Alan C. Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 296,000 Americans Drop Out of Labor Force in February The number of Americans not in the labor force increased by 296,000 in February, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest jobs report. According to the report, there were a total of 89.3 million people not in the labor force, up from 89 million in January. BLS labels people who are unemployed and no longer looking for work as “not in the labor force,” including people who have retired on schedule, taken early retirement, or simply given up looking for work. The increase marks the second month in a row, after rising in January from 88.8 million in December. Those not in the labor force had declined in December from 88.9 million in November. The nation's unemployment rate decreased to 7.7 percent in February, down from 7.9 percent in January.
fractional slacker Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 As long as those 89.3 million are exempt from needing wages to earn money, everything is just fine. It will all work out. No need to worry. [] Paul Krudman and Robert Reich have a 10 year central plan. What else could we possibly need?
Alan C. Posted September 6, 2013 Author Posted September 6, 2013 90,473,000: Record Number Not in Labor Force--Up Almost 10M Under Obama In July, according to BLS, 89,957,000 Americans did not participate in the labor force. In August, that climbed to 90,473,000--a one month increase of 516,000.
Alan C. Posted October 22, 2013 Author Posted October 22, 2013 90,609,000: Americans Not in Labor Force Climbs to Another Record In from July to August, according to BLS, Americans not participating in the labor force climbed from 89,957,000 to 90,473,000, pushing past 90,000,000 for the first time, with a one month increase of 516,000. In September, it climbed again to 90,609,000, an increase of 136,000 during the month.
Alan C. Posted May 2, 2014 Author Posted May 2, 2014 More Than 92 Million Americans Remain Out Of Labor Force
cobra2411 Posted May 3, 2014 Posted May 3, 2014 There are valid and invalid reasons for being not in the labor force. For starters I'd like to see details of retirement aged people. That could be a valid reason to not be in the labor force anymore. Does a breakdown of age ranges exist for that data? I firmly believe it's being used as a scam to make things look better. All the presidents I can remember have done similar things. I would say true unemployment is at least double their claimed number.
GRosado Posted May 6, 2014 Posted May 6, 2014 The legitimate unemployment rate is somewhere around 12% I think
Wesley Posted May 6, 2014 Posted May 6, 2014 The legitimate unemployment rate is somewhere around 12% I think Depends how you measure it: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
GRosado Posted May 6, 2014 Posted May 6, 2014 Depends how you measure it: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-chartsTrue I would use the U6 measurement which is how they measured unemployment in the 80's, correct me if I'm wrong.
J-William Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 Depends how you measure it: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts That's hilarious... the official stats show unemployment going down gradually, and shadowstats shows unemployment 3 1/2 times higher and going up! Government is stupid...
Daniel Unplugged Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 That's hilarious... the official stats show unemployment going down gradually, and shadowstats shows unemployment 3 1/2 times higher and going up! Government is stupid...Manipulative is more like it, they know exactly what they are doing.
Alan C. Posted May 7, 2014 Author Posted May 7, 2014 Labor Force Participation Rate for 25-29 Year Olds Hits Record Low The labor force participation rate in April 2014 for Americans ages 25 to 29 hit the lowest level recorded since 1982, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) started tracking such data.The labor force participation rate, which is the percentage of the civilian non-institutional population who participated in the labor force by either having a job during the month or actively seeking one, hit a record low in April 2014 of 79.8%.In January 1982, when the data were first collected, the labor force participation rate for this group was 80.7%. Economy Not Keeping Up With Population Growth Despite adding more than 8 million people to the working-age population since 2007, total employment has declined by half a million, according to an analysis by the Senate Budget Committee.Before President Barack Obama took office 259.7 million people were part of the working-age population, or between ages 16 and 65. Now, the number has risen to 267.7 million.However, in the same time period, total employment declined from 146.3 million to 145.7 million. In other words, 531,000 fewer people have jobs.. . .“There are 58 million working-age people who are not working, and the labor force participation rate stands at 62.8 percent, the lowest level in 36 years.”
Alan C. Posted May 30, 2014 Author Posted May 30, 2014 1 in 6 American Men Between Ages 25-54 Are Not Working "There are currently 61.1 million American men in their prime working years, age 25–54. A staggering 1 in 8 such men are not in the labor force at all, meaning they are neither working nor looking for work. This is an all-time high dating back to when records were first kept in 1955. An additional 2.9 million men are in the labor force but not employed (i.e., they would work if they could find a job). A total of 10.2 million individuals in this cohort, therefore, are not holding jobs in the U.S. economy today. There are also nearly 3 million more men in this age group not working today than there were before the recession began," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee claim.
Alan C. Posted July 3, 2014 Author Posted July 3, 2014 92,120,000 Americans 16 and older not in labor force An increase of 111,000 from April through June.
jacbot Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 296,000 Americans Drop Out of Labor Force in February mm its funny the US economy needs 300.000 engineers and cant find them. Hence the H1B visa. lazy people get rewarded,..., and now they need to import people NOT in the USA cultural space ( ouside the freedom club?) because it seems impossible to find home grown engineers. Enough people who do stupid shit like "Masters in yoga" though....
Alan C. Posted September 26, 2014 Author Posted September 26, 2014 1 in 4 Americans 25-54 Not Working "There are 124.5 million Americans in their prime working years (ages 25–54). Nearly one-quarter of this group—28.9 million people, or 23.2 percent of the total—is not currently employed. They either became so discouraged that they left the labor force entirely, or they are in the labor force but unemployed. This group of non-employed individuals is more than 3.5 million larger than before the recession began in 2007," writes the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee. "Those attempting to minimize the startling figures about America’s vanishing workforce—workplace participation overall is near a four-decade low—will say an aging population is to blame. But in fact, while the workforce overall has shrunk nearly 10 million since 2009, the cohort of workers in the labor force ages 55 to 64 has actually increased over that same period, with many delaying retirement due to poor economic conditions. "In fact, over two-thirds of all labor force dropouts since that time have been under the age of 55. These statistics illustrate that the problems in the American economy are deep, profound, and pervasive, afflicting the sector of the labor force that should be among the most productive."
Alan C. Posted October 3, 2014 Author Posted October 3, 2014 Participation Rate Drops To 36 Year Low; Record 92.6 Million Americans Not In Labor Force
Livemike Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 The entire concept of the unemployment rate is suspect. I've been offering "unemployed" people my job for 10 years now, no takers. Sure it's a shitty job, but it's a job.
David Ottinger Posted October 6, 2014 Posted October 6, 2014 The last season of the Wire nails this idea of juking stats for political power.
iHuman Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 The last season of the Wire nails this idea of juking stats for political power. Nothing new, Fudging "Numbers" to give a Completely False Appearance that things are Improving to attempt (in a purely laughable manner) to gain Political Favor.
Alan C. Posted December 5, 2014 Author Posted December 5, 2014 Labor Force Participation Remains at 36-Year Low The participation rate, which is the percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population who participated in the labor force by either having a job during the month or actively seeking one, was 62.8 percent in November which matches the percentage since March 1978. . . . Another 92,447,000 people did not participate in the labor force. These Americans did not have a job and were not actively trying to find one. When President Obama took office in January 2009, there were 80,529,000 Americans who were not participating in the office, which means that since then, 11,918,000 Americans have left the workforce. 17.7% Teen Unemployment in America – Still Above Rate of 6 Years Ago ...for Americans age 16 to 19 years. Maybe they should hike up the minimum wage some more.
Zerubbabel Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 This thread, OP and responses, seems to accept the unquestioned premise that wage slavery (State recognized employment - i.e. "a real job") is the only possible means of economic participation. I think that this large number of people "not in the workforce" likely represent a growing number of microsecessionists. We should celebrate the increase of this number. While I think these people are living a life of much lower affluence than those people "in the workforce," they are living a more authentically liberal life. At some percentage of those "not in the workforce" -at some critical mass- the State and Crapitalism (as Stefan calls crony-capitalism) will collapse. So we can expect as some point in the not too distant future legislation that in some way prohibits opting-out. .
Culain Posted December 6, 2014 Posted December 6, 2014 While I think these people are living a life of much lower affluence than those people "in the workforce," they are living a more authentically liberal life. At some percentage of those "not in the workforce" -at some critical mass- the State and Crapitalism (as Stefan calls crony-capitalism) will collapse. So we can expect as some point in the not too distant future legislation that in some way prohibits opting-out. . Their lifestyle involves stealing from others and the more they do it the more dependent they become on it. Their numbers continue to grow by the day and they continue to advocate for policies which steal from the working class making our life more difficult, the end point being when they take us all down the path of financial collapse with them. These people are parasites who would never advocate for secession because it would threaten to end their addiction.
shirgall Posted December 6, 2014 Posted December 6, 2014 Unemployment is supposed to track how many people *want* to work but cannot find a job. There are many ways to do this, but labor force participation is supposed to cover all the people that want to work. When the labor force participation rate decreases but standard of living does not there can be many reasons, however, it's not clear the reason is "opting out". http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm When we look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics breakdown, we see a drop in participation in younger people and an increase amongst older people. That seems to run counter to the "opting out" scenario. People who are starting families, looking for their own place to live, and making a mark for themselves are more likely to seek employment. People whose kids have grown and left are more likely to retire or dabble in entrepreneurship. The BLS narrative says baby boomers are retiring, but look at the participation rate of men aged 65 to 69, going from 26.0% in 1992 to 37.1% in 2012. Doesn't that sound like the opposite? in that same period, men aged 20 to 24 dropped from 83.3% to 74.5%.
Zerubbabel Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 Their lifestyle involves stealing from others and the more they do it the more dependent they become on it. Their numbers continue to grow by the day and they continue to advocate for policies which steal from the working class making our life more difficult, the end point being when they take us all down the path of financial collapse with them. These people are parasites who would never advocate for secession because it would threaten to end their addiction. I think we have a misunderstanding here. The group of people under discussion are people not in active employment being reported to the IRS, and not on the government system of unemployment compensation. These people are economic outsiders, so to speak.
s33k3r Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 92.12 million unemployed 316.1 million people --------------- Roughly 29.14% not employed. Reliable shadow stats tend to show about 20 - 24% so this sounds close. http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts What is even scarier is the plunge the real GDP and shadow stats show and the trend line it has. http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/05/gdp-real-gdp-and-shadowstats-theater-of.html
Zerubbabel Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 Unemployment is supposed to track how many people *want* to work but cannot find a job. There are many ways to do this, but labor force participation is supposed to cover all the people that want to work. When the labor force participation rate decreases but standard of living does not there can be many reasons, however, it's not clear the reason is "opting out". http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm When we look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics breakdown, we see a drop in participation in younger people and an increase amongst older people. That seems to run counter to the "opting out" scenario. People who are starting families, looking for their own place to live, and making a mark for themselves are more likely to seek employment. People whose kids have grown and left are more likely to retire or dabble in entrepreneurship. The BLS narrative says baby boomers are retiring, but look at the participation rate of men aged 65 to 69, going from 26.0% in 1992 to 37.1% in 2012. Doesn't that sound like the opposite? in that same period, men aged 20 to 24 dropped from 83.3% to 74.5%. To be clear we should define our terms - and I could be wrong - tell me. The BLS's "Participation in the Labor Force" = those citizens who are employed on a current W-4 or 1099 wage-reporting system. If this is true then it is to fall into a language trap to conclude that those "Not in the Labor Force" are not working. "Can I 1099 you?" ... "No no. Don't 1099 me. I'll work for $1.50 less" ... "OK." = Another lazy-good-for-nothing person "not participating in the labor force."
Leevan Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 Next time a progressive is crowing about the unemployment rate, ask them how the labor participation rate has faired under Obama,
shirgall Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 The BLS's "Participation in the Labor Force" = those citizens who are employed on a current W-4 or 1099 wage-reporting system. They define it as the percentage of civilian noninstitutional population (16 and up) working *or* looking for work. It's not a strict count, but a projection based on a decently sized basket of reporting institutions. It determines how many people are available based on census data, how many people are reporting work from tax and institutional data, how many people are applying for jobs (institutional data again), and how many people are claiming unemployment (and are therefore looking for work). Unlike the employment statistic, this one doesn't seem to be as controversial. I think the criticism laid the most is that it doesn't do much to computer underemployment (where people are capable and willing to work a higher paying job, or a job with more hours, but can't find one).
Zerubbabel Posted December 8, 2014 Posted December 8, 2014 They define it as the percentage of civilian noninstitutional population (16 and up) working *or* looking for work. It's not a strict count, but a projection based on a decently sized basket of reporting institutions. It determines how many people are available based on census data, how many people are reporting work from tax and institutional data, how many people are applying for jobs (institutional data again), and how many people are claiming unemployment (and are therefore looking for work). Unlike the employment statistic, this one doesn't seem to be as controversial. I think the criticism laid the most is that it doesn't do much to computer underemployment (where people are capable and willing to work a higher paying job, or a job with more hours, but can't find one). So I tried to find BLS's definition of terms and just as you had written it is clear as mud. I especially like the 1984ish logical irony of this: "Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force." The OP points out a discrepancy in reporting, and a group of people who exist outside of the reporting system. I suggest that this group contains those people outside of the State's system of reporting because they exist outside of the State's system of control. I don't understand your point regarding this.
shirgall Posted December 8, 2014 Posted December 8, 2014 So I tried to find BLS's definition of terms and just as you had written it is clear as mud. I especially like the 1984ish logical irony of this: "Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force." The OP points out a discrepancy in reporting, and a group of people who exist outside of the reporting system. I suggest that this group contains those people outside of the State's system of reporting because they exist outside of the State's system of control. I don't understand your point regarding this. They recognize your point. The BLS website has a number of postings about how they have to make a projection with the data they have. It almost comes across as apologetic. I agree that it's probably more interesting to talk about the trends than the raw numbers, but I think they made a valiant effort with resources I just don't have. Alan's posting was referring to a decline, and the trend has been strongly downward in the data that they do have. I don't this means there's a growing under-the-table or barter economy, but that's only based on my own experience. I think it's too soon to be an effect of labor price controls (such as minimum wage or licensing), either. It takes a while for that sort of thing to shake out. My point was that there are models and they have their quirks but we should use what data we can find. I was defending their use against people that were claiming that the concept of unemployment was flawed by saying something like "sure, it's flawed, but at least we have data about something. Here's some data that I think is less flawed or manipulated."
Alan C. Posted March 6, 2015 Author Posted March 6, 2015 62.8%: Labor Force Participation Has Hovered Near 37-Year-Low for 11 Months 92,898,000 Americans were not in the labor force in February... 56,023,000: Record Number of Women Not in Labor Force
Livemike Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 Explain something to me. I offer my job to anyone who says they're unemployed or aren't working. This happens several times a day. Not one person has taken the offer in over 10 years. So what the hell does "Unemployment" even mean?
Recommended Posts