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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Nothing. I'm not claiming that. All I am saying is that the LFPR is affected by demographic changes and so is not a reliable indicator of the labor market. The Labor Force tells us the size of the labor market, not how it is doing.But at the time, 62.4% was a record high. The LFPR changes more by demographics than labor market issues.Worst Labor Force Participation Rate since 1977: 62.4%!
Thanks Obama!
you're clearly assuming that what causes changes in the LPFR remains the same across eras.
what do you offer to support that?
Of course. There are many possible reasons. The whole point is the changes are not just due to economic changes.are the demographic shifts not also a factor of the politics of the era?
can they be?
Who claimed that?But at the time, 62.4% was a record high. The LFPR changes more by demographics than labor market issues.Worst Labor Force Participation Rate since 1977: 62.4%!
Thanks Obama!
you're clearly assuming that what causes changes in the LPFR remains the same across eras.
what do you offer to support that?
are the demographic shifts not also a factor of the politics of the era?
can they be?
Funny how the same loon has claimed that the fall in the LFPR is totally due to boomer retirement .
Job creation misses big in September
The unemployment rate has been declining steadily, but that has come in significant part due to the lowest labor force participation rate since the late 1970s. The participation rate plunged to 62.4 percent in September.
Retirement Among Baby Boomers Contributing To Shrinking Labor Force. According to The Washington Post, many economists agree the shrinking labor force participation rate is largely explained by a demographic shift, wherein "baby boomers are starting to retire en masse":
Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.
But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.
In a March report titled "Dispelling an Urban Legend," Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002.
The incredible shrinking labor force
Only 140,000 jobs?
I blame the job creators. They are the ones we have entrusted to employ Americans
How about we remove the Reagan tax cuts until they start creating over 200,000 jobs a month again?
yawn'
they are the same people responsible for creating the jobs you idiots and your Leader say HAVE been created
try again...........................................
Why not pay for performance?
You create jobs....you get a low tax rate
You lay off or send jobs overseas.......you pay at a pre-Reagan rate
GOP Blocked Bring Jobs Home Act
Senate Republicans Vote Against American Jobs By Blocking Bill To End Outsourcing Tax Breaks
Nothing. I'm not claiming that. All I am saying is that the LFPR is affected by demographic changes and so is not a reliable indicator of the labor market. The Labor Force tells us the size of the labor market, not how it is doing.But at the time, 62.4% was a record high. The LFPR changes more by demographics than labor market issues.Worst Labor Force Participation Rate since 1977: 62.4%!
Thanks Obama!
you're clearly assuming that what causes changes in the LPFR remains the same across eras.
what do you offer to support that?
Of course. There are many possible reasons. The whole point is the changes are not just due to economic changes.are the demographic shifts not also a factor of the politics of the era?
can they be?
It's possible. What is your evidence that suggests this?policies of THIS president have deepened and/or worsened demographic shifts affecting Labor force Participation...
Food Stamp use up.
SSI Disability up.
Looks like people have found alternative income sources.
It's possible. What is your evidence that suggests this?policies of THIS president have deepened and/or worsened demographic shifts affecting Labor force Participation...
Food Stamp use up.
SSI Disability up.
Looks like people have found alternative income sources.
Food stamp usage isn't a good measure of jobs. Food stamp users include children and people who are employed. You can easily have more jobs and more people on food stamps.
Food Stamp use up.
SSI Disability up.
Looks like people have found alternative income sources.
Food stamp usage isn't a good measure of jobs. Food stamp users include children and people who are employed. You can easily have more jobs and more people on food stamps.
Unemployment rate down in a much larger population with a lot of retirees each month.
CNN is reporting a different number: "At 8:30 a.m. Eastern, the Labor Department will report its latest figures on hiring and unemployment for September.
After employers added a disappointing 173,000 new jobs last month, analysts are hoping that gains will at least top the 200,000 mark as the economy heads into the final quarter of 2015. The jobless rate is expected to hold at 5.1 percent"
The Dems and the Pubs in the House have to work out a jobs bill the Senate and the Pres can support.
The stone walling by both parties has to end.
It's possible. What is your evidence that suggests this?policies of THIS president have deepened and/or worsened demographic shifts affecting Labor force Participation...
Explain that to the goobers who are trying to include the unemployable in the numbers.Unemployment rate down in a much larger population with a lot of retirees each month.
Employment is not based on general population Jake.
Your statement is an absurdity.CNN is reporting a different number: "At 8:30 a.m. Eastern, the Labor Department will report its latest figures on hiring and unemployment for September.
After employers added a disappointing 173,000 new jobs last month, analysts are hoping that gains will at least top the 200,000 mark as the economy heads into the final quarter of 2015. The jobless rate is expected to hold at 5.1 percent"
The Dems and the Pubs in the House have to work out a jobs bill the Senate and the Pres can support.
The stone walling by both parties has to end.
Lol, and you think this is some new revelation that the economy and jobs are horrid? There is no bill that will create jobs. Thats total absurdity.
Explain that to the goobers who are trying to include the unemployable in the numbers.Unemployment rate down in a much larger population with a lot of retirees each month.
Employment is not based on general population Jake.
