DescentBB

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


Civilian labor force participation rate 63%

since 2008 the participation in the labor force has been on a steady decline.

2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.0 65.0 64.6
2010 64.8 64.9 64.9 65.1 64.9 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.6 64.4 64.6 64.3
2011 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.1 64.1 64.0
2012 63.7 63.9 63.8 63.6 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6 63.8 63.6 63.6
2013 63.6 63.5 63.3 63.3 63.4

so that's a decline of 12 million people who are actually trying to work since 2008

while I'm not an expert on this and correct me if I'm wrong but the unemployment rate is 7.6% so my "ASSUMPTION" is that, that is 7.6% of the 63% that are actually participating in the workforce. and out of that 189 million people that ARE looking for work 14 million of them cannot find it.. seriously am I correct in this. I do not know

it would seem to me that the actual unemployment rate by those numbers is really 40%

how can this nation survive when only 6 in 10 people are actually looking for work or have jobs and the other 4 are on some kind of support

On one hand:

That seems like a disturbing number.

On the other hand:

That's a survey of all people 16 and older; how much do you think that the declining number is thanks to boomers retiring?

What I'd like to see: The ratio of people who are: Not in school, Not a dependent, On any form of government other than social security, don't have any form of employment over the total workforce.

TLDR: The 63% includes people that either are provided for by others privately (students) and people that don't need either assistance or a salary (retirees) - which means that it's hard to draw conclusions about the health of the nation just from that number.

Agreed, this needs significantly more information about what exactly is being measured here.

Just for the sake of argument, what if someone were to counter with the following:

"This is a good trend, as it means families are getting by with less members in the workplace (e.g. more parents are able to stay home with their kids)!"

[Note: I am not suggesting this, but rather pointing out the inherent weakness of citing numbers with very little definition about the metrics involved.]

Where are you when slick does the same thing…

Actually I wish you would open your mouth more often, during these debates, because you are considered to be even handed.

Spidey wrote:Where are you when slick does the same thing…

Actually I wish you would open your mouth more often, during these debates, because you are considered to be even handed.

when, pray tell, do I post such openended numbers. As stated, part of the decline is the advent of a retiring baby boomer populace. Second is lower participation by the youngest part of that scale. Further, one adds the unemployed to the 63 percent participants, and thus gets around 67.6% of the population working or looking for work.Figure on another 15 percent of working age not in the force by choice, incarceration or disabilities, and you are left with around 17% which could easily be retirees, and students.

Well, you just gave them a name, I guess to limit the scope…I don’t know, I was basically referring to the many “stats” you have posted here, without the proper context, such as people who carry guns are more likely to be shot.

This is the kind of thing I am referring to…stats and numbers without context.

Give CUDA’s post any name you want, but I see most of this as data without any meaning.

note, my boy, that I tend to follow up the raw numbers(as often as I can) with a link to the whole study, for context.

LOL! Do you guys really talk like that Slick? You might be delusional

Ehhh, the last link you provided had no useful information whatsoever, and was more of a political whitewash.

flip wrote:LOL! Do you guys really talk like that Slick? You might be delusional

'you guys'?

Would you have preferred a hearty southern Y'all? Hehe, around here, if you call someone a boy, you might get ready to dance .

flip wrote:Would you have preferred a hearty southern Y'all? Hehe, around here, if you call someone a boy, you might get ready to dance .

then, given you know I was raised primarily as a Virginian, you will understand that I knew the context of my words. If someone is making a childish remark, I'll call them on it. They want to dance, it's fine by me.......