- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Labor Force participation rate since the 1950's
Posted on 3/14/22 at 9:31 am to BurningHeart
Posted on 3/14/22 at 9:31 am to BurningHeart
If you restricted the green line to making sammichs we could solve a few issues.
0
Posted on 3/14/22 at 9:32 am to BurningHeart
Not to totally disagree with that point, but when the white middle people see no possibility of getting ahead by working their arse off, and start leaving the job market in big numbers you have reached a tipping point and need to take a hard look at what’s going on. The american dream is no longer believable then game over.
We are there now
We are there now
Posted on 3/14/22 at 9:33 am to Korkstand
quote:
Are you not aware that women were discouraged from working in the not so distant past?
Thanks for the info
You just said retirees are included?
Somebody is being excluded from those numbers because the ages 15-64 only make up 65% of the population
This post was edited on 3/14/22 at 9:34 am
Posted on 3/14/22 at 9:34 am to BurningHeart
Women gong to work obviously messed things up.
Posted on 3/14/22 at 9:43 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:Yes, retirees are included in the working-age population.
You just said retirees are included?
quote:Where do you see ages 15-64? AFAIK everyone age 16 and up is counted, with the only exceptions being active duty armed forces and institutionalized people.
Somebody is being excluded from those numbers because the ages 15-64 only make up 65% of the population
Per BLS:
quote:
The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:
People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for a job, and available for work are unemployed.
The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.
quote:
The survey excludes people living in institutions (for example, a correctional institution or a residential nursing or mental health care facility) and those on active duty in the Armed Forces. The survey is designed so that each person age 16 and over (there is no upper age limit) is counted and classified in only one group. The sum of the employed and the unemployed constitutes the civilian labor force. People not in the labor force combined with those in the civilian labor force constitute the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over.
quote:
Who is not in the labor force?
As mentioned previously, the labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as not in the labor force. Many who are not in the labor force are going to school or are retired.
And just to reiterate the definition:
quote:
The labor force participation rate. This measure is the number of people in the labor force as a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over. In other words, it is the percentage of the population that is either working or actively seeking work.
This post was edited on 3/14/22 at 9:51 am
Posted on 3/14/22 at 9:52 am to BurningHeart
The overall participation rate has been fairly steady though.
Just a lot more women working.
Just a lot more women working.
Posted on 3/14/22 at 9:52 am to deltaland
quote:
Just a lot more women working.
Women, immigrants..
The labor market has been flooded which is why it was stagnant.
Posted on 3/14/22 at 9:59 am to BurningHeart
Lots of freeloaders 
Posted on 3/14/22 at 10:07 am to BurningHeart
The age range for the statistic starts at 16. How much of the decline is due to male minors no longer needing to work at the same rate to supplement family income? Also consider delayed entrance as college enrollments increased. Not saying there's not more lazy bastards these days, but there's been a lot of changes in societal norms in the last 60 years that probably factor in to the decline as well.
Posted on 3/14/22 at 10:11 am to BurningHeart
Women working instead of being in the home where they belong.
Our government making us not competitive on the world stage when it comes to manufacturing etc. and jobs being lost to overseas.
Illegals coming in droves driving labor costs down.
Leftist policies creating so much fricking ridiculous red tape that companies don't want to deal with our nation.
Leftist policies incentivizing laziness and leech living.
Entire generations of stupid, unhealthy people.
________________________
^^^^ Those are good places to start
Our government making us not competitive on the world stage when it comes to manufacturing etc. and jobs being lost to overseas.
Illegals coming in droves driving labor costs down.
Leftist policies creating so much fricking ridiculous red tape that companies don't want to deal with our nation.
Leftist policies incentivizing laziness and leech living.
Entire generations of stupid, unhealthy people.
________________________
^^^^ Those are good places to start
Posted on 3/14/22 at 10:17 am to Korkstand
quote:
Are you not aware that women were discouraged from working in the not so distant past?
This term is obviously a biased interpretation, IMHO. Yes, there was society pressure against (at least competitive, for wages) women working until World War II in the United States.
And, despite all these waves of feminism over the past 100 years, many women, if given the choice, would focus on home and family (at least while there were school-aged children at home), certainly in far greater numbers than men would choose to do so.
Posted on 3/14/22 at 10:19 am to BurningHeart
Looks like it trended downward almost all of Obama’s yrs and was picking up during the trump years until COVID. The one problem with charts like these is that while you see a result, there is no information into the underlying causes - population growth, immigration, retirements, etc.
Posted on 3/14/22 at 10:40 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
What I see in that graph is that all lines began to parallel in around 2000 and have stayed that way, which seems strange. Men and women were going different directions until about then, then both trended downward equally.
The two lines are still trending toward the middle - meaning the gap between male and female participation rate is smaller now than it was in 2000. It’s just that the trend has slowed as the gap got smaller, which makes sense.
I think what you’re seeing from 2000-2020 are the effects of an again population (e.g. Baby Boomers retiring), more than anything.
The graph shows that male participation rates ages 16+ were ~75% in 2000 and ~70% (pre-COVID) in 2020. People age 65+ made up ~12.4% of the US population in 2000 and ~16.3% in 2020. So male labor force participation dropped by about 5%, and the portion of the population age 65+ increased by about 4% during that period.
Posted on 3/14/22 at 10:43 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
Why would women’s participation go up dramatically over that same time period? Are women not getting older?
These are one of those questions where I wonder what the poster looks like irl
Posted on 3/14/22 at 11:06 am to Deactived
Posted on 3/14/22 at 11:17 am to Korkstand
quote:
Korkstand
Hold up, let’s back up
Someone stated “retirees are excluded”
You responded “they are not”
Then you proceed to contradict yourself by posting this quote:
quote:
As mentioned previously, the labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as not in the labor force. Many who are not in the labor force are going to school or are retired.
So let me just reiterate that retired people, not looking for work, are not included in the numbers presented in the OP
Which is direct evidence that contradicts your statement that an aging population is effecting the labor force participation rate.
Agree?
This post was edited on 3/14/22 at 11:20 am
Posted on 3/14/22 at 11:23 am to lostinbr
quote:
I think what you’re seeing from 2000-2020 are the effects of an again population (e.g. Baby Boomers retiring), more than anything.
Y’all don’t understand the survey
Someone calls you and they ask:
1. Are you working?…. No
2. Are you actively looking for a job?…. No
That person is not a part of the labor force. They are not counted anywhere on the graph in the OP.
An old retired baby boomer isn’t answering yes to either of those questions. Their presence or absence is totally irrelevant to the chart in the OP.
This post was edited on 3/14/22 at 11:23 am
Posted on 3/14/22 at 11:25 am to GetCocky11
quote:
He may look goofy af, but I bet that dude has a job
and can WFH dressed like a goober.
Posted on 3/14/22 at 11:28 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:Correct.
Someone stated “retirees are excluded”
You responded “they are not”
quote:I did not.
Then you proceed to contradict yourself
quote:"Not in the labor force" means they are in the denominator for calculating the percentages in the chart. Employed and unemployed together are the numerator.quote:So let me just reiterate that retired people, not looking for work, are not included in the numbers presented in the OP
As mentioned previously, the labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as not in the labor force. Many who are not in the labor force are going to school or are retired.
quote:No.
Which is direct evidence that contradicts your statement that an aging population is effecting the labor force participation rate.
Agree?
The labor force is the employed plus the unemployed looking for work. To find the labor force participation rate, that total is divided by the total civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over. That number includes those in school, retirees, everyone 16 and over excluding only active military and institutionalized people.
Posted on 3/14/22 at 11:29 am to BurningHeart
Part of the problem is that Progressives have convinced the simple minded that unskilled labor is worth more then it is.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News