Posted on 06/02/2017 11:11:00 AM PDT by mountn man
To confuse things more the number of jobs created is based on establishment {employer} survey data while the number of unemployed is based on household survey data.
Current population is 321 million.
25% of Population is 0-18 yrs old
15% of population is 65+
That is 40%, leaving 60% possible for the workforce.
321 x 60%= 192.6 million possible for the work force
Current work force is at 159.784 Million
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
Current labor participation is 62.7%
Since 1980, the highest labor participation rate was 67.3%, for a few months in 2000
https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Currently, there are 125.53 million people working.
So...you do the math.
Where are these 94 million you claim?
And I was slightly off, it's 94,983,000.
Thanks.
I always look for facts and sources.
Your number of 94.830 million is correct.
If you go back to Jan, Feb of 2000, you’ll see that the out of labor force numbers were 69.120 million
But population back then was about 281 million vs 321 million today.
Point being. Hannity is trying to draw outrage by quoting 95 million out of the work force.
(I mention Hannity, simply because I’ve heard him quote this number)
Though the number is true, it’s also disingenuous.
The best participation rate was 67.3%
Currently we are at 62.7%
If we climb 4.5%, we are back to the all time participation rate
281 million for 2000 was the population.
if we multiply that by .245979,
we get 69.120.
The amount of people not in the labor force in 2000,
At the height of labor participation since 1980.
If we multiply 321 million, todays population,
by the same .245979
we get 78.959.
That would be the relative number for the out of labor force, to year 2000.
So, to be realistic, we need to put about 16 million back to work.
Now...when Zero took orifice, I mean office, work force participation was at 65.7%.
During GWB’s last 2 years, it was fluctuating about 66.0%
It dropped 3 points under Zilch.
That would mean 10.333 million more people should be working today.
(Not trying to argue with you. Just trying to know the details myself)
(I don’t want to argue rhetoric with rhetoric, or talking points, with a liberal. I want to know facts myself, not just repeat what I’ve heard, so they can’t slip a “gotcha” past)
You could say it’s my way of using the Richard Feynman technique.
I appreciate the link.
I tend to look at the Workforce Participation Rate (as you do) and also the BLS numbers. I did the analysis once showing where the Workforce Participation Rate and the BLS numbers started going askew but can't seem to find it right now. If memory serves me correctly it was somewhere under GW Bush's second term, but that's really all I can remember at this point.
I had a thought yesterday as we exchanged posts on this thread wondering how criminal illegal immigration fit into all this. Just a thought at this point, haven't had the time (or will...) to go deeper than that.
Appreciate your posts. Well thought through and informative. What FR used to be "back in the day" when I joined all the way back in 1998.
Cheers!
You might be interested in this article:
The Real Unemployment Number: 102 Million Working Age Americans Do Not Have A Job
By Michael Snyder, on June 4th, 2017
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-real-unemployment-number-102-million-working-age-americans-do-not-have-a-job
John Williams web site:
It is a prescription site but has lots of free information on how BLS stats have been ‘enhanced’; in the mid 90’s long term unemployed began to be shuffled off to the not in the workforce bucket.
Unemployent calculated as it would ave been before mid 90 enhancements.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
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.