Record 87,897,000 Americans Not in the Labor Force

www.breitbart.com ^ | Apr 07, 2012 | Wynton Hall

[forbushalltheway]

Amid disappointing unemployment numbers that fell 80,000 jobs short of projections, another number is raising eyebrows: the number of Americans not in the labor force has hit a record high 87,897,000.

This figure explains why overall unemployment dropped from 8.3% to 8.2%, as the Department of Labor's unemployment figure does not include people who have given up hope and are not actively seeking employment.

When the number of individuals who have stopped looking for a job and/or who are working part-time but desire full-time employment is included--a figure known as the "underemployment rate"--real unemployment stands at 19.1%.

[New Jersey Realist]

If they did this honestly they would use the following formula. Total number of Americans, minus those under 18 or in school, minus those retired or getting pensions, SSI, etc; minus those filing income taxes. The rest must be unemployed. Sounds simple but I can see why politicians would hate it.

[corlorde]

Good god.

[aruanan]

Record 87,897,000 Americans Not in the Labor Force

311,591,917 (U.S. population roughly)
-23,395,287 (age 65 and over: male 17,745,363/female 23,377,542)
-62,889,723(age under 14: male 32,107,900/female 30,781,823)

86,285,010 not in workforce because they're under 15 or over 64. And that was using 2011 numbers. This record number not in the labor force doesn't mean that these are people who would otherwise be working. It is simply all those, for whatever reason, who are not.

[Soul of the South]

“Businesses have caught on and are using part time work so they aren’t out any benefits. That’s a good portion of what’s hurting the economy.”

Obamacare, if it is upheld by the Supreme Court, will solve much of the benefits issue for employers. Beginning in 2014 they will discontinue medical benefits just as most employers discontinued defined benefit pension plans in the 2 decades after the legislation establishing 401K plans was enacted (1978).

[Soul of the South]

“Record 87,897,000 Americans Not in the Labor Force”

The 20 million US manufacturing jobs lost since 1990 due to our one way free trade policies would make a nice dent in the unemployment number. Add to that the millions of jobs held by illegals.

Government policies do affect the employment rate.

[aruanan]

“Record 87,897,000 Americans Not in the Labor Force”

Remember that over 98% of this number is accounted for by people under the age of 15 and over the age of 64. This 87 million number is NOT referring to people who would otherwise be in the labor force but for the bad economy.

[aruanan]

See post 43.

[EBH]

See post 18

[television is just wrong]

yes, I know, still looking and NO JOBS out there.

[kearnyirish2]

“Businesses have caught on and are using part time work so they aren’t out any benefits.”

They’re using temps, too; it might be a ten-year assignment, but it is staffed by temps. Not likely Obama voters in November...

[khelus]

When a nation outsources it’s manufacturing base to the third world communists, this is what happens. Ain’t Free Trade™ great?

Free Trade™ is simply marvelous. /sarc

For those who are unaware, this is the reason why Karl Marx, Obama/s hero, promoted free trade {the unfettered movement of capital, freed from all political, national and religious shackles), and why The 45 planks of the communist party for the US included:

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

[khelus]

Crappy times are here again.
Maybe next they’ll outlaw beer again.
All the bulls have become steers again.
Crappy times are here again.

ROFL

[Squantos]

That’s amazing when related to the population of entire countries ..

I wonder if the demographics of this number include stay at home spouses, retired, honestly disabled, those unemployed that have exhausted their benefits and those unemployed still receiving unemployment checks ?

When unemployment numbers are presented I would like to know who is really counted. Disabled 100% , Retirees, stay at home spouses, those in college, IMHO shouldn’t be counted as unemployed.

I believe if only those that are receiving unemployment checks are counted. The numbers are invalid.

If the count includes those that voluntarily stay out of the work force via retirement, stay at home spouse or those that choose to attend college versus work then the numbers are invalid as well.

Then again if a polidiot or presstitute presents any number to us we can’t believe they are valid.

Our population as of the 7-2011 census was reported to be 311.5 million vs 87.8 million not in labor force .

Damn ...

[khelus]

re:“Record 87,897,000 Americans Not in the Labor Force”

Remember that over 98% of this number is accounted for by people under the age of 15 and over the age of 64. This 87 million number is NOT referring to people who would otherwise be in the labor force but for the bad economy.

Au contraire, per the BLS, of the 87,897,000 not in the labor force, 6,299,000 or over 7% Want a Job Now. That does not include those who have returned to school in hope of returning to employment.

[Steve Van Doorn]

I am a little confused on how they added this. Your figure seems more accurate but the 310 million doesn’t take into account children, retired and so on.

[unixfox]

The closing of commercial properties of all kinds is quite an omen. Lotsa places, restaurants, shops in strip malls, stand-alone buildings, all going vacant.

Yet in Midland Texas they are in a boom. Houses are flying off the market in 24 hours after being put on the market, oil companies are renting out entire hotels for the year, businesses are opening everywhere.

All because of the oil industry, in spite of what Zer0 has done to try and kill it!

F U B O!

[Lexinom]

An enchilada casserole lasts me about five days and costs just shy of $12 in ingredients. It’s not the only thing I eat but makes a substantive main course staple during tough times.

[itsahoot]

if 87,897,000.= 19.1% then the total work force is about 5 times 87,897,000 or 439 485 000, the total population is no where near that number, so where do those figures come from?

[wiggen]

To my knowledge its people eligible to work who have not sought work in a period of time,something like a month. Not disabled as we know they collect disability. I do not believe they count either a housewife who does not have a job(Yes ladies,i know and appreciate you have the hardest job of all.)
People officially retired are not to my knowledge counted either.
Don’t forget. They take these people out of the labor force as well which drives down the headline unemployment rate.
On the cuff simple math using smaller numbers than the government has to work with.
A nation of 150 people of which 100 comprise the labor force. 92 have jobs and 8 don’t so the unemployment rate is 8%. Fast forward. Some of the 50 not in the labor force were children now in in. Others in it retired. The economy is horrible. There are 100 people eligible to work again. 47 are working. 53 lost their jobs months ago. Of those 50 3 sought work in the last month. The labor force then is 47 working and 3 seeking work. Thats 50 people. 3 sought work so 3 is to 50 is the same as 6 to 100. The unemployment rate is now 6%. The population is unchanged. The number of workers shrunk from 100 to 47. The headline unemployment rate is 6%. The number that really counts would be 53 out of 100 or 53% unemployment when you put all the bodies in.
Thats how it works short and sweet.

[RipSawyer]

“Americans aren’t very smart.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

That is beginning to sound to me like a huge UNDERstatement of the case, like saying that sand grains are not boulders.