56,023,000: Record Number of Women Not in Labor Force

[gipper]

Just another economic stat showing the anemic state of our economy. Sure some women are too young and some stay home to care for kids and household, that has always been the case....but this is a RECORD number not working. RECORD...get it?

Those on the left are so partisan, they can't accept any criticism of their Messiah. If an R were in the WH, they would be vomiting on their keyboards with rage.

Of course it's a record, since there are more people living today as compared to ten years ago...

Using your logic, since the population is ALWAYS growing, the labor participation rate should ALWAYS be lower than prior years.

Can you prove this?

 

[nodoginnafight]

So where's the data showing whether these women want to be in the workforce but can't find jobs or whether the improving economy is allowing them to stay home and raise their children?
Hyper-partisan hacks will assume whichever supports their own bias and demand otherso makethe same assumptions.
Pretty stupid

 

[rightwinger]

I had a daughter along with 3 sons, their job until they graduated was to make high grades in school..I took care of the rest....Kids have many, many years of being a wage slave before them, there is no reason the start working at a job early in life...

I always wanted my kids to work to pay for at least half their education. Gotta have a dog in the fight.

Make it clear that it is their own hard earned money they are wasting if they decide to slack off

 

[Meathead]

So where's the data showing whether these women want to be in the workforce but can't find jobs or whether the improving economy is allowing them to stay home and raise their children?
Hyper-partisan hacks will assume whichever supports their own bias and demand otherso makethe same assumptions.
Pretty stupid

Yeah, and where's the data that shows these women don't prefer living off of government handouts anyway?

 

[rightwinger]

Just another economic stat showing the anemic state of our economy. Sure some women are too young and some stay home to care for kids and household, that has always been the case....but this is a RECORD number not working. RECORD...get it?

Those on the left are so partisan, they can't accept any criticism of their Messiah. If an R were in the WH, they would be vomiting on their keyboards with rage.

Of course it's a record, since there are more people living today as compared to ten years ago...

Using your logic, since the population is ALWAYS growing, the labor participation rate should ALWAYS be lower than prior years.

Can you prove this?

The OP rants about the "record" number of women not in the workplace. That number will be influenced by an increasing population even if workforce participation rate is stable

 

[NYcarbineer]

Women who are retired, stay at home moms, students...
...all not in the work force.

 

[gipper]

Just another economic stat showing the anemic state of our economy. Sure some women are too young and some stay home to care for kids and household, that has always been the case....but this is a RECORD number not working. RECORD...get it?

Those on the left are so partisan, they can't accept any criticism of their Messiah. If an R were in the WH, they would be vomiting on their keyboards with rage.

Of course it's a record, since there are more people living today as compared to ten years ago...

Using your logic, since the population is ALWAYS growing, the labor participation rate should ALWAYS be lower than prior years.

Can you prove this?

The OP rants about the "record" number of women not in the workplace. That number will be influenced by an increasing population even if workforce participation rate is stable

Yes, but moonass made a claim he can't support.

Using his logic and maybe yours, the labor participation rate should ALWAYS be a record low number, since the population is ALWAYS growing.

 

[Moonglow]

I had a daughter along with 3 sons, their job until they graduated was to make high grades in school..I took care of the rest....Kids have many, many years of being a wage slave before them, there is no reason the start working at a job early in life...

I always wanted my kids to work to pay for at least half their education. Gotta have a dog in the fight.

Make it clear that it is their own hard earned money they are wasting if they decide to slack off

College was different as I made them earn money to pay for some of their education..But up to 18 it was not mandatory like when I was a kid to help support the family...

 

[rightwinger]

Just another economic stat showing the anemic state of our economy. Sure some women are too young and some stay home to care for kids and household, that has always been the case....but this is a RECORD number not working. RECORD...get it?

Those on the left are so partisan, they can't accept any criticism of their Messiah. If an R were in the WH, they would be vomiting on their keyboards with rage.

Of course it's a record, since there are more people living today as compared to ten years ago...

Using your logic, since the population is ALWAYS growing, the labor participation rate should ALWAYS be lower than prior years.

Can you prove this?

The OP rants about the "record" number of women not in the workplace. That number will be influenced by an increasing population even if workforce participation rate is stable

Yes, but moonass made a claim he can't support.

Using his logic and maybe yours, the labor participation rate should ALWAYS be a record low number, since the population is ALWAYS growing.

Actually, it is not growing enough to compensate for the 4 million baby boomers who retire each year

 

[Moonglow]

Just another economic stat showing the anemic state of our economy. Sure some women are too young and some stay home to care for kids and household, that has always been the case....but this is a RECORD number not working. RECORD...get it?

Those on the left are so partisan, they can't accept any criticism of their Messiah. If an R were in the WH, they would be vomiting on their keyboards with rage.

Of course it's a record, since there are more people living today as compared to ten years ago...

Using your logic, since the population is ALWAYS growing, the labor participation rate should ALWAYS be lower than prior years.

Can you prove this?

The OP rants about the "record" number of women not in the workplace. That number will be influenced by an increasing population even if workforce participation rate is stable

Yes, but moonass made a claim he can't support.

Using his logic and maybe yours, the labor participation rate should ALWAYS be a record low number, since the population is ALWAYS growing.

Just another economic stat showing the anemic state of our economy. Sure some women are too young and some stay home to care for kids and household, that has always been the case....but this is a RECORD number not working. RECORD...get it?

Those on the left are so partisan, they can't accept any criticism of their Messiah. If an R were in the WH, they would be vomiting on their keyboards with rage.

Of course it's a record, since there are more people living today as compared to ten years ago...

Using your logic, since the population is ALWAYS growing, the labor participation rate should ALWAYS be lower than prior years.

Can you prove this?

The OP rants about the "record" number of women not in the workplace. That number will be influenced by an increasing population even if workforce participation rate is stable

Yes, but moonass made a claim he can't support.

Using his logic and maybe yours, the labor participation rate should ALWAYS be a record low number, since the population is ALWAYS growing.

Not relative to the situation of those that actually want to work....or have to work...a larger workforce growing needs an increase in jobs to make the ratio smaller...

 

[Moonglow]

Just another economic stat showing the anemic state of our economy. Sure some women are too young and some stay home to care for kids and household, that has always been the case....but this is a RECORD number not working. RECORD...get it?

Those on the left are so partisan, they can't accept any criticism of their Messiah. If an R were in the WH, they would be vomiting on their keyboards with rage.

Of course it's a record, since there are more people living today as compared to ten years ago...

Using your logic, since the population is ALWAYS growing, the labor participation rate should ALWAYS be lower than prior years.

Can you prove this?

The OP rants about the "record" number of women not in the workplace. That number will be influenced by an increasing population even if workforce participation rate is stable

Yes, but moonass made a claim he can't support.

Using his logic and maybe yours, the labor participation rate should ALWAYS be a record low number, since the population is ALWAYS growing.

Actually, it is not growing enough to compensate for the 4 million baby boomers who retire each year

The largest sector in the US population...

 

[gipper]

Of course it's a record, since there are more people living today as compared to ten years ago...

Using your logic, since the population is ALWAYS growing, the labor participation rate should ALWAYS be lower than prior years.

Can you prove this?

The OP rants about the "record" number of women not in the workplace. That number will be influenced by an increasing population even if workforce participation rate is stable

Yes, but moonass made a claim he can't support.

Using his logic and maybe yours, the labor participation rate should ALWAYS be a record low number, since the population is ALWAYS growing.

Actually, it is not growing enough to compensate for the 4 million baby boomers who retire each year

The largest sector in the US population...

Why have you both chosen to change the subject?

Can you prove that the record number of women not working today is a function of the ever increasing population?

 

[Moonglow]

Why

Using your logic, since the population is ALWAYS growing, the labor participation rate should ALWAYS be lower than prior years.

Can you prove this?

The OP rants about the "record" number of women not in the workplace. That number will be influenced by an increasing population even if workforce participation rate is stable

Yes, but moonass made a claim he can't support.

Using his logic and maybe yours, the labor participation rate should ALWAYS be a record low number, since the population is ALWAYS growing.

Actually, it is not growing enough to compensate for the 4 million baby boomers who retire each year

The largest sector in the US population...

Why have you both chosen to change the subject?

Can you prove that the record number of women not working today is a function of the ever increasing population?

Can you prove they want to work?

 

[gipper]

Why

The OP rants about the "record" number of women not in the workplace. That number will be influenced by an increasing population even if workforce participation rate is stable

Yes, but moonass made a claim he can't support.

Using his logic and maybe yours, the labor participation rate should ALWAYS be a record low number, since the population is ALWAYS growing.

Actually, it is not growing enough to compensate for the 4 million baby boomers who retire each year

The largest sector in the US population...

Why have you both chosen to change the subject?

Can you prove that the record number of women not working today is a function of the ever increasing population?

Can you prove they want to work?

You made the statement that the rate of nonworking women was a result of an ever increasing population. Can you prove it?

 

[Moonglow]

Why

Yes, but moonass made a claim he can't support.

Using his logic and maybe yours, the labor participation rate should ALWAYS be a record low number, since the population is ALWAYS growing.

Actually, it is not growing enough to compensate for the 4 million baby boomers who retire each year

The largest sector in the US population...

Why have you both chosen to change the subject?

Can you prove that the record number of women not working today is a function of the ever increasing population?

Can you prove they want to work?

You made the statement that the rate of nonworking women was a result of an ever increasing population. Can you prove it?

Have you ever done ratios?

 

[AceRothstein]

Why

Yes, but moonass made a claim he can't support.

Using his logic and maybe yours, the labor participation rate should ALWAYS be a record low number, since the population is ALWAYS growing.

Actually, it is not growing enough to compensate for the 4 million baby boomers who retire each year

The largest sector in the US population...

Why have you both chosen to change the subject?

Can you prove that the record number of women not working today is a function of the ever increasing population?

Can you prove they want to work?

You made the statement that the rate of nonworking women was a result of an ever increasing population. Can you prove it?

You should learn the difference between raw numbers and ratios.

The raw number of women not working is at the highest level ever. The number of women in the US is also the same, highest level ever.

The participation rate of women in the labor force isn't even close to the lowest it has ever been.

 

[g5000]

Now you see what party has the real war on women. You think they would wake up someday

SNIP:

56,023,000: Record Number of Women Not in Labor Force

We also have a record number of women in the total population.

Bingo.

Don't you hate idiots who allow their innumeracy to run riot?

 

[Esmeralda]

Now you see what party has the real war on women. You think they would wake up someday

SNIP:

56,023,000: Record Number of Women Not in Labor Force
March 6, 2015 - 11:07 AM
By Ali Meyer


(CNSNews.com) - A record 56,023,000 women, age 16 years and over, were not in the labor force in February.

Not only was that a record high, but it's also the first time the number has exceeded 56 million, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

To be counted as ‘not in the labor force,’ according to the BLS, one must not have a job or have looked for one in the past four weeks. In January 2015, there were 55,756,000 women not in the labor force, which means that 267,000 women dropped out of the labor force since then.

The labor force participation rate, which is the percentage of those who are participating in the labor force by either having a job or looking for one in the past four weeks, declined in February.

According to the BLS, 56.7 percent of women were participating in the labor force in February, a drop from 56.8 percent in January. In the last year, since February 2014, the labor force participation rate for women has fluctuated within a range of 56.6 percent to 57.2 percent, and February’s percentage of 56.7 falls on the low end of that scale.

ALL of it here:
56 023 000 Record Number of Women Not in Labor Force CNS News

Baby Boomers are retiring in the millions.

 

[g5000]

As you can see, the labor force participation rate for women (in pink) was at its lowest when the LFPR was first begun being tracked in 1948.

Today's female LFPR isn't even close to the lowest rate.

 

[Esmeralda]

and Hillary is concerned over womans rights/wages? how about getting them a job? and all of this crap about equal wages, well maybe its because men seem to have skills that can get them jobs. like construction and other hard labor related work.

How about using some critical thinking skills and figure out that there are millions more women in the total population now and that there are also millions of women retiring, before 65, every day. Figure it out. It's like saying a movie made the biggest box office ever when we know that the price of tickets is higher than ever.

Use some critical thinking skills.