More men are single than women?

[FranklinRoosevelt_FTW]

initforme

Who are you quoting ?. Yes it is a massive issue that if true 60% of young men being single. No that is completely unacceptable and that is a problem for society. Simply put let’s just do the math check this out brother if all young men remain single we wouldn’t even have a country anymore. It’s a result of ultra feminism it’s the result of men just giving up on themselves and having horrendous leaders for politicians. The rise of pornography the rise of marijuana use. This is affecting young black men and young white men too and you got to stand up for it you have to stand up for them. Make a difference in this world my friend

 

[initforme]

Not my job. No pressure should be put on them whatsoever. If they're working and happy being single it doesn't matter.

 

[FranklinRoosevelt_FTW]

Threads like this and others we can see how brutal and anti-humane the left is. They want to control people they wanna tell them what to do. They want to tell a young man it’s normal and OK to smoke dope all day and to never find a woman. To hell with that. That’s not gonna work out for the far left. This is the United States of America. The far left democrats can take that garbage and take it elsewhere and good luck with that by the way because no country in the world would accept that type of nonsense.

It is vitally important for Americans Democrat and Republican to oppose the ultra feminization of our society. It is completely unacceptable. It’s not good for the military it’s not good for jobs it’s not good for confidence in our population.

Common sense goes a long way apparently not for the far left though.

 

[Marener]

You are only using the primary age bracket. But as my link points out, government doesn't use that. They use the ages of 16 and older.

This is the site to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It clearly shows that we are nowhere near any all time high. In fact we are lower than before covid. After 911 we were still over 66.0 After the housing crash it dropped to 63.0 and it leveled off until covid with a slight increase after Trump took over. Once again it crashed with covid and went to 60.0, and today barely at 62.0 once again.

Civilian labor force participation rate

www.bls.gov

Now before you say anything, according to the AARP, we have twice as many senior citizens working past the age of 65 than we did in 1985. Increased full retirement age plays a part, but remember people are also depending on their 401Ks in which to retire like my sister is. Smart investors realize pulling money out now would be a huge loss for them down the road. So they are getting jobs or keeping the ones they have.

Okay, lower labor participation rates, more seniors working, so where are the prime age workers at? After all we all need a roof over our head and food on the table. They're getting it somehow.

The only two reasonable conclusions are expanded social programs and adults still living with their parents which currently, we are at record highs.

More Americans Working or Looking for Work After 65

According to a new United Income study, 20 percent of workers over 65 are still working, up from 10 percent in 1985. Learn what factors have influenced them.

www.aarp.org

The government provides all the data we need in their surveys to analyze the data however we want.

You're right in that total labor force participation rate is down, but you spend a lot of time trying to convince me that it has nothing to do with the aging population, which is dead wrong. I could go on to explain how you're wrong, but we don't have to. The far simpler thing to do is to just exclude retirees entirely! That's why I used prime age labor force participation since your entire argument is that there's all these people that should be working that aren't. The labor force participation rates aren't really all that low. In fact, they've almost never been higher!

If your theory about social programs were right, then prime age labor force participation would have risen after welfare reform occurred in the 1990s, but went down.

Why are we still 1.9% off the highest it has ever been? I don't know for sure. Given how expensive child care is, I know a few families who literally couldn't afford to work, perversely enough.

Your theory just doesn't hold water when you look at the data.

 

[Leo123]

The government provides all the data we need in their surveys to analyze the data however we want.

You're right in that total labor force participation rate is down, but you spend a lot of time trying to convince me that it has nothing to do with the aging population, which is dead wrong. I could go on to explain how you're wrong, but we don't have to. The far simpler thing to do is to just exclude retirees entirely! That's why I used prime age labor force participation since your entire argument is that there's all these people that should be working that aren't. The labor force participation rates aren't really all that low. In fact, they've almost never been higher!

If your theory about social programs were right, then prime age labor force participation would have risen after welfare reform occurred in the 1990s, but went down.

Why are we still 1.9% off the highest it has ever been? I don't know for sure. Given how expensive child care is, I know a few families who literally couldn't afford to work, perversely enough.

Your theory just doesn't hold water when you look at the data.

You did not define ‘prime age’ in your dissertation so your conclusion is basically useless. Also, people today still work at retirement age.

 

[initforme]

You did not define ‘prime age’ in your dissertation so your conclusion is basically useless. Also, people today still work at retirement age.

And people working at retirement age is causing problems. What is needed is a mass retirement. That would help employers and the country and economy.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

"Women now collect nearly 60 percent of bachelor’s degrees."

And yet, we continue to promote women with programs, public service advertisements, etc over men.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The government provides all the data we need in their surveys to analyze the data however we want.

You're right in that total labor force participation rate is down, but you spend a lot of time trying to convince me that it has nothing to do with the aging population, which is dead wrong. I could go on to explain how you're wrong, but we don't have to. The far simpler thing to do is to just exclude retirees entirely! That's why I used prime age labor force participation since your entire argument is that there's all these people that should be working that aren't. The labor force participation rates aren't really all that low. In fact, they've almost never been higher!

If your theory about social programs were right, then prime age labor force participation would have risen after welfare reform occurred in the 1990s, but went down.

Why are we still 1.9% off the highest it has ever been? I don't know for sure. Given how expensive child care is, I know a few families who literally couldn't afford to work, perversely enough.

Your theory just doesn't hold water when you look at the data.

What are you talking about? My data is from the BLS. They are the ones that calculate labor participation rates. There is only one way to analyze it.

Retired senior citizens are automatically taken into account when asked if they are unemployed and seeking work. If they are happy just being retired they answer the question as "no." They are not working nor looking for work. But given we have more seniors working today than ever before, if anything, it would enhance those labor statistic numbers.

There are all kinds of factors you can point to. For instance just in lotteries alone, we create at least one new millionaire every single day. People have more money to pass down in inheritance than ever before. People that get into a six-figure profession can retire at the age of 40 or 45. They made enough money to live off the interest of their investments.

But when we are talking massive amounts of people in the millions, something is without a doubt wrong. They all can't be hitting lotteries, getting passed down money, or simply able to retire early. As I stated, we all need food and shelter, and if people are not obtaining these things by working, they are getting them from somewhere else.

 

[Godboy]

No, there are fewer men than women. Everywhere. Look it up.

Then wouldnt that just mean that even MORE women are single?

 

[Marener]

What are you talking about? My data is from the BLS. They are the ones that calculate labor participation rates. There is only one way to analyze it.

Oh my no. There is not one way to analyze it. There is far more data and ways to analyze it in order to answer the specific question at hand.

Retired senior citizens are automatically taken into account when asked if they are unemployed and seeking work. If they are happy just being retired they answer the question as "no." They are not working nor looking for work. But given we have more seniors working today than ever before, if anything, it would enhance those labor statistic numbers.

Retired senior citizens lower the labor force participation rate since they're not in the labor force. We have more working seniors today than ever before but we also have more retired seniors than ever before because we have more seniors than ever before. Arguing about this is pointless because it's not relevant to the question at hand and there's an easy way to get rid of this complication. Just look at prime age workers, excluding senior citizens.

There are all kinds of factors you can point to. For instance just in lotteries alone, we create at least one new millionaire every single day. People have more money to pass down in inheritance than ever before. People that get into a six-figure profession can retire at the age of 40 or 45. They made enough money to live off the interest of their investments.

But when we are talking massive amounts of people in the millions, something is without a doubt wrong. They all can't be hitting lotteries, getting passed down money, or simply able to retire early. As I stated, we all need food and shelter, and if people are not obtaining these things by working, they are getting them from somewhere else.

Why would be looking for something to be wrong when the participation in the labor force is nearly historical highs and rising?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why would be looking for something to be wrong when the participation in the labor force is nearly historical highs and rising?

Why do you leftists keep repeating lies already proven to be lies? I even posted the most reliable site showing this. We are nowhere near historical highs, again, the LFPR shows we are in worse shape now than before covid.

 

[Marener]

Why do you leftists keep repeating lies already proven to be lies? I even posted the most reliable site showing this. We are nowhere near historical highs, again, the LFPR shows we are in worse shape now than before covid.

Doesn't look like a massive problem to me.

The highest we've ever been was 84%. We are now at 82.5%. That's a crisis?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

View attachment 761398
Doesn't look like a massive problem to me.

The highest we've ever been was 84%. We are now at 82.5%. That's a crisis?

Then why does the BLS show the exact opposite? Somebody is lying here and I would say the people that create those statistics have a lot more credibility than FRED.

 

[Marener]

Then why does the BLS show the exact opposite? Somebody is lying here and I would say the people that create those statistics have a lot more credibility than FRED.

The BLS doesn't show the exact opposite. I posted a graph based on BLS data.

 

[dudmuck]

Threads like this and others we can see how brutal and anti-humane the left is. They want to control people they wanna tell them what to do. They want to tell a young man it’s normal and OK to smoke dope all day and to never find a woman. To hell with that. That’s not gonna work out for the far left. This is the United States of America. The far left democrats can take that garbage and take it elsewhere and good luck with that by the way because no country in the world would accept that type of nonsense.

It is vitally important for Americans Democrat and Republican to oppose the ultra feminization of our society. It is completely unacceptable. It’s not good for the military it’s not good for jobs it’s not good for confidence in our population.

Common sense goes a long way apparently not for the far left though.

 

[Circe]

Then wouldnt that just mean that even MORE women are single?

You'd think so, but that's the point of the so-called news story, that there aren't.

I agree, hard to believe.

 

[Godboy]

You'd think so, but that's the point of the so-called news story, that there aren't.

I agree, hard to believe.

Its impossible for there to be more single men than women, if there are more women in the US. For example, if there were 1000 men and 1200 women, if 500 men were single, then 700 women would be single.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The BLS doesn't show the exact opposite. I posted a graph based on BLS data.

And I gave you a link to it. You probably didn't even look at it if you're arguing your point. So here it is, one more time, and you tell me how 62.0 is higher than 66.0.

Civilian labor force participation rate

www.bls.gov

 

[Marener]

And I gave you a link to it. You probably didn't even look at it if you're arguing your point. So here it is, one more time, and you tell me how 62.0 is higher than 66.0.

Civilian labor force participation rate

www.bls.gov

Most of the difference is due to retirement. That’s why excluding people over 55 makes sense. You’re providing the data for everyone 16 and older. That’s including people that aren’t relevant to your argument. I don’t know why you have such a hard time accepting that my graph with prime ages only isn’t better when it obviously is.

And I never said it was higher than ever before. I said it was nearly as high as it’s ever been.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Most of the difference is due to retirement. That’s why excluding people over 55 makes sense. You’re providing the data for everyone 16 and older. That’s including people that aren’t relevant to your argument. I don’t know why you have such a hard time accepting that my graph with prime ages only isn’t better when it obviously is.

And I never said it was higher than ever before. I said it was nearly as high as it’s ever been.

And the BLS graph says the opposite.