Posted on 01/10/2015 9:02:10 AM PST by BenLurkin
A record 92,898,000 Americans 16 years and older did not participate in the labor force last month, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The BLS defines people not in the work force as people 16 years and up who are not employed and haven’t “made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week.” The labor force participation rate — or the “The labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population” — also dipped back down to 62.7 percent, from 62.9 percent in November.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
You said...
“About 1 in 4 Adults aged 25-54 are not working”
Thanks. I always wondered the breakdown of that 90 some million not working. Even in an economy such as this, it seemed a little high.
Still, not a good stat for sure
Yes.
>> we are being Grubered.
And in 2007, median household income was $55,438. That’s declined to $51,404 in February 2013.
Obama will just claim that the 92million people not working is proof his policies are working. Just look at how many don’t need jobs. Largest number ever!
There’s a stat for 25-55 as well, but it’s also misleading, because quite a number of people over 55 (and under 25) need to work.
More than 30% of those adults who could work at 260 million.
"Yes, but the unemployment rate continues to drop" - Duh! /s
One for every mile to the sun!
This is GREAT, Another 20 Million and the unemployment rate will be 0%
It might seem intuitive that the participation rate for the older workers would have declined the fastest. But exactly the opposite has been the case.
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/employment/LFPR-Growth-since-2000-older-cohorts.gif
The net change for the labor force participation rate ** growth ** has been that workers aged 55 to 74 since 2000 has gone up... while younger adults growth rate has gone down.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to work bankers hours. I worked nights for 17 years.
no way. that report you referenced indicated 92M not in work force but did not indicate their ages. also some of those would include retired individuals. in fact some people retire prior to 65 - like I am about to do.
right. it is a better number but not exactly right either. retired people have to be excluded from the number for it to be meaningful. what we do know is the government numbers are phony
Many Republican politicians in Washington and Republican governors are loathe to challenge the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ unemployment rate numbers because those numbers make states with Republican governors and conservative economc policies look good.
The ten states with the lowest unemployment rates are:
1) North Dakota, red state: 2.3%
2) Nebraska, red state: 3.1%
3) South Dakota, red state: 3.3%
4) Utah, red state: 3.6%
5) Minnesota, blue state: 3.7%
6) Idaho, red state: 3.9%
7) Hawaii, blue state: 4%
8) Colorado, blue state, 4.1%
8) New Hampshire: blue state, 4.1%
10) Iowa, red state, 4.3%
Very difficult to say.
Ironically many of them have been “Galt” from the beginning.
I wonder how many trespassing foreign nationals are in the official workforce as well as in the black market workforce?
______________________________
All Employment Growth Since 2000 Went to Immigrants
Government data show that since 2000 all of the net gain in the number of working-age (16 to 65) people holding a job has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal). This is remarkable given that native-born Americans accounted for two-thirds of the growth in the total working-age population.
http://www.cis.org/all-employment-growth-since-2000-went-to-immigrants
Immigrants gaining jobs, native-born Americans aren’t
Since the recession’s end in June 2009, legal and illegal immigrants posted a net gain of 656,000 jobs, while native-born Americans lost 1.2 million, says a Pew Hispanic Center report.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2010/1029/Immigrants-gaining-jobs-native-born-Americans-aren-t
Labor Force:
"The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary."
Labor Force Participation Rate:
"The labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population."
Employed Persons:
"Persons 16 years and over in the civilian noninstitutional population who, during the reference week, (a) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hours or more as unpaid workers in an enterprise operated by a member of the family; and (b) all those who were not working but who had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, childcare problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs. Each employed person is counted only once, even if he or she holds more than one job. Excluded are persons whose only activity consisted of work around their own house (painting, repairing, or own home housework) or volunteer work for religious, charitable, and other organizations."
Unemployed Persons:
"Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed."
The labor force statistic, therefore, does NOT include retirees, people under 16, prisoners, and active duty military.
The labor force participation rate is based on the total noninstitutional civilian population, which DOES include retirees and people under 16, but NOT prisoners or active duty military.
When talking about statistics, it's always helpful to understand the definitions on which they are based, even though those definitions may not make sense.
Specifically, as has been pointed out many times, their definition of "unemployed" deliberately understates the true number of unemployed persons, no doubt for political reasons.
While the level of labor force participation declined — due not only to potentially discouraged workers but also baby boomers hitting retirement age...
That statement is accurate. Retirees are considered to be "unavailable" for work, are therefore neither employed nor unemployed, and are not part of the work force.
Given that there are no other changes, say if Mr. Smith from Anytown USA retires from his job, the labor force drops by one, but the total population stays the same. So the labor force participation rate drops slightly.
It might make more sense to define the participation rate on the basis of "people of working age", but though the starting age is set in law at 16, the ending age is variable.
But as long as the definitions stay the same, the statistical data is meaningful over time.
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.
