PDA

View Full Version : Labor force participation rate.



coelacanth2
10-04-2015, 03:30 PM
Lowest since the Carter years.

And X before the "blame Bush" crowd gets going, it began its real dip 2 years into President Obama's first term. Graphs available at ZeroHedge.

The he administration keeps talking about helping the middle class. Doesn't seem to be working.

slug
10-04-2015, 03:49 PM
Demographics..the ageing baby boomers explains some of the decline. A near retirement age worker who goes redundant may never rejoin the labour market .

Modern Youth are also lethargic...prefering to lounge around a few years before getting a job.

http://s17.postimg.org/9jn875obj/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/hcdvz4uaj/full/)
imagen (http://postimage.org/index.php?lang=spanish)

Boater14
10-04-2015, 04:11 PM
I like to keep an eye on the unemployment rate. Cleaner that way. When a dem gets that down the heritage foundation brushes off the old participation rate.

coelacanth2
10-04-2015, 04:12 PM
U6 or U3?

Keith Wilson
10-04-2015, 08:05 PM
'Participation rate' includes retired folks. A substantial part of the increase is simply an aging population.

Here's a pretty good analysis at factcheck.org. (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/)

David G
10-04-2015, 08:25 PM
Lowest since the Carter years.

And X before the "blame Bush" crowd gets going, it began its real dip 2 years into President Obama's first term. Graphs available at ZeroHedge.

The he administration keeps talking about helping the middle class. Doesn't seem to be working.

More research. Less premature hypothesizing. More facts. And, as always, less slanted, unreliable, cowflop from souces like ZeroHedge, please. Please!

Too Little Time
10-04-2015, 08:40 PM
'Participation rate' includes retired folks. A substantial part of the increase is simply an aging population.

Here's a pretty good analysis at factcheck.org. (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/)

If you wanted, you could use the 25-54 labor participation rate. Or the rate for any other 5, 10, 15, 20, or 25 year age group. Total or by sex or by race. The government produces all sorts of breakdowns. If I recall, they all show the same trend.

The working force is somewhere between 1.7 and 2.7 million jobs short. Those short fall might be gone by August 2016. Right on schedule with predictions made one year ago and also 2 years ago.

Keith Wilson
10-04-2015, 08:57 PM
If I recall, they all show the same trend.Not to anywhere near the same degree. You can read the article and follow the links to original sources if you're interested in what's really going on, rather then just partisanship.

CPF
10-04-2015, 09:36 PM
And X before the "blame Bush" crowd gets going, it began its real dip 2 years into President Obama's first term.

Largely demographics, then. Guess that makes you part of the "blame Obama" crowd, eh, c2 ? Or do you object to such crass political labeling?

Too Little Time
10-05-2015, 09:32 AM
Not to anywhere near the same degree. You can read the article and follow the links to original sources if you're interested in what's really going on, rather then just partisanship.

Since you write the bold text, I am going to assume that you looked at the graphs for the various groups I mentioned. Here is one you might have missed.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/undesirable-trends-in-the-labor-force-participation-rate.html
http://2378nh2nfow32gm3mb25krmuyy.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/LabourForceRBCCM2-e1365451859304.png

The only age group that has increased its participation rate are the "retired" and about to be retired group.

Every other age group is decreasing. So making the claim that retirement is the main driver is at best misleading. Old people are hanging in there. Young people are not.


google.com labor participation rate by age (http://google.com labor participation rate by age)

provides a lot of images showing similar results. That is, that every age group is participating less. There are also text links that support the same claim. One might even try race and gender in a similar search.


http://google.com labor participation rate by gender

http://google.com labor participation rate by race

slug
10-05-2015, 09:38 AM
Since you write the bold text, I am going to assume that you looked at the graphs for the various groups I mentioned. Here is one you might have missed.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/undesirable-trends-in-the-labor-force-participation-rate.html
http://2378nh2nfow32gm3mb25krmuyy.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/LabourForceRBCCM2-e1365451859304.png

The only age group that has increased its participation rate are the "retired" and about to be retired group.

Every other age group is decreasing. So making the claim that retirement is the main driver is at best misleading. Old people are hanging in there. Young people are not.


google.com labor participation rate by age (http://google.com labor participation rate by age)

provides a lot of images showing similar results. That is, that every age group is participating less. There are also text links that support the same claim. One might even try race and gender in a similar search.


http://google.com labor participation rate by gender

http://google.com labor participation rate by race



I ve read this also.

one of the Big boxes stores in the Midwest recently had more retired folks on the payroll than workng age .

Baby boomer pensions are too low for true retirement. Many retireees are reentering the job market.

Lawmakers may need to revist rules on retired Workers to see if they are being well served.

Keith Wilson
10-05-2015, 10:01 AM
What that chart does not show is the actual participation rate for each cohort, rather than the change since 2008, nor the contribution of each cohort to the overall number. The percentage of those over 55 (not retirement age FWIW) working increased from 08-09, but not significantly since, but their overall participation rate is much lower than the general adult population, and their percentage of the population has also increased.

One factor influencing the numbers for the 20-24 cohort is that more people are going to college.

ljb5
10-05-2015, 10:08 AM
We've done several threads on this already. Yes, it's almost entirely due to demographics and the retirement of baby boomers.


If you wanted, you could use the 25-54 labor participation rate. Or the rate for any other 5, 10, 15, 20, or 25 year age group. Total or by sex or by race. The government produces all sorts of breakdowns. If I recall, they all show the same trend.

You recall incorrectly. In fact, back in July, you said:


Looking at the charts in the Fed link, the various age/gender groups show different trends. The prime age charts show the US at the bottom. The 55-64 age charts show the US toward the top and increasing. Each concerns me, but for different reasons.

As I explained to you back then, both of these trends are easily explained by looking at the aging of the baby boomers.

The problem with you guys is that no matter how many times you've been corrected, you never stay corrected.

(http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?146289-Labor-Force-Participation-Rate-in-the-US)
(http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?186035-The-economy-is-suffering-under-Obama-s-failed-economic-policies)
(http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?194528-Stupid-statement-Or-taken-out-of-context-You-decide/page3)

ljb5
10-05-2015, 10:11 AM
Just as a reminder, Too Little Time.... last time we had this discussion, you provided a link to an article from the Fed that clearly said that the decrease in LFPR among the younger groups is due primarily to increased educational attainment.... a trend that has been going on for sixty or so years.

Did you forget that we already discussed that?

ljb5
10-05-2015, 10:23 AM
And X before the "blame Bush" crowd gets going, it began its real dip 2 years into President Obama's first term.

Just to keep you on your toes, coelacanth... let's do some basic math.

Obama's first term started in 2009. Two years into his first term was 2011.

The baby boom started in 1946.

2011 - 1946 = 65.

See where I'm going with this?

Too Little Time
10-05-2015, 11:04 AM
Just as a reminder, Too Little Time.... last time we had this discussion, you provided a link to an article from the Fed that clearly said that the decrease in LFPR among the younger groups is due primarily to increased educational attainment.... a trend that has been going on for sixty or so years.

Did you forget that we already discussed that?

I did not forget. Those would primarily be in the under 25 group. There are reasons why they seek education rather than work. Just as those over 55 seek retirement rather than work.


In this thread I mentioned the 25-54 age group. I have done that in the past. That is by definition the group of prime age workers. The purpose of mentioning this group was to refute the claim that retirements are responsible for the drop in participation.

I think we can all agree that the graph shows that the 25-34, 35-44, and 45-54 age groups each shows about the same rate of participation rate drop. Which does seem to refute the retirement claim.

ljb5
10-05-2015, 11:27 AM
In this thread I mentioned the 25-54 age group.

Actually, you said, "Or the rate for any other 5, 10, 15, 20, or 25 year age group....If I recall, they all show the same trend."

But they do not all show the same trend.


I think we can all agree that the graph shows that the 25-34, 35-44, and 45-54 age groups each shows about the same rate of participation rate drop. Which does seem to refute the retirement claim.

Not really... according to the data we looked at earlier, even age groups less than 55 years old are heavily affected by the age distribution within that group.

For example, the 45-54 age group can be divided into 45-49 and 50-55. We have historical data going back a long way that shows that 50-55 has always had a much lower participation rate than 45-49.

So, even though this is a "pre-retirement" age bracket, it is still heavily affected by changing age distribution within the bracket.

A few months ago, you posted a link to an article which made this really, really clear.

Too Little Time
10-05-2015, 11:42 AM
Actually, you said, "Or the rate for any other 5, 10, 15, 20, or 25 year age group....If I recall, they all show the same trend."

But they do not all show the same trend.



Not really... according to the data we looked at earlier, even age groups less than 55 years old are heavily affected by the age distribution within that group.

For example, the 45-54 age group can be divided into 45-49 and 50-55. We have historical data going back a long way that shows that 50-55 has always had a much lower participation rate than 45-49.

So, even though this is a "pre-retirement" age bracket, it is still heavily affected by changing age distribution within the bracket.

A few months ago, you posted a link to an article which made this really, really clear.

I am sorry I should have said any age group within the prime age workers group.

You seem to think - bolded text, that your comment proves that the 50-55 (25-49) participation rate has not been decreasing in the recent past. I think the shows otherwise. I am sure that even single year age groups show decreasing participation. But I don't intend to look for or create the graphs.


I don't recall that link. No need for you to provide it. Because I don't dispute the fact that people drop out of the labor market as they age. But that is not the issue here. You simply want to believe something that I do not believe.

ljb5
10-05-2015, 12:20 PM
I don't recall that link. No need for you to provide it. Because I don't dispute the fact that people drop out of the labor market as they age. But that is not the issue here.

Here you go, TLT:

http://tinyurl.com/oecuu6l

The source is the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

Scroll to page 7, look at the chart called "Labor Force Participation, By Age/Gender, Men, 25-54.

Notice a few things:

Trend in all groups has been decreasing at pretty much the same rate since (at least) 1977.
Highest group is always either 30-34 (red) or 35-39 (green).
Each bracket after age 35-39 is consistently lower than the previous. (i.e, 40-44 (black) is always lower than 35-39, (green)... 45-49 (gold) is lower still... 50-54 (purple) is much lower.



So, even if we exclude all discussion of retired people (aged 65-older) and even those in pre-retirement (55-64)... we still see a strong effect of aging.

The peak of the baby boom was 1960 (about 4,250,000 births). Those people are now 55 years old.
The lowest birth rate since then was 1976 (about 3,100,000 births). Those people are now 39 years old.

So... what happens when you have the smallest number of people at the peak age of employment.... and the largest number of people now in a group that has about 7% lower participation rate?

The important thing to understand is that this is not a new phenomenon. Based on this data, 45-49 has always been about 2 or 3 points lower than 40-44 and about 5% lower than 35-39.

To a large extent, the current trend in LFPR, even for people in the prime working age is explained just by looking at the number of births in the 1960s vs. the 1970s.

And this has nothing to do with who is currently in office.

Ian McColgin
10-05-2015, 12:24 PM
But there is too little time for facts or reflection upon facts.

Too Little Time
10-05-2015, 06:49 PM
Here you go, TLT:

http://tinyurl.com/oecuu6l

The source is the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

Scroll to page 7, look at the chart called "Labor Force Participation, By Age/Gender, Men, 25-54.

Notice a few things:

Trend in all groups has been decreasing at pretty much the same rate since (at least) 1977.
Highest group is always either 30-34 (red) or 35-39 (green).
Each bracket after age 35-39 is consistently lower than the previous. (i.e, 40-44 (black) is always lower than 35-39, (green)... 45-49 (gold) is lower still... 50-54 (purple) is much lower.



So, even if we exclude all discussion of retired people (aged 65-older) and even those in pre-retirement (55-64)... we still see a strong effect of aging.

The peak of the baby boom was 1960 (about 4,250,000 births). Those people are now 55 years old.
The lowest birth rate since then was 1976 (about 3,100,000 births). Those people are now 39 years old.

So... what happens when you have the smallest number of people at the peak age of employment.... and the largest number of people now in a group that has about 7% lower participation rate?

The important thing to understand is that this is not a new phenomenon. Based on this data, 45-49 has always been about 2 or 3 points lower than 40-44 and about 5% lower than 35-39.

To a large extent, the current trend in LFPR, even for people in the prime working age is explained just by looking at the number of births in the 1960s vs. the 1970s.

And this has nothing to do with who is currently in office.

You lost me after your list of "a few things." Which seem to have nothing to do with what I have said.

I have some idea what concept the text I bolded is intended to convey. Perhaps if you had actual population numbers to support your claim. Perhaps a graph of the 35 single age group for a couple decades. That should show a nice correlation to retirements.

There is data available back to at least 1950. The labor participation rate for males has been dropping since 1950. Somehow you want to make a claim that for the first 50+ years the drop was not due to the aging population and retirements and that is has been for the last 10 years or so. At least that is what I think your claim is.

Ian McColgin
10-05-2015, 07:25 PM
Let's make it simpler. Righties are unhappy with Obama's economic successes and are fabricating a false "labor force participation rate" story to counter the good news.

ljb5
10-05-2015, 07:53 PM
You lost me after your list of "a few things."

Well then, you should make more of an effort to keep up.

The data I have says the labor force participation rate peaked between '95 and 2000. Not surprisingly, this corresponds to the time when the peak of the baby boomers were 35 to 40 years old.

Honestly, sometimes I'm right so often, it stops being a surprise.

I have already provided you plenty of data. It is valid and well sourced.

If you can't deal with that, it's really not my problem.

Too Little Time
10-06-2015, 07:20 AM
Well then, you should make more of an effort to keep up.

The data I have says the labor force participation rate peaked between '95 and 2000. Not surprisingly, this corresponds to the time when the peak of the baby boomers were 35 to 40 years old.

Honestly, sometimes I'm right so often, it stops being a surprise.

I have already provided you plenty of data. It is valid and well sourced.

If you can't deal with that, it's really not my problem.

Yea. Most people can distinguish between the male LFPR and the total LFPR. I think you can and did also. The issue is that you have a view you want to force on everyone. A lot of smart people disagree with you. I am not smart. I just like their analysis.


http://www.bostonfed.org/employment2013/papers/Erceg_Levin_Session1.pdf

first paragraph page 17.

L.W. Baxter
10-06-2015, 08:11 AM
...In this thread I mentioned the 25-54 age group. I have done that in the past. That is by definition the group of prime age workers. The purpose of mentioning this group was to refute the claim that retirements are responsible for the drop in participation...

My wife is 43. She resigned from her job this summer and is now back in school. She is not doing this out of despair for lack of opportunity; quite the opposite, in fact.

David G
10-06-2015, 10:00 AM
Let's make it simpler. Righties are unhappy with Obama's economic successes and are fabricating a false "labor force participation rate" story to counter the good news.

Yes. The crux of the matter.

Too Little Time
10-06-2015, 11:42 AM
Let's make it simpler. Righties are unhappy with Obama's economic successes and are fabricating a false "labor force participation rate" story to counter the good news.


Yes. The crux of the matter.

I am very happy with my economic success during his administration. Doubled the value of my investments. Took some nice vacations.

But I am told that the bottom 50% during his administration has not done well.

So more for the rich. No so much for the poor.

ljb5
10-06-2015, 12:24 PM
Yea. Most people can distinguish between the male LFPR and the total LFPR.

You are invited to look at both. I drew your attention the the Male LFPR because it's easier to understand and more significant in a numerical sense. LFPR tends to be 15% lower among women than men, and is affected by long-term societal trends such as the women's liberation movement and the increase in the divorce rate.

According to that data, LFPR among women tends to peak between the ages of 40 and 49.... which right now means women who were born between 1966 and 1975.... when the birth rate was mostly between 3.0 and 3.5 million births per year.

Fifteen years ago, women in the age range of 40 to 49 were born between 1951 and 1960. In those years, the US birth rate was mostly over 4.0 million. So yes... there is a big difference between having ~20 Million women in prime working age vs. ~16 Million women in prime working age.

Men's LFPR tends to peak a bit younger (30-39) vs (40-49), meaning that they peaked earlier (1995-2000). But anyway you look at it, you see clear evidence that based only on year of birth, there are fewer people in their prime years now than there were ten or fifteen years ago.


http://www.bostonfed.org/employment2013/papers/Erceg_Levin_Session1.pdf



I've read it.

Page 16 says that increased educational enrollment accounts for nearly all of the decrease of LFPR among youths aged 16-24. So I think we can put that issue to bed.

Page 17 says that nearly a third of the increase among prime aged workers is due to increased education, a small amount is due to people describing themselves as retired, and a bit due to changes in SSDI. They say about half the decrease is attributed to cyclical changes, and they point out that there is (and always has been) significant inertia in the LFPR.

I still think they are underestimating the demographic factors affecting LFPR because their analysis treats the entire prime-age group (25-54) as a single group, but we already know that there are big differences within this group. Fifteen years ago, the peak of the baby boom was 39 years old. Now it's 54. Both of those ages are within the "prime" age group... but their LFPR are quite different. And always have been.

oznabrag
10-06-2015, 12:27 PM
Every time I scan the Bilge, I see this title as Forced Labor Participation Rate, until I do a double take.