Despite Drop in Unemployment Rate, 95,385,000: Record Number Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Falls to 62.7%

[SirLinksALot]

SOURCE: CNS NEWS

URL: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/95385000-record-number-americans-not-labor-force-participation-rate-falls

by  Susan Jones | November 3, 2017


The economy added 261,000 jobs in October – the most since President Trump took office -- and the nation’s unemployment rate dropped another tenth of a point to 4.1 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday.

But a record number of Americans – 95,385,000 – were not in the labor force in October, and the critical labor force participation rate dropped four-tenths of a point to 62.7 percent, a disappointing show, as 76,500 Americans left the civilian labor force..

The previous "not in the labor force" record of 95,102,000 was set in December 2016, the final full month of the Barack Obama presidency.

And the labor force participation rate reached 38-year low of 62.4 percent in September 2015, near the end of Obama's second term. The participation rate has not improved much since then, although it had been trending up since May 2017.

In October, the nation’s civilian noninstitutionalized population, consisting of all people age 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, reached 255,766,000. Of those, 160,381,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.

The 160,381,000 who participated in the labor force equaled 62.7 percent of the 255,766,000 civilian noninstitutionalized population.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I guess I am one of the ones not in the labor force as I am retired.

So what is the significance of this statistic anyway?

[SirLinksALot]

I guess I am one of the ones not in the labor force as I am retired.

So what is the significance of this statistic anyway?

I think they only count those who are not retired. They shouldn't be counting retirees as this makes no sense at all for Labor Participation.

[Bigun]

I think they only count those who are not retired. They shouldn't be counting retirees as this makes no sense at all for Labor Participation.

I think there is a bracket between age X and age Y that compose the labor participation pool.  If you retire before age Y you still get counted.

[RoosGirl]

I wonder if the false calculation method of the unemployment rate that Trump railed against during the campaign will be addressed by him in the next 3 years.

[Frank Cannon]

I wonder if the false calculation method of the unemployment rate that Trump railed against during the campaign will be addressed by him in the next 3 years.

No. Because that is exactly what the swamp would want him to do. This is 24 dimensional chess. Way above your pay grade.

[RoosGirl]

No. Because that is exactly what the swamp would want him to do. This is 24 dimensional chess. Way above your pay grade.

At this point replacing the urinal cakes in a public restroom is above my pay grade.

[thackney]

I think there is a bracket between age X and age Y that compose the labor participation pool.  If you retire before age Y you still get counted.

Looks like it is only over 16.

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Series title:        (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

[thackney]

I guess I am one of the ones not in the labor force as I am retired.

So what is the significance of this statistic anyway?

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/participationrate.asp

It is necessary to analyze the participation rate in conjunction with the unemployment rate because people classified as unemployed according to the unemployment rate might not be active participants of the work force. When looking at the unemployment rate alone, the interpretation can be made that a higher number of people are not earning income, and are therefore not active contributors to the economy. However, these people may not be working due to choice and therefore could still be active contributors to the economy. They could be either retirees spending their savings, or students increasing their skills and their future income potential. The participation rate and unemployment data should be observed in tandem to better understand an economy's overall employment status.

Another significance use of the participation rate comes into play during a recession. When the economy is really bad, workers may get discouraged after trying to secure employment for a long time, and they may decide to drop out of the workforce. This would make the participation rate fall, as these people are then classified as not actively seeking employment. During a recession, a sudden drop in the participation rate is critically assessed.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Looks like it is only over 16.

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Series title:        (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

This is lifted from the original posted article:

In October, the nation’s civilian noninstitutionalized population, consisting of all people age 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, reached 255,766,000. Of those, 160,381,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.

This suggests retirees are included in the denominator but not the numerator.

If true, this 'participation rate' is a false statistic as a retiree should be in neither one.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

This is lifted from the original posted article:

In October, the nation’s civilian noninstitutionalized population, consisting of all people age 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, reached 255,766,000. Of those, 160,381,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.

This suggests retirees are included in the denominator but not the numerator.

If true, this 'participation rate' is a false statistic as a retiree should be in neither one.

Retirees are part of the population, as are stay at home moms, the homeless, people who inherited so much they don't have to work, 20-somethings living in mom's basement, etc.

The LFPR measures what portion of the "adult" population is participating in the LF (working or trying to).  LFPR is NOT a measure of the people in the LF who are actually working (roughly the inverse of unemployment).

IMO, it's not a "false" statistic, but a weird one that needs to be taken in context.  Viewed w/o context, a low LFPR could mean a society where women don't work or a really great economy where tons of people have retired early or a society of subsistence farmers.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Retirees are part of the population, as are stay at home moms, the homeless, people who inherited so much they don't have to work, 20-somethings living in mom's basement, etc.

The LFPR measures what portion of the "adult" population is participating in the LF (working or trying to).  LFPR is NOT a measure of the people in the LF who are actually working (roughly the inverse of unemployment).

IMO, it's not a "false" statistic, but a weird one that needs to be taken in context.  Viewed w/o context, a low LFPR could mean a society where women don't work or a really great economy where tons of people have retired early or a society of subsistence farmers.

As people live longer and longer lives, of course this % will continue going down over time as those people remain being counted in the denominator and not the numerator.

So this is a measure of longevity perhaps more than anything else.

Many years ago, this was almost 100% as people continued working until they drop dead.

I agree with you, it is so weird it really may represent nothing substantive.

[thackney]

As people live longer and longer lives, of course this % will continue going down over time as those people remain being counted in the denominator and not the numerator.

So this is a measure of longevity perhaps more than anything else.

Many years ago, this was almost 100% as people continued working until they drop dead.

I agree with you, it is so weird it really may represent nothing substantive.

Yet while Obama was president, many conservative touted this dropping stat as demonstration of the rising number on welfare.  Bad then but meaningless now?

[LMAO]

Yet while Obama was president, many conservative touted this dropping stat as demonstration of the rising number on welfare.  Bad then but meaningless now?

However one chooses to read this stat, this is going to put further strain on  already unsustainable entitlement programs

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Yet while Obama was president, many conservative touted this dropping stat as demonstration of the rising number on welfare.  Bad then but meaningless now?

What difference does it make if it was wrong both times?

If they get the denominator correct, then it may mean something.  Right now, I do not think it means anything.