I'm assuming that the "participation rate" is the number of people working divided by the number of people who could be working. I am assuming that "could be working" means "are between 18 and 65 years of age." So, increasing numbers of people retiring at 65 should have no effect upon the rate - or should even boost the rate, as retirees leave jobs which then become available to job-seeking youths (who, conversely, are then removed from the ranks of the unemployed).
What is my mistake in thinking here?
Regards,
No mistake.
The article does not really break down who is not working.
From what I have seen, the real losses are among the young AND the over 50’s. Ie, those who can’t get started and those forced into early retirement, often very early retirement.
Being 65 doesn't necessarily mean one should or has to stop workin'.
I’m one of those 55-year-olds who can’t find a job in the current economy, having been out of work for nearly two years. Assuming the Great Recession is coming to an end (and I have yet to be convinced of it), does any of this news mean work opportunities for me?
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the labor force participation rate is the “share of the population 16 years and older working or seeking work.”
* you have to be actively looking for a job in order to be considered “unemployed”
The rate has increased dramatically over the past 50 years or so due to more women entering the workforce.
Although not a mistake, assuming retired boomers are not in some manner employed or working is an error.
Some certainly are not, but there are others that find they must be doing something besides what they did for years and years.
Your logic is sound, but I think a lot of people are dropping out of the work force long before they reach the age of 65.