Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
However, this large drop in unemployment occurred because of an enormous number of Americans simply giving up looking for work. In April, an estimated 800,000 Americans simply left the labor market. As a result, the labor force participation rate dropped back to 62.8 percenttied for the lowest rate since the 1970s. Fewer prospective workers, not more jobs, caused the decline in unemployment.
Jobs Report: 800,000 Leave Workforce
You read that wrong. It's not that 10,000 people are retiring every day -- it's 10,000 people are hitting the age of retirement every day. Not all 10,000 work and not all 10,000 are retiring. That said, we are still experiencing an increased number of people retiring because we have entered the retirement phase of the baby boomer generation. They account for about half the decline in the labor force. Most of the rest are folks who are choosing not to work; such as people who would rather collect a disability check or a welfare check. The actual percentage of people want to work but can't find a job, or at least a good job, remains at around 7% of the 92 million who are not in the labor force.retiring baby boomers are not the reason for the mass exodus from the labor force.
this left-wing talking point has been debunked over and over
FACT: more Americans than EVER of retirement age are choosing NOT to retire and REMAIN IN THE LABOR MARKET
FACT: there is a record number of ABLE-BODIED, WORKING-AGE AMERICANS NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE LABOR MARKET
face it; libs are losers who lie to themselves
Since you didn't, or weren't able to, provide a source for your claim, here's one:
Nearly 300,000 baby boomers are retiring every month. That's 10k a day.
Is Baby Boomer Retirement Behind the Drop in July's Unemployment Rate? | Making Sen$e | PBS NewsHour
Why did the unemployment rate go down from 7.6 percent to 7.4 percent? Because the official workforce actually declined by about 40,000 people. What could explain the drop, given the rise in population? Ten thousand baby boomers turn 65 today has become a demographic cliché (or meme, if you prefer). Barring a mass and age-selective plague, that means that 10,000 or so are also turning 66, their official Social Security retirement age. Many, if not most, baby boomers are retiring. And since 10,000 a day equals 300,000 a month, if two-thirds of them are hanging up their rock n roll work shoes, Fridays numbers would make sense: 200,000 or so retirees offsetting the 200,000 or so new working-age Americans.
I have long warned against making too much of any one months unemployment numbers. But the story told above is plausible, if not provable.
I think you're confused. Not in the Labor Force Want a Job Now stayed the same, but total Not in the Labor Force went up 988,000, meaning Not in the Labor Force Does Not Want a Job went up.As usual, wiener dog proves himself to be an abject moron. What you don't understand is that the BLS tracks the number of people who are not in the labor force because they don't want to work and that number remains unchanged for April.
Where on Earth did you get that idea? The two have nothing to do with each other.Most of the folks who fell out of the labor force in April did so because their unemployment benefits expired
Where were you pussies when the civilian labor force increased 503,000 in March. Employment of working age population ratio is increasing at faster rates than any Bush president ever achieved.
Where were you pussies when the civilian labor force increased 503,000 in March. Employment of working age population ratio is increasing at faster rates than any Bush president ever achieved.
They were too busy whining about how the unemployment rate remained unchanged from February. Which it did, of course, because hundreds of thousands entered the workforce. You see they are losers whose only purpose in life is to look for the bad news in the employment data since good news reflects positively on Obama. Sadly for them, however, Obama is about to get accolades for unprecedented job growth ... when next month's job numbers come out, if the private sector posts gains, that will represent the 51st consecutive month of continuous growth in the private sector, tying Obama with Clinton for the longest stretch of growth. If the following month also posts gains, Obama will go down in history as the man who was president during the greatest period of growth in the private sector since the BLS began keeping such statistics. You'll hear more about this in the next couple of months if it comes to fruition. You see, the brain-dead rightarded zombies can cry all they want, they still can't slow down the employment growth we are experiencing.
The jobs report released Friday by the U.S. Department of Labor revealed that 288,000 jobs were created in April, the biggest gain in more than two years, and that the headline unemployment rate dropped 0.4 percentage points to 6.3%, the lowest level in 5½ years.
Great news, right? Not necessarily.
The unemployment rate tumbled in April not because of all the new jobs created last month but rather because more than 800,000 people either stopped looking for a job or left the job market for other reasons (retirement, for example).
Big Downside to April Jobs Report
The economy still sucks little puppy. Did you miss the memo?
Not in the labor force went up. But of those in that group, the ones who want to work, did not. And yes, the two figures have everything to do with each other. People collecting unemployment benefits are conidered 'in the labor force'. Unless they meet the BLS definition for those 'in the labor force' when their unemployment benefits expire, they are no longer counted among those who are 'in the labor force.'I think you're confused. Not in the Labor Force Want a Job Now stayed the same, but total Not in the Labor Force went up 988,000, meaning Not in the Labor Force Does Not Want a Job went up.As usual, wiener dog proves himself to be an abject moron. What you don't understand is that the BLS tracks the number of people who are not in the labor force because they don't want to work and that number remains unchanged for April.
Where on Earth did you get that idea? The two have nothing to do with each other.Most of the folks who fell out of the labor force in April did so because their unemployment benefits expired
Where were you pussies when the civilian labor force increased 503,000 in March. Employment of working age population ratio is increasing at faster rates than any Bush president ever achieved.
They were too busy whining about how the unemployment rate remained unchanged from February. Which it did, of course, because hundreds of thousands entered the workforce. You see they are losers whose only purpose in life is to look for the bad news in the employment data since good news reflects positively on Obama. Sadly for them, however, Obama is about to get accolades for unprecedented job growth ... when next month's job numbers come out, if the private sector posts gains, that will represent the 51st consecutive month of continuous growth in the private sector, tying Obama with Clinton for the longest stretch of growth. If the following month also posts gains, Obama will go down in history as the man who was president during the greatest period of growth in the private sector since the BLS began keeping such statistics. You'll hear more about this in the next couple of months if it comes to fruition. You see, the brain-dead rightarded zombies can cry all they want, they still can't slow down the employment growth we are experiencing.
the number of ABLE-BODIED AND WORKING-AGE Americans not participating in the labor market is at a more than 30-year low
you are both left-wing losers lying to yourselves
it's actually funny; in a pathetic sort of way
Regarding Boomer retirements (those 65 are no longer counted in the LPR), these retirements should result in an IMPROVING labor market (rising LPR not lowering) as those jobs become available to younger workers.
Untrue. There is no upper limit. The adult civilian non-institutional population are those age 16 and older not in the military, prison, or an institution. Nor are those 65 or older excluded from being employed or unemployed (the Labor Force)
They were too busy whining about how the unemployment rate remained unchanged from February. Which it did, of course, because hundreds of thousands entered the workforce. You see they are losers whose only purpose in life is to look for the bad news in the employment data since good news reflects positively on Obama. Sadly for them, however, Obama is about to get accolades for unprecedented job growth ... when next month's job numbers come out, if the private sector posts gains, that will represent the 51st consecutive month of continuous growth in the private sector, tying Obama with Clinton for the longest stretch of growth. If the following month also posts gains, Obama will go down in history as the man who was president during the greatest period of growth in the private sector since the BLS began keeping such statistics. You'll hear more about this in the next couple of months if it comes to fruition. You see, the brain-dead rightarded zombies can cry all they want, they still can't slow down the employment growth we are experiencing.
the number of ABLE-BODIED AND WORKING-AGE Americans not participating in the labor market is at a more than 30-year low
you are both left-wing losers lying to yourselves
it's actually funny; in a pathetic sort of way
So what? How is that bad for the economy?
Correct. But that's not what a t you wrote earlier: you said does not want a job stayed the same.Not in the labor force went up. But of those in that group, the ones who want to work, did notI think you're confused. Not in the Labor Force Want a Job Now stayed the same, but total Not in the Labor Force went up 988,000, meaning Not in the Labor Force Does Not Want a Job went up.As usual, wiener dog proves himself to be an abject moron. What you don't understand is that the BLS tracks the number of people who are not in the labor force because they don't want to work and that number remains unchanged for April.
Where on Earth did you get that idea? The two have nothing to do with each other.Most of the folks who fell out of the labor force in April did so because their unemployment benefits expired
Probably. But the question Ian' t asked. BLS has no idea who is or is not collecting benefits.And yes, the two figures have everything to do with each other. People collecting unemployment benefits are conidered 'in the labor force'.
The expiration of benefits is irrelevant. If you wan to work, could start if offered, and have looked in last 4 weeks you're unemployed, doesn't matter if you ever received benefits. Again,it's not asked. . If you worked, you're employed. Labor Force is employed plus unemployed.Unless they meet the BLS definition for those 'in the labor force' when their unemployment benefits expire, they are no longer counted among those who are 'in the labor force.'
the number of ABLE-BODIED AND WORKING-AGE Americans not participating in the labor market is at a more than 30-year low
you are both left-wing losers lying to yourselves
it's actually funny; in a pathetic sort of way
So what? How is that bad for the economy?
go have your mommy explain obvious things to you
So what? How is that bad for the economy?
go have your mommy explain obvious things to you
Obviously, you can't explain it, otherwise, you would have, rather than the weak bluff you attempted instead. And the reason you can'nt explain it is because it doesn't reflect negatively on the economy.
And again, those who want a job did not grow. And if I didn't say specifically that I'm talking about those within the ' not in labor force' , it was implied since that is what the discussion is about and since the number if people not in the labor force who want to work remained unchanged in April.Correct. But that's not what a t you wrote earlier: you said does not want a job stayed the same.Not in the labor force went up. But of those in that group, the ones who want to work, did notI think you're confused. Not in the Labor Force Want a Job Now stayed the same, but total Not in the Labor Force went up 988,000, meaning Not in the Labor Force Does Not Want a Job went up.
Where on Earth did you get that idea? The two have nothing to do with each other.
.Probably. But the question Ian' t asked. BLS has no idea who is or is not collecting benefits.And yes, the two figures have everything to do with each other. People collecting unemployment benefits are conidered 'in the labor force'.
The expiration of benefits is irrelevant. If you wan to work, could start if offered, and have looked in last 4 weeks you're unemployed, doesn't matter if you ever received benefits. Again,it's not asked. . If you worked, you're employed. Labor Force is employed plus unemployed.Unless they meet the BLS definition for those 'in the labor force' when their unemployment benefits expire, they are no longer counted among those who are 'in the labor force.'
Then who knows how you make time for yourself. Again, the reason you can't answer is because it doesn't indicate a bad economy. That's why you're now talking about people paying taxes help support those who don't, which is actually good for the economy, instead of demonstrating how the drop in the LFPR is bad for the economy.go have your mommy explain obvious things to you
Obviously, you can't explain it, otherwise, you would have, rather than the weak bluff you attempted instead. And the reason you can'nt explain it is because it doesn't reflect negatively on the economy.
i dont have time for morons; who do you think pays for welfare and food stamps?
or are you one of the complete idiots that actually tries to make a case they are good for the economy?
Then who knows how you make time for yourself. Again, the reason you can't answer is because it doesn't indicate a bad economy. That's why you're now talking about people paying taxes help support those who don't, which is actually good for the economy, instead of demonstrating how the drop in the LFPR is bad for the economy.Obviously, you can't explain it, otherwise, you would have, rather than the weak bluff you attempted instead. And the reason you can'nt explain it is because it doesn't reflect negatively on the economy.
i dont have time for morons; who do you think pays for welfare and food stamps?
or are you one of the complete idiots that actually tries to make a case they are good for the economy?
