Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,452
- 82,707
- 2,635
.... is there a retort in there?Who is arguing that the drop in the labor force participation rate is due solely because of baby boomers??I didn't say it did. It went up 213kMy math in no way conflicts with yours, and especially since we're getting the same answer I'm at a loss as to what you think is wrong. Especially since I gave you my BLS source. You can check my math
Then do the math - your link doesn't show the gross change that you say you are netting out.
The U.S. population of those 16 years and older does not increase 700K+ in a month. That is pure nonsense.
743k entered, 530k left. Go to my link, the total for "other inflows" clearly says 743k (last column, 4th row)
Total for "other outflows" is 530k (next to last column, 5th row.
Other inflows are people Who were not employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force the previous month bu are now
Blaming it on the boomers appeared earlier in this thread (as well as in numerous others on this board). Look it up for yourself if you want to see who all promotes this view.
And the footnote for that is:
(2) Includes persons just turning 16 and adjustments to estimated population totals.
Which proves my point that the whose who are younger age cohorts are not entering the workforce, hence they are significant components of the drop in the LFPR. It's NOT JUST BOOMERS.
![dunno :dunno: :dunno:](/styles/smilies/dunno.gif)