What 'are so many of them doing?' 95 million not in US labor force

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/02/95-million-american-workers-not-in-us-labor-force.html

"""For example, the level of those enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — food stamps — has remained elevated even with an economic expansion that is nearly 7 ½ years old. SNAP recipients totaled 33.5 million in 2009, the year the recession ended. In 2016, the number is at 45.3 million. The government shelled out $74 billion in benefits last year, about double the level of 2008.""

Edited December 2, 2016 by Nature Boy Flair

[smilesammich 10,727]

blame the olds.

In a subsequent interview, he acknowledged the issue is many pronged and poses a long-term obstacle for economic growth.

"It's a combination. There's no question a lot of them are retirees," Boockvar said.

[bcking 3,157]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/donald-trump-94-million-people-out-of-work/index.html?iid=EL

THis article has a breakdown of the 95 million.

"44 million are retired. 15.3 million are disabled. 13.3 million are taking care of a family member. 13.2 million are in college or job training"

It doesn't provide an actual link to its source (only saying Atlanta Federal Reserve). What I would be interested to know is which of those breakdown groups have gone up. If 14 million of those people have been added since Obama took office, which groups do they represent? I imagine it is a mixed, but I wonder if the percentage is different than the overall percentage.

The "taking care of a family member" is also a rather vague group. Does that include parents who leave the workforce to stay at home? For example women who take maternity leave and then never go back because they aren't ready after 6 weeks? Taking it at face value I think it refers to people taking care of SICK family members, but it doesn't actually say that so I'm not really sure what that means.

Same with college/job training. I'm assuming these were people who were once in the workforce and then left? Students who never entered the workforce wouldn't be counted correct? I'm not really sure.

Edited December 2, 2016 by bcking

[Teddy B 17,252]

blame the olds.

Goooo Olds!!!

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

People are saying that Taxi Driver is a good job for olds.

[OriZ 3,157]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/donald-trump-94-million-people-out-of-work/index.html?iid=EL

THis article has a breakdown of the 95 million.

"44 million are retired. 15.3 million are disabled. 13.3 million are taking care of a family member. 13.2 million are in college or job training"

It doesn't provide an actual link to its source (only saying Atlanta Federal Reserve). What I would be interested to know is which of those breakdown groups have gone up. If 14 million of those people have been added since Obama took office, which groups do they represent? I imagine it is a mixed, but I wonder if the percentage is different than the overall percentage.

The "taking care of a family member" is also a rather vague group. Does that include parents who leave the workforce to stay at home? For example women who take maternity leave and then never go back because they aren't ready after 6 weeks? Taking it at face value I think it refers to people taking care of SICK family members, but it doesn't actually say that so I'm not really sure what that means.

Same with college/job training. I'm assuming these were people who were once in the workforce and then left? Students who never entered the workforce wouldn't be counted correct? I'm not really sure.

The U-6 Unemployment rate(includes temp/part time and those no longer looking) shows that there has been improvement no matter how you measure it. That's not because Obama took office and it's not because he didn't, it's just cyclical undeniable truth.

http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate

Edited December 2, 2016 by OriZ

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

The definition of unemployed is fluid, and changed a fair amount under the recent administration to reflect a lower rate.

Unless a person was ACTIVELY SEEKING employment in the past four weeks, they are not considered unemployed.

Active job searching includes:

"Contacting:

1) An employer directly or having a job interview

2) A public or private employment agency

3) Friends or relatives

4) A school or university employment center

or

Submitting resumes or filling out applications

Placing or answering job advertisements

Checking union or professional registers

Some other means of active job search

Passive methods of job search do not have the potential to connect job seekers with potential employers and therefore do not qualify as active job search methods. Examples of passive methods include attending a job training program or course, or merely reading about job openings that are posted in newspapers or on the Internet."

(More here: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm)

So the official U-1 thru U-6 unemployment rates will always be lower than actual, when you consider that many have given up on active job seeking. Sitting at home, not working, and reading employment ads in the newspaper or online doesn't count.

And then there are those people who are not "interviewed" about their employment. I haven't been asked in the past 20 years if I am working or not. Have you? How would anyone keeping such stats know if we are working or not? How many millions of people are simply not known to the surveys? IDK

I propose that the rates published may be badly skewed.

[Dashinka 24,849]

Goooo Olds!!!

Wait a minute, what if that guy didn't self identify as an old? I think I may need a safe space with some play doe.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

That's not family-friendly. Try using "doh" instead, please.

Wait a minute, what if that guy didn't self identify as an old? I think I may need a safe space with some play doe.

[Gloss 57]

Like how Pence needed a safe space according to Trump? Maybe. I didn't know Republicans can be snowflakes, too.

[OriZ 3,157]

The definition of unemployed is fluid, and changed a fair amount under the recent administration to reflect a lower rate.

Unless a person was ACTIVELY SEEKING employment in the past four weeks, they are not considered unemployed.

Active job searching includes:

"Contacting:

1) An employer directly or having a job interview

2) A public or private employment agency

3) Friends or relatives

4) A school or university employment center

or

Submitting resumes or filling out applications

Placing or answering job advertisements

Checking union or professional registers

Some other means of active job search

Passive methods of job search do not have the potential to connect job seekers with potential employers and therefore do not qualify as active job search methods. Examples of passive methods include attending a job training program or course, or merely reading about job openings that are posted in newspapers or on the Internet."

(More here: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm)

So the official U-1 thru U-6 unemployment rates will always be lower than actual, when you consider that many have given up on active job seeking. Sitting at home, not working, and reading employment ads in the newspaper or online doesn't count.

And then there are those people who are not "interviewed" about their employment. I haven't been asked in the past 20 years if I am working or not. Have you? How would anyone keeping such stats know if we are working or not? How many millions of people are simply not known to the surveys? IDK

I propose that the rates published may be badly skewed.

I wasn't going there(today, anyway) but if ya want some unofficial data here ya go:

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I know stats can be tweaked to say whatever we want, but the BLS reports that the labor force participation rate is around 63% now. (Down from 66% since 2006). What I couldn't find was raw numbers.

Civilian workforce participation rate is 63%. Unemployment is between 5 & 10% (depending on which numbers one chooses to believe). So if only 63% of those who are over 16 and CAN work ARE working, and 7% are unemployed, where are the other 30% of the population between 16 & 62?

2015 numbers (from census bureau CSV file):

Under 16 - 65,266,529

Between 16-62 - 200,007,446 (work force)

63 & over. - 54,948,331

Total. 320,222,306

Average working people in 2015: 141,832,000

Divided by 200,007,446 above = 70.9%

Divided by workforce & old folks above (254,955,777) = 55.6%

Neither of those come close to the 63% number put out by the BLS. Something is smelly, and not just in Denmark.

[bcking 3,157]

I know stats can be tweaked to say whatever we want, but the BLS reports that the labor force participation rate is around 63% now. (Down from 66% since 2006). What I couldn't find was raw numbers.

Civilian workforce participation rate is 63%. Unemployment is between 5 & 10% (depending on which numbers one chooses to believe). So if only 63% of those who are over 16 and CAN work ARE working, and 7% are unemployed, where are the other 30% of the population between 16 & 62?

2015 numbers (from census bureau CSV file):

Under 16 - 65,266,529

Between 16-62 - 200,007,446 (work force)

63 & over. - 54,948,331

Total. 320,222,306

Average working people in 2015: 141,832,000

Divided by 200,007,446 above = 70.9%

Divided by workforce & old folks above (254,955,777) = 55.6%

Neither of those come close to the 63% number put out by the BLS. Something is smelly, and not just in Denmark.

Are you assuming everyone between 16-62 "CAN work"? Wouldn't you have to subtract disabled, parents who stay at home to raise children, people in education?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Sure, they should be excluded. But how does the BLS account for those, and others, who either cannot or do not want to work? Just SWAG it?

Are you assuming everyone between 16-62 "CAN work"? Wouldn't you have to subtract disabled, parents who stay at home to raise children, people in education?

[Dashinka 24,849]

Like how Pence needed a safe space according to Trump? Maybe. I didn't know Republicans can be snowflakes, too.

It's called humor.