You offer the example of your uncle, who by your account is neither retired nor a discouraged worker, as evidence that retiring boomers are responsible for- your words- "almost the entire drop" in the LFPR?

How can you ignore that all other age buckets are declining, and that it is the youngest buckets that are declining the fastest?

ETA: this discussion might be pulling away from the successfully-trolled direction of the thread, as young folks' decline in LF participation isn't Obama's fault- it goes back to the 80-90's.

This post was edited on 9/18/14 at 10:00 am

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by mmcgrath

Indianapolis

Member since Feb 2010

35471 posts

Posted on 9/18/14 at 10:14 am to 90proofprofessional

quote:
You offer the example of your uncle, who by your account is neither retired nor a discouraged worker, as evidence that retiring boomers are responsible for- your words- "almost the entire drop" in the LFPR?

When he is working part time he will not appear in the regular unemployment numbers but will factor in the U-6. When he is not working he is not looking for work so will be considered a non participant. Perhaps he says he would take a job but there is nothing out there for him right now. Then he would factor in the U-7.

The bottom line is that as you get into the 50's and 60's, more people are semi retired and the participation rate drops. No matter what.

quote:
How can you ignore that all other age buckets are declining, and that it is the youngest buckets that are declining the fastest?

Because any declines following the recession are relatively very small and their numbers are dropping as a percentage of the population, so any affect is minimized.

quote:

ETA: this discussion might be pulling away from the successfully-trolled direction of the thread, as young folks' decline in LF participation isn't Obama's fault- it goes back to the 80-90's.

Fair point. It was Reagan's fault. jk.