[Wyatt's Torch]

You are right on the labor force participation rate but one thing to consider is that baby boomers have been retiring and they are the largest part of the workforce so the participation rate would be expected to decline.

You are also correct on the tepidness of the "recovery" (I've never stated otherwise). 2% growth is pretty pathetic. To show the tepidness of the jobs recovery here is the famous chart from Bill McBride:

[listenhillary]

“If today the country had the same proportion of persons of working age employed as it did in 2000, the U.S. would have almost 14 million more people contributing to the economy. “

“Compare 2010 with October 2012, the last month for which food-stamp data have been reported. The unemployment rate fell to 7.8% from 9.6%, and real GDP was rising steadily if not vigorously. Food-stamp usage should have peaked and probably even begun to decline. Yet the number of recipients rose by 7,223,000. In a period of falling unemployment and rising output, the number of food-stamp recipients grew nearly 10,000 a day.”

Source
The wages of unemployment
http://www.aei.org/article/economics/the-wages-of-unemployment/