Record 95,102,000 Americans Not Participating in Labor Force

[rangerrebew]

 Record 95,102,000 Americans Not Participating in Labor Force
Posted By Ali Meyer On January 6, 2017 @ 10:03 am In Issues | No Comments

The number of Americans not participating in the labor force hit a record 95,102,000 in December 2016, according to the latest numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Last month, the number exceeded 95 million for the first time, with 95,084,000 Americans not participating.

The bureau counts those not in the labor force as people who do not have a job and did not actively seek one in the past four weeks.


Article printed from Washington Free Beacon: http://freebeacon.com

URL to article: http://freebeacon.com/issues/record-95102000-americans-not-participating-labor-force/

[SirLinksALot]

The questions needs to be asked .... how many of these non-participants really need to participate?

Too many people see this stat about "people out of the workforce" and forget that it includes retirees, children, prisoners, and others not even looking for work. It does not mean that there are 95 million people who are looking for jobs and can't find them.

So, the relevant question in order to gauge the severity of unemployment is this --- How many ( excluding retirees, students, prisoners, disabled ) are looking for work but cannot find it? <--- THAT IS THE REAL AND MORE RELEVANT QUESTION.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Aren't baby boomers retiring?

[SirLinksALot]

Aren't baby boomers retiring?

Yes they are, especially those born in the late 40's and early 50's. But hey, many are still working.

[Hondo69]

So, the relevant question in order to gauge the severity of unemployment is this --- How many ( excluding retirees, students, prisoners, disabled ) are looking for work but cannot find it? <--- THAT IS THE REAL AND MORE RELEVANT QUESTION.

The way in which the unemployment rate is calculated has changed over time.  Many of the changes made have resulted in a picture more upbeat and positive than before each of the changes.  In short, administrations have cooked the books to make themselves look better.

Here's one website I found that provide a brief explanation of how the rate is calculated:
http://www.moneycrashers.com/what-is-national-us-unemployment-rate/

Personally, I add about 10% to the number each time it is released to arrive at a more realistic ballpark figure.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The way in which the unemployment rate is calculated has changed over time.  Many of the changes made have resulted in a picture more upbeat and positive than before each of the changes.  In short, administrations have cooked the books to make themselves look better.

Here's one website I found that provide a brief explanation of how the rate is calculated:
http://www.moneycrashers.com/what-is-national-us-unemployment-rate/

Personally, I add about 10% to the number each time it is released to arrive at a more realistic ballpark figure.

US Labor rate has generally been calculated the same way for a long time now, and conforms to ILO standards.


The ignoramus in that article doesn't understand statistical sampling.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The way in which the unemployment rate is calculated has changed over time.  Many of the changes made have resulted in a picture more upbeat and positive than before each of the changes.  In short, administrations have cooked the books to make themselves look better.

Here's one website I found that provide a brief explanation of how the rate is calculated:
http://www.moneycrashers.com/what-is-national-us-unemployment-rate/

Personally, I add about 10% to the number each time it is released to arrive at a more realistic ballpark figure.

His quote about double counting people with multiple jobs is a laughable lie and falsehood.


More fake news.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

All I know is this number will swell once the government employees who provided the bulk of the new hires over the past 8 years are fired.

The size of the federal government needs some real serious reduction.

I'd start with the hundred czars Obama created.

[corbe]

What 'are so many of them doing?' 95 million not in US labor force

Jeff Cox   | @JeffCoxCNBCcom
Friday, 2 Dec 2016 | 12:58 PM ET
CNBC.com


The November jobs report looked pretty good on the surface except for one number that popped off the page: 95 million.

That's the number of Americans now counted as not in the labor force, a historic high that has confounded economists and policymakers. The total — 95.06 million to be more exact — has been rising consistently but surged by a gaudy 446,000 last month.

The jump occurred as the U.S. economy added 178,000 jobs and the headline unemployment rate dropped sharply.

Explaining the consistent increase in those leaving the labor force is complicated, with factors divided between an aging and rapidly retiring workforce, a skills gap that leaves job openings unfilled, and the nettlesome problem of too many people who find it's just easier to collect welfare and other transfer payments rather than go back to work.

"WTF are so many of them doing?" Peter Boockvar, chief market analyst at The Lindsey Group, said in a note after the nonfarm payrolls report. Boockvar used a crude online expression that nicely sums up the continued frustration with America's shrinking labor force.

In a subsequent interview, he acknowledged the issue is many pronged and poses a long-term obstacle for economic growth.

"It's a combination. There's no question a lot of them are retirees," Boockvar said. "No one wants to say, 'I want to get fired and sit on my butt.' But when people do lose their jobs, they're not being incentivized enough to go back to work compared to the benefits they get by not being at work."

Indeed, the U.S. saw an explosion in benefits during the Great Recession that has receded only mildly during the recovery.

For example, the level of those enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — food stamps — has remained elevated even with an economic expansion that is nearly 7 ½ years old. SNAP recipients totaled 33.5 million in 2009, the year the recession ended. In 2016, the number is at 45.3 million. The government shelled out $74 billion in benefits last year, about double the level of 2008.

<..snip..>

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/02/95-million-american-workers-not-in-us-labor-force.html

[corbe]

  Slinging dope in the projects can be very lucrative but can be to competitive for some and has deadly consequences, ask Mayor Rahm.

[Bigun]

  Slinging dope in the projects can be very lucrative but can be to competitive for some and has deadly consequences, ask Mayor Rahm.

Yeah! And your earnings are completely tax free! 

Pass the fairtax into law and that ends immediately!

https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works?gclid=Cj0KEQiAwMLDBRDCh_r9sMvQ_88BEiQA6zuAQ3aXI5ToaOdiRvVKDyARf1lQmgz1_z6S1zpYDpOWiNoaAqUN8P8HAQ

[Hondo69]

Most every administration fiddles with unemployment calculations in one way or another.

At its heart, the basic calculation has not changed over time:  X - Y = Z
What constitutes "X" and what constitutes "Y" is where the problems start.

Going way back to JFK changes were made by removing "discouraged workers" from the rolls.  Reagan tweaked how the military was counted and Clinton nuked the entire system by making JFK's "discouraged workers" completely vanish into thin air.  These vaporized workers have been a point of hot contention since.

The real way unemployment is calculated would put an accountant to sleep.  There are so many nooks and crannies to the numbers it is difficult to even find a starting place to begin dissecting the whole mess.  For example, there are 6 different unemployment reports calculated each month, only 1 is reported in the headlines.  And this is calculated largely from a poll.

What happens if the number of people polled changes from 60,000 a month to 50,000 a month?  What if the poll is conducted primarily in the inner city?  You can begin to see how it all quickly gets so deep into the weeds that it numbs the mind.

------

Back to Clinton's vaporized citizens:

Say 100 people live in a village.
Of those, only 60 are of working age.

Then one could safely assume if all 60 had jobs you'd have 100% employment.  This never happens in real life, but it does provide a starting point for the calculations.

If 6 of those people can't find a job, then you have a 10% unemployment rate.
But what happens if 2 of those people give up and throw in the towel about looking for a job?  They vaporize.

Instead of a 10% unemployment rate (6/60) you suddenly have a 6.6% rate (4/60).  Things are instantly looking up in the economy, wow, nice job politicians!!!

Thank you sir may I have another?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Most every administration fiddles with unemployment calculations in one way or another.

At its heart, the basic calculation has not changed over time:  X - Y = Z
What constitutes "X" and what constitutes "Y" is where the problems start.

Going way back to JFK changes were made by removing "discouraged workers" from the rolls.  Reagan tweaked how the military was counted and Clinton nuked the entire system by making JFK's "discouraged workers" completely vanish into thin air.  These vaporized workers have been a point of hot contention since.

The real way unemployment is calculated would put an accountant to sleep.  There are so many nooks and crannies to the numbers it is difficult to even find a starting place to begin dissecting the whole mess.  For example, there are 6 different unemployment reports calculated each month, only 1 is reported in the headlines.  And this is calculated largely from a poll.

What happens if the number of people polled changes from 60,000 a month to 50,000 a month?  What if the poll is conducted primarily in the inner city?  You can begin to see how it all quickly gets so deep into the weeds that it numbs the mind.

------

Back to Clinton's vaporized citizens:

Say 100 people live in a village.
Of those, only 60 are of working age.

Then one could safely assume if all 60 had jobs you'd have 100% employment.  This never happens in real life, but it does provide a starting point for the calculations.

If 6 of those people can't find a job, then you have a 10% unemployment rate.
But what happens if 2 of those people give up and throw in the towel about looking for a job?  They vaporize.

Instead of a 10% unemployment rate (6/60) you suddenly have a 6.6% rate (4/60).  Things are instantly looking up in the economy, wow, nice job politicians!!!

Thank you sir may I have another?

Or maybe they retire or for whatever reason just do not want to work?


Nothing I can say will get you to change your mind. It's all a big conspiracy!


Calculating unemployment in a complex economy isn't as cut and dry as you might think. How do we count people who are self employed? In the gig economy? Or how just get by by selling things?


Years ago I stopped arguing these things because in general morons on the internet will believe what they want to and nothing will get them to change their mind. I may want to revisit that.

[ConstitutionRose]

Aren't baby boomers retiring?

I started a book as an answer, but the short answer is "not really".  A significant portion of boomers are still working or are drawing Social Security and still working. 

That number includes myself and all of my friends who can still find any kind of work and get out of bed and struggle to their place or places of employment.

I think that 95 million includes in its numbers much of the discontent that elected Trump.  Soon as the Obama administration could magic the unemployment numbers down to something reasonable, the media and politicians forgot those 90 million plus individuals.  It as if they never existed.  That is a significant part of the population who have concluded that the American Dream is lost to themselves and their children.

So however they calculate that number, it has become large enough to become a force. 

[Bigun]

Econ 101: Class begins

95,102,000: Trump's starting metric to monitor. As an economist, we can bet that President Trump will be monitoring this metric. Why is this metric so important? Simple: When this metric declines social security and medicare deposits increase.
This is called a teeter tooter in basic economics in that when one side goes down, the other side goes up.

CLASS DISMISSED

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/record-95102000-americans-not-labor-force-number-grew-18-obama-took-office

[Bigun]

Current U-6 Unemployment Rate is 9.1% (BLS) or 13.7% (Gallup)

http://unemploymentdata.com/current-u6-unemployment-rate/

[Hondo69]

Econ 101: Class begins

95,102,000: Trump's starting metric to monitor. As an economist, we can bet that President Trump will be monitoring this metric. Why is this metric so important? Simple: When this metric declines social security and medicare deposits increase.
This is called a teeter tooter in basic economics in that when one side goes down, the other side goes up.

CLASS DISMISSED

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/record-95102000-americans-not-labor-force-number-grew-18-obama-took-office

I read an interesting article on this very subject a few years back.  It was about the time Obama was extending the length of time for unemployment benefits.  The article illustrated exactly what happens when 1 single person gets a job that was previously on unemployment.

The impact was tremendous.  In essence, instead of drawing water from the well the newly employed person adds to the well, which is just common sense of course.  But it was the difference between the two that was quite the eye opener.

[Bigun]

I read an interesting article on this very subject a few years back.  It was about the time Obama was extending the length of time for unemployment benefits.  The article illustrated exactly what happens when 1 single person gets a job that was previously on unemployment.

The impact was tremendous.  In essence, instead of drawing water from the well the newly employed person adds to the well, which is just common sense of course.  But it was the difference between the two that was quite the eye opener.

Oh absolutely!! 

[Hondo69]

It's all a big conspiracy!

Glad you're finally coming around - I understand it takes some people longer than others.

Politicians would have us believe its all rocket science and they have to dumb it down so us little people can digest the numbers.  In reality it's not that complicated at all.  They just make it unusually complicated in their own special way only governments can.

If anyone finds themselves having a good day and feeling unusually happy then I suggest they might try reading a few paragraphs of something called the ILO Standards.  Don't try this on a normal day, you'll puke.  The "I" part of ILO standards for International and of course that's the first problem right there.  Think Brexit.  It's a mess wrapped in an enigma.

Step One is to get the federal government out the unemployment reporting business.  Instead, do what the smart money on Wall Street does and pay close attention to the numbers calculated by private entities.  These entities have more at stake - like their reputations and their jobs.

Then hand the gaggle of newly unemployed federal workers a handy little form to fill out, they can apply for 4 million weeks of unemployment or whatever the number is these days.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Glad you're finally coming around - I understand it takes some people longer than others.

Politicians would have us believe its all rocket science and they have to dumb it down so us little people can digest the numbers.  In reality it's not that complicated at all.  They just make it unusually complicated in their own special way only governments can.

If anyone finds themselves having a good day and feeling unusually happy then I suggest they might try reading a few paragraphs of something called the ILO Standards.  Don't try this on a normal day, you'll puke.  The "I" part of ILO standards for International and of course that's the first problem right there.  Think Brexit.  It's a mess wrapped in an enigma.

Step One is to get the federal government out the unemployment reporting business.  Instead, do what the smart money on Wall Street does and pay close attention to the numbers calculated by private entities.  These entities have more at stake - like their reputations and their jobs.

Then hand the gaggle of newly unemployed federal workers a handy little form to fill out, they can apply for 4 million weeks of unemployment or whatever the number is these days.

There's a gaggle of net kooks on the internet who will believe whatever they believe and nothing will change their mind.


Zero hedge, an idiot site for idiots, has predicted financial collapse for the last 8 years or so. They were wrong every year.


Never take financial advice from people who are poor.

[Bigun]

Glad you're finally coming around - I understand it takes some people longer than others.

Politicians would have us believe its all rocket science and they have to dumb it down so us little people can digest the numbers.  In reality it's not that complicated at all.  They just make it unusually complicated in their own special way only governments can.

If anyone finds themselves having a good day and feeling unusually happy then I suggest they might try reading a few paragraphs of something called the ILO Standards.  Don't try this on a normal day, you'll puke.  The "I" part of ILO standards for International and of course that's the first problem right there.  Think Brexit.  It's a mess wrapped in an enigma.

Step One is to get the federal government out the unemployment reporting business.  Instead, do what the smart money on Wall Street does and pay close attention to the numbers calculated by private entities.  These entities have more at stake - like their reputations and their jobs.

Then hand the gaggle of newly unemployed federal workers a handy little form to fill out, they can apply for 4 million weeks of unemployment or whatever the number is these days.

LOL!   

[SirLinksALot]

Current U-6 Unemployment Rate is 9.1% (BLS) or 13.7% (Gallup)

http://unemploymentdata.com/current-u6-unemployment-rate/

That's a HUGE disparity there between BLS and Gallup. The question is, whose numbers better reflect reality?

[Bigun]

That's a HUGE disparity there between BLS and Gallup. The question is, whose numbers better reflect reality?

BLS is government  Gallup is not!  You decide! 

In either case, it isn't nearly so rosy as some would have us believe!

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

BLS is government  Gallup is not!  You decide! 

In either case, it isn't nearly so rosy as some would have us believe!

Nor are we on the brink of economic collapse as the Zero Sludget loonies would have us believe.

[bolobaby]

Waiting for Drudge's "Great Again" headline for this one...

Waiting...

Waiting...