Labor Participation Rate Lowest Since 1978 - Yet there are 10 Fold More Working Mom's Now!!!

[Roadrunner]

There were 76 million people born between the years 1946 and 1964, the traditional window for the baby boom generation. That means that they will retire over a 19-year period. Simple math shows that 76 divided by 19 is 4 million, or almost 11,000 people a day.

While a certain percentage will die before they reach retirement age, analysts say that immigrants will actually boost the number of potential baby-boomer retirees to nearly 80 million —and not everyone retires exactly at 65 or 66. Some baby boomers likely retired at 62. So let’s say it’s 80 million over 20 years—which still yields 4 million a year.

Thus, as a simple round figure, 10,000 a day is pretty close. In fact, that a number used by the Social Security Administration in a 2012 report, which Portman spokeswoman Caitlin Conant said was a source used by the senator. She also cited a Pew Research Center report that used this figure.

Wise up, wise ass.
What is the Labor Force Participation Rate

 

[Roadrunner]

How about cut off all assistance to the able bodied after six months.

not a bad idea but far more humane after we have stopped liberal policies that have driven all the jobs to China.

The jobs went to China because we pay people not to work, and have an educational system that does not prepare people to work.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The jobs went to China because we pay people not to work, and have an educational system that does not prepare people to work.

yes and liberals destroy the family which helps destroy the schools, but as important is liberal taxes unions and deficits in driving jobs to China

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Must have been widespread starvation before the Great Society.

if blacks had been allowed to continue making the progress they were making in the 50's they would be equal to whites now instead they have fallen victim to a wierd hip hop liberal communism with more blacks in jail than there were slaves in 1860.

 

[pinqy]

So when someone retires, they leave the numerator but remain in the denominator

no dear they leave both. Sorry

Again, the participation rate is labor force as a percent of the population. The U.S. Has no upper limit on age to be in the population. Quit embarrassing yourself saying things you know you have no cites to support your claim.

Labor Force Participation Rate =Employed + Unemployed/
Working Age Non-institutionalized Population

There is no upper limit, it's 16 and older
Household survey. The sample is selected to reflect the entire civilian
noninstitutional population. Based on responses to a series of questions on
work and job search activities, each person 16 years and over in a sample
household is classified as employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force.

Note the lack of upper limit.

so with a higher % of 65+ working than ever before is LFP going up as we would expect???

I wouldn't expect that.

Math time: in 1999, before th labor force participation rate dropped, those 65+ had an LFPR of 12.3% and were 15.6
Now that means that 1.9% of the population is 65 or older and not in the Labor Force. (.123 * .156 = .019)

http://www.bls.gov/cps/aa1999/AAT3.TXT

In 2014 the 65+ LFPR was 18.6% and 65+ were 18.1%
So .186 * .181 = .0336 = 3.4% Do you see how that works?

While the % of people 65 and older in the Labor Force went from 12.3 to 18.1, the % of the population 65+ and not in the Labor Force went from 1.9% to 3.4% That's a drop of 1.5% on the total lfpr due to older population, even though the lfpr for the subgroup went up.


Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by age sex and race

 

[pinqy]

There were 76 million people born between the years 1946 and 1964, the traditional window for the baby boom generation. That means that they will retire over a 19-year period. Simple math shows that 76 divided by 19 is 4 million, or almost 11,000 people a day.

While a certain percentage will die before they reach retirement age, analysts say that immigrants will actually boost the number of potential baby-boomer retirees to nearly 80 million —and not everyone retires exactly at 65 or 66. Some baby boomers likely retired at 62. So let’s say it’s 80 million over 20 years—which still yields 4 million a year.

Thus, as a simple round figure, 10,000 a day is pretty close. In fact, that a number used by the Social Security Administration in a 2012 report, which Portman spokeswoman Caitlin Conant said was a source used by the senator. She also cited a Pew Research Center report that used this figure.

Wise up, wise ass.
What is the Labor Force Participation Rate

Not entirely sure what tour point is, but the info from your link is true but not accurate. While many countries do have a max age, the U.S. does not. not.

 

[edthecynic]

And I have no idea where that stay home mom number is coming from. I doubt its accuracy.

Your instincts are dead on! There were 26.5 million stay at home moms in 1980 and there were 10.4 million in 2012.

Where are you getting you numbers?

1980 comes from here:
http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1981/05/rpt3full.pdf

And 2012 comes from here:
Stay-at-Home Mothers on the Rise Pew Research Center s Social Demographic Trends Project

 

[Roadrunner]

There were 76 million people born between the years 1946 and 1964, the traditional window for the baby boom generation. That means that they will retire over a 19-year period. Simple math shows that 76 divided by 19 is 4 million, or almost 11,000 people a day.

While a certain percentage will die before they reach retirement age, analysts say that immigrants will actually boost the number of potential baby-boomer retirees to nearly 80 million —and not everyone retires exactly at 65 or 66. Some baby boomers likely retired at 62. So let’s say it’s 80 million over 20 years—which still yields 4 million a year.

Thus, as a simple round figure, 10,000 a day is pretty close. In fact, that a number used by the Social Security Administration in a 2012 report, which Portman spokeswoman Caitlin Conant said was a source used by the senator. She also cited a Pew Research Center report that used this figure.

Wise up, wise ass.
What is the Labor Force Participation Rate

Not entirely sure what tour point is, but the info from your link is true but not accurate. While many countries do have a max age, the U.S. does not. not.

My point is the guy does not know what the Labor Force Participation Rate is.

 

[pinqy]

There were 76 million people born between the years 1946 and 1964, the traditional window for the baby boom generation. That means that they will retire over a 19-year period. Simple math shows that 76 divided by 19 is 4 million, or almost 11,000 people a day.

While a certain percentage will die before they reach retirement age, analysts say that immigrants will actually boost the number of potential baby-boomer retirees to nearly 80 million —and not everyone retires exactly at 65 or 66. Some baby boomers likely retired at 62. So let’s say it’s 80 million over 20 years—which still yields 4 million a year.

Thus, as a simple round figure, 10,000 a day is pretty close. In fact, that a number used by the Social Security Administration in a 2012 report, which Portman spokeswoman Caitlin Conant said was a source used by the senator. She also cited a Pew Research Center report that used this figure.

Wise up, wise ass.
What is the Labor Force Participation Rate

Not entirely sure what tour point is, but the info from your link is true but not accurate. While many countries do have a max age, the U.S. does not. not.

My point is the guy does not know what the Labor Force Participation Rate is.

I didn't see him get anything wrong. You on the other hand gave a link with a definition that is wrong. There is no upper age limit in the U.S.

 

[Dad2three]

I'm sure YOU do Bubba. It's nothing but a fantasy that's been disproved over and over. Ayn Rand wrote fiction, when you graduated high school you should've grown out of the fantasy stage of life!

You oppose your fellow man being free to act so long as he doesn't trespass against the person or property of his fellow man. Thanks for clarifying.

HOW DID THE "FREE MARKETS" work out in the latest example of the world wide credit bubble and bust again?

Those weren't free markets. They were highly regulated by the government. Regulation is obviously a failed policy, as evidenced by the 2008 financial crisis.

"free markets"? SHOW ME ONE. ANY ONE? EVER? LOL


MYTHS AND FAIRY TALES IS ALL!

Hm, so you're saying that the free market caused the 2008 financial collapse. And you're also saying that free market's don't exist.

I think you need to get your story straight.

I'm claiming Banksters drove the bubble, like they did with Ronnie's S&L crisis, AND the GOP great depression. What were the similarities with these 3 periods?

Hint the closest to laissez faire governance the US has had in 100+ years!

Okay, so thank you for conceding that these financial crises were *not* the result of a free market.

As we have observed, regulated financial markets result in financial collapse.

Well history says YOU are full of shit as the US was lightly regulated 1791-1913 and the US had a 2008 Bankster bubble every 5 years oin average somewhere in the US

Nope 2008 was a direct result of Banksters AND Dubya ignoring the bubble they created Bubba. Bad governance just like Ronnie AND Harding/Coolidge. Go figure!

 

[Dad2three]

How about cut off all assistance to the able bodied after six months.

not a bad idea but far more humane after we have stopped liberal policies that have driven all the jobs to China.

The jobs went to China because we pay people not to work, and have an educational system that does not prepare people to work.

Yeah, don't forget the min wage, labor and health laws, as well as gutting taxes for the "job creators" in China!

 

[Dad2three]

There were 76 million people born between the years 1946 and 1964, the traditional window for the baby boom generation. That means that they will retire over a 19-year period. Simple math shows that 76 divided by 19 is 4 million, or almost 11,000 people a day.

While a certain percentage will die before they reach retirement age, analysts say that immigrants will actually boost the number of potential baby-boomer retirees to nearly 80 million —and not everyone retires exactly at 65 or 66. Some baby boomers likely retired at 62. So let’s say it’s 80 million over 20 years—which still yields 4 million a year.

Thus, as a simple round figure, 10,000 a day is pretty close. In fact, that a number used by the Social Security Administration in a 2012 report, which Portman spokeswoman Caitlin Conant said was a source used by the senator. She also cited a Pew Research Center report that used this figure.

Wise up, wise ass.
What is the Labor Force Participation Rate

Yes try to wise up:

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.

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

 

[Derideo_Te]

Oh, and you failed to defend the feckless GOP's failed "free markets" dogma either.

I should not think that freedom required any defense.

Those misnamed "free markets" cost hardworking Americans their jobs for the sake of profits for the Wall Street Casino Bosses. That is what is indefensible.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Oh, and you failed to defend the feckless GOP's failed "free markets" dogma either.

I should not think that freedom required any defense.

Don't understand the difference with free markets versus freedom, that right wing meme that means exactly what again? Oh right nothing but the rights desire to run roughshod WHILE not paying taxes!

If one opposes free markets then one opposes freedom.

Utter nonsense!

Freedom has nothing whatsoever to do with the GOP's "free markets" economic debacle.

 

[Centinel]

You oppose your fellow man being free to act so long as he doesn't trespass against the person or property of his fellow man. Thanks for clarifying.

Those weren't free markets. They were highly regulated by the government. Regulation is obviously a failed policy, as evidenced by the 2008 financial crisis.

"free markets"? SHOW ME ONE. ANY ONE? EVER? LOL


MYTHS AND FAIRY TALES IS ALL!

Hm, so you're saying that the free market caused the 2008 financial collapse. And you're also saying that free market's don't exist.

I think you need to get your story straight.

I'm claiming Banksters drove the bubble, like they did with Ronnie's S&L crisis, AND the GOP great depression. What were the similarities with these 3 periods?

Hint the closest to laissez faire governance the US has had in 100+ years!

Okay, so thank you for conceding that these financial crises were *not* the result of a free market.

As we have observed, regulated financial markets result in financial collapse.

Well history says YOU are full of shit as the US was lightly regulated 1791-1913 and the US had a 2008 Bankster bubble every 5 years oin average somewhere in the US

Nope 2008 was a direct result of Banksters AND Dubya ignoring the bubble they created Bubba. Bad governance just like Ronnie AND Harding/Coolidge. Go figure!

Banks were regulated during this time period as well, which is what caused the bubbles to which you refer.

 

[Centinel]

Oh, and you failed to defend the feckless GOP's failed "free markets" dogma either.

I should not think that freedom required any defense.

Those misnamed "free markets" cost hardworking Americans their jobs for the sake of profits for the Wall Street Casino Bosses. That is what is indefensible.

It sounds as if you are saying that people have some sort of right to a job, and that certain other people are responsible for providing these jobs. I wonder whether you feel that you yourself are also responsible for providing people with jobs.

 

[Centinel]

Oh, and you failed to defend the feckless GOP's failed "free markets" dogma either.

I should not think that freedom required any defense.

Don't understand the difference with free markets versus freedom, that right wing meme that means exactly what again? Oh right nothing but the rights desire to run roughshod WHILE not paying taxes!

If one opposes free markets then one opposes freedom.

Utter nonsense!

Freedom has nothing whatsoever to do with the GOP's "free markets" economic debacle.

You can't have a free market without freedom. If you want an unfree market then you have to take away people's freedom.

 

[rightwinger]

There were 76 million people born between the years 1946 and 1964, the traditional window for the baby boom generation. That means that they will retire over a 19-year period. Simple math shows that 76 divided by 19 is 4 million, or almost 11,000 people a day.

While a certain percentage will die before they reach retirement age, analysts say that immigrants will actually boost the number of potential baby-boomer retirees to nearly 80 million —and not everyone retires exactly at 65 or 66. Some baby boomers likely retired at 62. So let’s say it’s 80 million over 20 years—which still yields 4 million a year.

Thus, as a simple round figure, 10,000 a day is pretty close. In fact, that a number used by the Social Security Administration in a 2012 report, which Portman spokeswoman Caitlin Conant said was a source used by the senator. She also cited a Pew Research Center report that used this figure.

Wise up, wise ass.
What is the Labor Force Participation Rate

Thanks for a useless response

 

[rightwinger]

Oh, and you failed to defend the feckless GOP's failed "free markets" dogma either.

I should not think that freedom required any defense.

Don't understand the difference with free markets versus freedom, that right wing meme that means exactly what again? Oh right nothing but the rights desire to run roughshod WHILE not paying taxes!

If one opposes free markets then one opposes freedom.

Utter nonsense!

Freedom has nothing whatsoever to do with the GOP's "free markets" economic debacle.

You can't have a free market without freedom. If you want an unfree market then you have to take away people's freedom.

Why do conservatives talk in absolutes?

You can't restrain the market at all without them claiming socialism
A totally unrestrained marketplace is anarchy

 

[Centinel]

I should not think that freedom required any defense.

Don't understand the difference with free markets versus freedom, that right wing meme that means exactly what again? Oh right nothing but the rights desire to run roughshod WHILE not paying taxes!

If one opposes free markets then one opposes freedom.

Utter nonsense!

Freedom has nothing whatsoever to do with the GOP's "free markets" economic debacle.

You can't have a free market without freedom. If you want an unfree market then you have to take away people's freedom.

Why do conservatives talk in absolutes?

You can't restrain the market at all without them claiming socialism
A totally unrestrained marketplace is anarchy

A totally unrestrained market is a free market.

A free market doesn't mean no legal system whatsoever. It simply refers to a system in which people are free to act (including engaging in exchange) so long as they don't trespass against the person or property of others. If you oppose a free market, then you oppose people being able to peacefully act as they wish.