Record High 89.3 Million People “Not In The Labor Force”

political outcast ^ | 3-8-13 | philip hodges

[TurboZamboni]

The unemployment rate may have fallen from 7.9% in February to 7.7% in January, but the number of people not in the labor force has set a record all-time high. The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines those not in the labor force as those who are unemployed and no longer looking for work, including those who retired on schedule or retired early. CNS News reported the numbers:

“The number of Americans designated as ‘not in the labor force’ in February was 89,304,000, a record high, up from 89,008,000 in January, according to the Department of Labor. This means that the number of Americans not in the labor force increased 296,000 between January and February.”

[TurboZamboni]

[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.

[RWGinger]

What gets confusing to me is the number of people who dropped out. yesterday if I read it correctly the BLS number of people dropping out was 239k
But most media reported it as 130k

and #2
yesterday’s reports said the number included people who reached retirement age
but I thought the drop out number did NOT ever include people who retired dur to age

If it does include age retired pple then the unemployment rate going down is probably a good thing

[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:

[rollin]

If you really understood the difference between the non-seasonally data and the Ministry of Truth’s seasonally-adjusted numbers, it might help.

The real problem is that although on a SA basis, jobs increased by 176,000, there were 446,000 part-time jobs added and full-time jobs actually decreased by 276,000 jobs.

But most people only look at the headline number and not at the data.

[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.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

but I thought the drop out number did NOT ever include people who retired dur to age

The other side of the equation is the young people entering (or in this economy trying to enter) the workforce, so the people who have left the workforce due to retirement should be balanced out by the young people entering the workforce. IOW, the participation rate is dropping even with the young people entering the workforce.

That's how I understand how this works anyway. If anyone knows otherwise, please share.

[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."

[usconservative]

Now if you take the general population, roughly 315,000,000 people, the number not working as a part of the population is about 28.3% - which would I think be closer to the actual unemployment rate, which under ANY OTHER PRESIDENT would account for the 8.5 million jobs lost since Obama took office that aren't coming back.

But that's just my opinion.

[RWGinger]

There is the answer I am seeking
abd I believe it has always been the case
that for the BLS stats they use the metric of “ working age” which is 18-54
so yesterday when I read a IIRV Yahoo site report ti did say that the number of people who dropped out included people reaching retirment age, that didnt ring rue BUT it would make 0dumbo look better
thank you for posting that
facts don’t lie but 0dumbo and his minions do

[usconservative]

I just went back and read my post after your response, and realized “funny how that 48% number keeps coming up?” ... isn’t it?

[SparkyBass]

And yet my paper has a snippet article on how stocks are up due to the positive job number.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

[SamAdams76]

We can banter around all day about the number of people out of the work force, but I can tell you from personal experience that traffic sucks badly during my morning and evening commutes and you still have to wait an hour or more for a table at any given "casual dining" restaurant like Outback, Macaroni Grill or Applebees.

I shudder to think how bad traffic would suck if we ever achieved full employment and forget about the two-hour wait for a table at Olive Garden on a Friday night. I'm buying a couple of heated rotisserie chickens at the supermarket and throwing a pot of rice on the stove.

[CitizenM]

Bump

[Jeff Winston]

That graphic is very informative.

It looks to me like roughly 1 out of every 15 US workers who wanted to work lost their job in 2008.

And those jobs have simply never come back.

[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]