champagne everyone!!!
When you gut the payments out for needless SSDI, SSI, UIC, SNAP, Section 8, and EITC, those participation rate numbers will increase. They’ll have to get off their butts and work for a living.
I am just thankful the place where i live is enjoying a less than 3% unemployment number. West Michigan is cooking, the best job market in the world right now.
But, Zer0 says the 95 million are all retired baby boomers....
Question for Freepers - chicken or egg (or both)
Is the number of Americans out of the labor force so high because 1) there are no jobs, or no good jobs, that industrious Americans don’t even bother to look,
or 2) have we/Obama increased the welfare-nanny-state to such a level, paid for with massive debt in our fiat, printed currency, that we are incentivizing people, especially lower-skilled ones, to live off benefits directly, or society indirectly?
Somebody ping Mr. Trump. He should get out in front of this as part of his Appreciation Tour.
I'm not sure if he's a FReeper himself but my spidey senses tell me there's a FReeper who has access to him.
Cheer up.
In an Orwellian twist, every time the labor participation rate drops, the unemployment rate drops too!
There has to be a way to come up with actual work force participation numbers that are based on more than just a person's age. There are probably plenty of people in the 55-65 age group who are out of the work force involuntarily but are perfectly capable of getting by without regular employment.
Be interested to see this number juxtaposed next to “Americans getting government money” number
Numbers manipulation to try to make Barry’s last months look better.
I hope Trump’s green eyeshades straighten it out.
Determine how many 1099s are being submitted and compare to those on SS, disability, unemployment. That will give us a better number.
An analyst at the Federal Reserve has written that 80% of the decline since 2012 is due to retirement. And he wrote that 65% of the decline since 2000 is due to both retirement and disability.
But, I think this overlooks an important factor: a significant percentage of retirements since 2008 were forced. People got laid off and couldn't find a job. Since they didn't have any significant savings, they started Social Security at age 62 -- a decision that will severely limit their standard of living for their standard of living for the rest of their lives.
I'm officially a non-participant after retiring early. But, we did so because we could afford it after 30 years of putting the maximum in our 401(k)'s every year. We are in the position of not needing Social Security until I turn 70 and can collect the maximum benefit.
“have we/Obama increased the welfare-nanny-state to such a level, paid for with massive debt in our fiat, printed currency, that we are incentivizing people, especially lower-skilled ones, to live off benefits directly, or society indirectly?”
There is merit in what you say, and reforms are needed. However, we don’t want people facing starvation, and the fact is that there are very few jobs available.
When I was young, I used to brag that you could set me down naked in any city in America, and I’d be back on an even keel in three months. That America has been killed.
Until it rises again from the ashes, we must be careful not to cut too deeply. It’s not right to tell people to go get jobs that no longer exist.
YES. AND we're sick of all their other lies too...
I don't necessarily agree with that. My company, and many other companies, have a shortage of skilled workers. And I use the term loosely - basically, anyone who can pass a drug test, has basic high school literacy, and will show up on time - can have a job with all the hours they want. I am talking $16.50/hour. Not a great wage, but you have to start somewhere.
My theory - many factors, globalization and trade, the education system, over-regulation, money printing and negative real interest rates, technological efficiency, have pushed the wages down for America's underclass. For the time being, our government and society have papered over the issue with massive debt, both private and public, and printed money. Many factors will have to adjust, and like an earthquake, a financial/political crisis will come along to release pressure suddenly.
In other news...
Since 2014 The US Has Added 571,000 Waiters And Bartenders And Lost 34,000 Manufacturing Workers
A hell of a lot of them are exactly that. This is a ridiculous number. My mother is in her 90’s and she’s included in that 95+ million number, and will be as long as she’s not in a nursing home. And so is every stay-at-home mom, for that matter. It’s a nutty number that no one ever cited until about 10 years ago. Now it’s supposed to mean something?
There are plenty of jobs available. Talk to anyone running a small business that requires employees who show up on time and won’t call in at the last minute (or at all) to say they won’t be in today.
The real shortage is of people currently unemployed who are responsible enough to satisfy the very reasonable minimum requirements to hold a job. And part of the reason for that is they’e found they can get plenty of money from the government to remain irresponsible as long as they want.
I’m not saying these jobs are great jobs, by the way, but there are plenty of employers out there willing to hire responsible people. They just can’t find enough of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.