Americans Not in Labor Force Exceed 93 Million for First Time

[Revmitchell]

The number of Americans 16 years and older who did not participate in the labor force--meaning they neither had a job nor actively sought one in the last four weeks--rose from 92,898,000 in February to 93,175,000 in March, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

That is the first time the number of Americans out of the labor force has exceeded 93 million.

Also from February to March, the labor force participation rate dropped from 62.8 percent to 62.7 percent, matching a 37-year low.

Five times in the last twelve months, the participation rate has been as low as 62.8 percent; but March’s 62.7 percent, which matches the participation rate seen in September and December of 2014, is the lowest since February of 1978.


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali...-exceed-93-million-first-time-627-labor-force

 

[church mouse guy]

Obamanomics = poverty

 

[poncho]

No worries the economy is doing great!

 

[InTheLight]

Here we go again. The number of baby boomers that retire is 10,000 per day.

From the article:

The number of Americans 16 years and older who did not participate in the labor force--meaning they neither had a job nor actively sought one in the last four weeks--rose from 92,898,000 in February to 93,175,000 in March, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

So let's do the math. There were 277,000 fewer people in the labor force from February to March. That's 27.7 days @ 10,000 people per day retiring. Yep, that explains it. Retired people don't have a job and they aren't looking for one. They are not participating in the labor force.

Article goes on to say:
According to the BLS, the aging of the baby boom generation is a key factor affecting the labor force participation rate:
“The baby boomers’ exit from the prime-aged workforce and their movement into older age groups will lower the overall labor force participation rate, leading to a slowdown in the growth of the labor force,” explains the BLS.

 

[matt wade]

Here we go again. The number of baby boomers that retire is 10,000 per day.

From the article:

The number of Americans 16 years and older who did not participate in the labor force--meaning they neither had a job nor actively sought one in the last four weeks--rose from 92,898,000 in February to 93,175,000 in March, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

So let's do the math. There were 277,000 fewer people in the labor force from February to March. That's 27.7 days @ 10,000 people per day retiring. Yep, that explains it. Retired people don't have a job and they aren't looking for one. They are not participating in the labor force.

Article goes on to say:
According to the BLS, the aging of the baby boom generation is a key factor affecting the labor force participation rate:
“The baby boomers’ exit from the prime-aged workforce and their movement into older age groups will lower the overall labor force participation rate, leading to a slowdown in the growth of the labor force,” explains the BLS.

Son you need to get your head on straight. This was supposed to be a thread about how Obama is ruining this country! How can we do that if you bring FACTS into the discussion.

Get out of here you darn liberal!

(and before OldRegular shows up and steals my thunder, Obama is a baby killer!)

 

[InTheLight]

Son you need to get your head on straight. This was supposed to be a thread about how Obama is ruining this country! How can we do that if you bring FACTS into the discussion.

Get out of here you darn liberal!

(and before OldRegular shows up and steals my thunder, Obama is a baby killer!)

Good call.

/Thread

 

[targus]

Here we go again. The number of baby boomers that retire is 10,000 per day.

From the article:

The number of Americans 16 years and older who did not participate in the labor force--meaning they neither had a job nor actively sought one in the last four weeks--rose from 92,898,000 in February to 93,175,000 in March, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

So let's do the math. There were 277,000 fewer people in the labor force from February to March. That's 27.7 days @ 10,000 people per day retiring. Yep, that explains it. Retired people don't have a job and they aren't looking for one. They are not participating in the labor force.

Article goes on to say:
According to the BLS, the aging of the baby boom generation is a key factor affecting the labor force participation rate:
“The baby boomers’ exit from the prime-aged workforce and their movement into older age groups will lower the overall labor force participation rate, leading to a slowdown in the growth of the labor force,” explains the BLS.

Slight problem with your calculation.

It does not take into account the number of people that aged into the workforce age during that time...

And it does not take into account immigration.

 

[InTheLight]

Slight problem with your calculation.

It does not take into account the number of people that aged into the workforce age during that time...

What, 16 year olds? How many full time jobs are they actively looking for?

And it does not take into account immigration.

Neither do the official stats in the article. So it's a wash.

 

[Revmitchell]

Hey everyone there are currently 92,898,000 babyboomers in this country retired. Did you know that?

 

[Salty]

What, 16 year olds? How many full time jobs are they actively looking for?.

Over 8,000 teens quit school EVERY DAY!
Between that and immigration (legal and otherwise) you could call that a wash.

-----
8000 teens per day divide by 50 states -160/day /State
8000 divide by 3,144 counties = 2.5 teens per day per county drop out of high school.

 

[InTheLight]

Hey everyone there are currently 92,898,000 babyboomers in this country retired. Did you know that?

Nobody is saying that. But it is one of the dumbest things said on BB in a while.

 

[targus]

What, 16 year olds? How many full time jobs are they actively looking for?
.

What is the point in entering the discussion if you don't pay attention?

Try reading the thread from the start.

 

[InTheLight]

What is the point in entering the discussion if you don't pay attention?

Yes, I was wondering what you were doing here.

Try reading the thread from the start.

I did. I understand that people 16 and older are counted in the labor participation rate. I presume this is what you mean when you say "people aged into the workforce."

So tell me, how many 16-21 year olds are looking for full time employment? 10,000 a day? No. In other words, compared to people who retire they are insignificant.

 

[Use of Time]

Yes, I was wondering what you were doing here.



I did. I understand that people 16 and older are counted in the labor participation rate. I presume this is what you mean when you say "people aged into the workforce."

So tell me, how many 16-21 year olds are looking for full time employment? 10,000 a day? No. In other words, compared to people who retire they are insignificant.

You know, your old Spock avatar was quite fitting. It's interesting to watch everybody lose their collective mind when confronted with someone posting in a calm and logical manner. It's like a thread full of McCoy's in here...only not as charming.

 

[InTheLight]

You know, your old Spock avatar was quite fitting. It's interesting to watch everybody lose their collective mind when confronted with someone posting in a calm and logical manner. It's like a thread full of McCoy's in here...only not as charming.

The funny thing is, if you read the linked to article it says the aging population is the reason workforce participation rate is declining (read: people are retiring) and when I point that out I get a lot of "yeah buts" that don't address the issue.

What these people are trying to say is that the unemployment rate is somehow not accurate. They think by listing the declining labor participation rate they are making their point, but it's two different metrics. Ironic, because the few times the article uses the word unemployed it states a precise number and also states the unemployment rate is 5.5%.

 

[Use of Time]

The funny thing is, if you read the linked to article it says the aging population is the reason workforce participation rate is declining (read: people are retiring) and when I point that out I get a lot of "yeah buts" that don't address the issue.

What these people are trying to say is that the unemployment rate is somehow not accurate. They think by listing the declining labor participation rate they are making their point, but it's two different metrics. Ironic, because the few times the article uses the word unemployed it states a precise number and also states the unemployment rate is 5.5%.

I'm with ya, I didn't read the article because I figured it was just more Mitch doom and gloom agenda stuff. I'm just always amused at the unproportional amount of anger you tend to get bombarded with due to your posting style. It's really amazing.

 

[InTheLight]

I'm with ya, I didn't read the article because I figured it was just more Mitch doom and gloom agenda stuff.

"Workforce participation rate at lowest level since 1978" and "Over 93 million Americans not in the labor force." People just have a knee-jerk reaction that the stats must be bad news indeed. Nowhere in the article is there a whiff that this is bad news, unless a "slow down in the growth of the labor force" is dire news.

I'm just always amused at the unproportional amount of anger you tend to get bombarded with due to your posting style. It's really amazing.

I like to post facts and provide links to data that supports my position. I guess some people can't handle that.

 

[righteousdude2]

The number of Americans 16 years and older who did not participate in the labor force--meaning they neither had a job nor actively sought one in the last four weeks--rose from 92,898,000 in February to 93,175,000 in March, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

That is the first time the number of Americans out of the labor force has exceeded 93 million.

Also from February to March, the labor force participation rate dropped from 62.8 percent to 62.7 percent, matching a 37-year low.

Five times in the last twelve months, the participation rate has been as low as 62.8 percent; but March’s 62.7 percent, which matches the participation rate seen in September and December of 2014, is the lowest since February of 1978.


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali...-exceed-93-million-first-time-627-labor-force

Nevertheless, there are some on the fringe of the far left, who live on this board, who insists that Obama and his economics have helped America to recover, and we are all doing better than under Bush. If I could only get me some of that kool aid, I might better begin to understand obamanomics! :smilewinkgrin: :thumbs:

 

[righteousdude2]

What is the point in entering the discussion if you don't pay attention?

Try reading the thread from the start.

He's been misreading all my posts for a l time now, and getting his panties all twisted out of shape and in an uproar because of how twisted panties didn't fit well! I wish these younger folks learned to read better, and stop reading between the lines! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Salty]

What, 16 year olds? How many full time jobs are they actively looking for? ...

Unemployed persons are persons who:

• Are aged 16 year or older,
• Are not engaged in any employment (self or otherwise),
• Were available for job in last four weeks, and
• Have made specific efforts to find a job at any time during last four weeks

A 16 year old who is attending school full time is NOT in the work force and thus is not counted as unemployed.

From the Bureau of Labor Stats