labor force participation rate

[moneymaker]

Ben Carson says this is what we should be measuring and I was in agreement until I did a little research. Seems like the countries that have the highest labor force participation rate are in Africa, the poorer countries. So spdrun may be correct in that we are all gradually being replaced by machines, we will probably never see a labor force participation rate as high as Tansania. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.ZS

[jeff303]

So he’d prefer more older people are forced to keep working, rather than retire, and that fewer women should choose to be stay-at-home moms? Interesting.

[spdrun]

If you look at the stats, the drop in the participation rate is worse among prime-working age people (25-55). Older people are actually working more vs retiring.

[Anonymous]

Funny how nobody cared about this obscure statistic until the unemployment rate started dropping steadily during Obama’s administration.

[an]

Could it be because when unemployment is high, it also mean labor participation is low? Why repeat the same obvious fact?

[spdrun]

Why bring Obama into it?

Fact is that the unemployment rate was dropping, but a lot of people still had problems finding work. This would be a problem under any government.

[Coronita]

.

[CA renter]

I think the low labor force participation rate is an indication of at least a couple of things: a surplus capacity of workers and wages that are too low. Both are related, but different.

We have low wages because there are too many people for the few jobs that are available. Some people simply cannot find work (surplus workers), while others will choose not to work because wages are too low. Many people are living with other relatives or living with more people per household, enabling some to stay home (adult kids living with parents, stay-at-home parents, and seniors who are moving in with their kids or other family members, etc.).

Personally, I don’t think that the low participation rate is a bad thing, especially for those who find it more economical to stay out of the workforce (see my posts about the cost of work being higher than the net income from many jobs, especially for second income earners in families with young kids).

[Anonymous]

[quote=spdrun]Why bring Obama into it? [/quote]

You’ll have to ask the GOP that question.

[quote]Fact is that the unemployment rate was dropping, but a lot of people still had problems finding work.[/quote]

That’s not what the decline in the statistic means. It means a smaller proportion of people are working — for any reason. There are many demographic factors that influence the number. I agree with CAR that many people may be deciding that two-income families are not worth the hassle.

[quote]This would be a problem under any government.[/quote]

The number was much lower in the 1950s and 60s?. Was it a problem then?

[an]

Labor force participation… yep, no problem here… move along.

[Anonymous]

OMG 0.4% of our GDP is housing subsidies!

We can fix the Medicare graph with the program implemented in Logan’s Run.

The labor participation rate chart looks ominous.

If the trend continues, we might re-live the horrible depression of the 1960s:

[an]

200-400% higher than 50s-60s.
LoL, Logan’s Run. Lets implement real world policy base on a novel.
You might like to relive the 60s. I as hell don’t want to.

[Anonymous]

The movie was way better.

[flyer]

Should be interesting to see if and how this plays out. . .

“The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) suggests that the number of overqualified and underemployed college graduates will increase. According to BLS, the economy will create 50.6 million job openings by 2022 and only 27.1 percent will require college degrees.”

[an]

If you say so.

[Author]

Posts