Record number "deciding not to participate" in Labor Force--Up Almost 10M Under Obama

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Record number "deciding not to participate" in Labor Force--Up Almost 10M Under Obama

    Why work? The Government will take care of you, there are dozens of ways to get a check....Disability claims are the latest ticket, with skyrocketing numbers of people thinking their 'bad back' or obesity entitles them to a lifetime on the couch.

    The number of Americans who are 16 years or older and who have decided not to participate in the nation's labor force has pushed past 90,000,000 for the first time, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    "Decided not to participate".....also known as "pulling an Auntie Zenuiti"... quite unlikely they will ever change their mind and decide to participate....

    The BLS counts a person as participating in the labor force if they are 16 years or older and either have a job or have actively sought a job in the last four weeks. A person is not participating in the labor force if they are 16 or older and have not sought a job in the last four weeks.

    In July, according to BLS, 89,957,000 Americans did not participate in the labor force. In August, that climbed to 90,473,000--a one month increase of 516,000.

    In January 2009, when President Barack Obama took office, there were 80,507,000 Americans not in the labor force. Thus, the number of Americans not in the labor force has increased by 9,966,000 during Obama's presidency. (Didnt Obama win the election by 9 million votes?)

    Part of the increase in the number Americans not participating in the labor force can be explained by Baby Boomers reaching retirement age and deciding to stop working--and not be replaced by an equal number of younger people reaching age 16 and thus becoming part of the BLS labor force population.

    However, it is also true that the overall percentage of the non-institutionalized population over the age of 16 that is working or seeking to work in the United States--which BLS calls the employment-population ratio--has declined significantly in recent years.

    From July to August, it dropped from 58.7 percent to 58.6 percent. In January 2009, when President Barack Obama took office, it was 60.6 percent. It reached an historical peak in April 2000, when it was 64.7 percent.....

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: Record number

    and the takers on the public payroll out number the producers/taxpayers.....it guarantees Dem Presidents in perpetuity.....brilliant...got to go, need to make money to pay taxes and feed A LOT of mouths beyond my immediate family...a simple thank you will suffice.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Record number

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Look at his word games. "Decided not to participate" instead of "gave up trying after years of looking"...  




    "pulling an Auntie Zenuiti" is better.

    "years of looking"?

    Are there hardworking healthy people who lost their job who gave every effort for years to be self reliant , being willing to volunteer or take a low paid position and work their way up, or being willing to train for another profession , or move to another state for opportunity, and nonetheless had to give up?

    Yes....but if you think that is the bulk of those dropping out of the workforce, think again.

    Many who are leaving the workforce today, have no plans to ever come back, they get a check and only need to vote Democrat to ensure a lifetime of leisure.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Record number

    Many people "decide" not to participate in the labor force for a variety of very common sense reasons that should be apparent to anyone who wants to think about things versus trying to make every thing into some partisan gotcha point.  

    Also, the labor participation rate has been been steadily increasing since 2000 for a variety of factors, and one of the biggest drivers is massive numbers of baby boomers retiring before the age of 65 which is the cut off for the measurement.  With the popularity of outsourcing and two recessions the labor participation rate has steadily dropped since 2000 where it was 74% to 71% in 2004 where it held steady until the housing bubble burst and the rate dropped several points into the 60s for the first time in decades.  Other factors:

     

    Considering 16, 17, and 18 year olds are included it should be plainly obvious labor participation numbers would increase as summer jobs end and school begins.  Same thing for slightly older young people who left summer jobs to go back to college.  This is a typical cycle that can be observed every year.  This factor alone accounts for nearly 7 million  high school children and 22 million college students.  

    There are around 22 million people who don't participate in the labor force due to early retirement, disability, who collect social security/disability etc. 

    There are about 5 million stay at home parents in the US

    Millions upon millions do not now, nor historically participate in the labor force and for the vast majoirty the reasons are quite simple and reflect a normal progression in life (school aged people, early retirees, stay at home parents, and yes those people who give up looking for work)  

    Finally, the bulk of the people who have left the work force have done so because of the recession, which saw well over 3 million jobs shipped overseas.  People in trade work like construction, electrical, plumbing, contracting, etc have had a hard time finding work as the pace of building has slowed, municipalities are holding off on funding infrastrature work, etc.  Small business are still having trouble getting access to capital to expand and hire, some are reluctant to hire for other reasons (Obamacare, taxes, etc), companies are claiming they can't fill openings because there is a mismatch in available labor and the skills needed to perform the jobs that are open, etc  but the fact remains, the legacy of the recession is the wholesale loss of American jobs, and that was the result of a systemic problem that goes far beyond one president.  Any honset person understands that.  

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Record number

    Dont have to assume:

    The number of Americans on disability is skyrocketing.

    When President Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, there were 142,187,000 people employed and 7,442,377 workers taking federal disability payments. That equaled about 1 person taking disability payments for each 19.1 people actually working.

    In May of 2012, there were 142,287,000 people employed, and 8,707,185 workers taking federal disability payments. That equaled 1 worker taking disability payments for each 16.3 people working.

    An 18-month investigation released last year by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., found that more than a quarter of recipients in 300 randomly selected cases were awarded disability benefits by the SSA despite questionable evidence.

    “Left unchecked, decades of loose standards and poor enforcement may soon culminate in thousands — if not millions — of deserving recipients being deprived their rightful benefits.”

    The 2012 Social Security trustees’ report projected that the disability trust fund will be exhausted in 2016 — two years sooner than last year’s report and sooner than any other federal entitlement trust fund.

    In more than 25 percent of cases reviewed, evidence confirming disabilities was insufficient, contradictory or incomplete.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Record number

    The obvious solution is to fix the standards for applying for disability and actively enforce them.  that will require people to do the work and funding to hire them.  But then again, we don't want more government even if more government might help reduce costs by sniffing out fraud.  

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: Record number

    Republicans could care less about the economy, or the impact that it has on the desparately unemployed. They seem to base their economic strategies on absurd misconceptions about how the economy works. The things they worry about never materialize, and their actions only tend to make things worse.

    The driving force behind Republicans is not the economy as much as it is their psychology. They seem to be so insecure that they can only feel good about themselves if others are suffering, as if other people's misery confirms their superior status. Nothing else explains their illogical disdain for the infamous 47 percent, and the idea that these people are living the Life of Riley on petty cash and government cheese.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: Record number

    In response to macnh1's comment:

    and the takers on the public payroll out number the producers/taxpayers.....it guarantees Dem Presidents in perpetuity.....brilliant...got to go, need to make money to pay taxes and feed A LOT of mouths beyond my immediate family...a simple thank you will suffice.




    The Democrats will always win at the unrestricted election day ballot box because they are the more humane party.

    We are currently living the Republican vision of the future, which is nothing more than unregulated feudalism.

    The Democrats vision - while too muddled and half-hearted - goes forward to the future, not back to the future.

    More and more people are realizing this, and as a result, the Republicans are becoming permanently outnumbered at the national level.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Record number

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to macnh1's comment:

     

    and the takers on the public payroll out number the producers/taxpayers.....it guarantees Dem Presidents in perpetuity.....brilliant...got to go, need to make money to pay taxes and feed A LOT of mouths beyond my immediate family...a simple thank you will suffice.

     




     

    Ya better put in for some overtime:

    Representative Stephen Fincher, a Republican and a farmer from Frog Jump, Tenn., one of the 48 Republican Congressmen who voted for this lavish taxpayer funded giveaway, collected nearly $3.5 million in subsidies from 1999 to 2012.

    In 2012 alone, the data shows, Mr. Fincher received about $70,000 in direct payments, money that is given to farmers and farmland owners, even if they do not grow crops.

    http://cdn.ewg.org/sites/default/files/u165/48republicans.pdf

     



    Lets stop this insanity.

    Though I dont know why airborne of all people is upset about a little pork barrel farm giveaway, since such redistribution is the Democrats' core principle...spending  other people's money...oh, one of the recipients is a Republican..I see.

     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Record number

    In response to UserName9's comment:

    Republicans could care less about the economy, or the impact that it has on the desparately unemployed. They seem to base their economic strategies on absurd misconceptions about how the economy works.




    Seems like quite a few absurd leftist misconceptions about how a free market system flourishes, has resulted in 5 years of pathetic failure for the Obama economy ....hint, it isnt through statist intervention and massive government spending.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Record number

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

    Many people "decide" not to participate in the labor force for a variety of very common sense reasons that should be apparent to anyone who wants to think about things versus trying to make every thing into some partisan gotcha point.  

    Also, the labor participation rate has been been steadily increasing since 2000 for a variety of factors, and one of the biggest drivers is massive numbers of baby boomers retiring before the age of 65 which is the cut off for the measurement.  With the popularity of outsourcing and two recessions the labor participation rate has steadily dropped since 2000 where it was 74% to 71% in 2004 where it held steady until the housing bubble burst and the rate dropped several points into the 60s for the first time in decades.  Other factors:

     

    Considering 16, 17, and 18 year olds are included it should be plainly obvious labor participation numbers would increase as summer jobs end and school begins.  Same thing for slightly older young people who left summer jobs to go back to college.  This is a typical cycle that can be observed every year.  This factor alone accounts for nearly 7 million  high school children and 22 million college students.  

    There are around 22 million people who don't participate in the labor force due to early retirement, disability, who collect social security/disability etc. 

    There are about 5 million stay at home parents in the US

    Millions upon millions do not now, nor historically participate in the labor force and for the vast majoirty the reasons are quite simple and reflect a normal progression in life (school aged people, early retirees, stay at home parents, and yes those people who give up looking for work)  

    Finally, the bulk of the people who have left the work force have done so because of the recession, which saw well over 3 million jobs shipped overseas.  People in trade work like construction, electrical, plumbing, contracting, etc have had a hard time finding work as the pace of building has slowed, municipalities are holding off on funding infrastrature work, etc.  Small business are still having trouble getting access to capital to expand and hire, some are reluctant to hire for other reasons (Obamacare, taxes, etc), companies are claiming they can't fill openings because there is a mismatch in available labor and the skills needed to perform the jobs that are open, etc  but the fact remains, the legacy of the recession is the wholesale loss of American jobs, and that was the result of a systemic problem that goes far beyond one president.  Any honset person understands that.  



    if the workforce participation rate was the same as when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.4%.

    if one looks at the U-6, the rare would be nearly 15%.

    Granted that Bush was a poor actor on TARP, but workforce participation was not really the issue it has been under Obama.  look at this chart.

    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

    Obama and his collection of Marxist and quasi Marxist economists

    have steered us up onto the rocks.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Record number

    In response to UserName9's comment:

    Republicans could care less about the economy, or the impact that it has on the desparately unemployed. They seem to base their economic strategies on absurd misconceptions about how the economy works. The things they worry about never materialize, and their actions only tend to make things worse.

    The driving force behind Republicans is not the economy as much as it is their psychology. They seem to be so insecure that they can only feel good about themselves if others are suffering, as if other people's misery confirms their superior status. Nothing else explains their illogical disdain for the infamous 47 percent, and the idea that these people are living the Life of Riley on petty cash and government cheese.



    Show me the evidence that Obama cares.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Record number

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to macnh1's comment:

     

    and the takers on the public payroll out number the producers/taxpayers.....it guarantees Dem Presidents in perpetuity.....brilliant...got to go, need to make money to pay taxes and feed A LOT of mouths beyond my immediate family...a simple thank you will suffice.

     




     

    Ya better put in for some overtime:

    Representative Stephen Fincher, a Republican and a farmer from Frog Jump, Tenn., one of the 48 Republican Congressmen who voted for this lavish taxpayer funded giveaway, collected nearly $3.5 million in subsidies from 1999 to 2012.

    In 2012 alone, the data shows, Mr. Fincher received about $70,000 in direct payments, money that is given to farmers and farmland owners, even if they do not grow crops.

    http://cdn.ewg.org/sites/default/files/u165/48republicans.pdf

     



    Lets stop this insanity.

    Though I dont know why airborne of all people is upset about a little pork barrel farm giveaway, since such redistribution is the Democrats' core principle...spending  other people's money...oh, one of the recipients is a Republican..I see.

     

     


    Heh, heh, heh... if an elected wingnut writes himself a fat check for doing nothing, then it's "a little pork" if the wingnuts find a few cases of fraud then the entire system must be dismantled.
     

    Ya, I'm okay with feeding people but not paying farmers not to work .... I'm funny like that.

     



    So, you feed people? Tell me more.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share