Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR)- A Discussion

[djAdvocate]

i really don't get why conservatives think it is important.

let's discuss.

[djAdvocate]

as you can see, LFPR for men peaked in 1955.  if this is a "problem", it is certainly not a modern one.

does anyone want to argue that the need for two income families is a good thing?  i doubt it.

the ONLY reason LFPR went UP between 1955 and 2000 is WOMEN.  and the main reason that happened was the women's movement, and the birth control pill. 

so, basically, we have a bunch of people freaking out that this trend stopped in 2000, when, imo, it is a natural consequence of disillusionment with working.  men got it in 1955, and it took longer for women (because they were new to the workplace).

imo, a more "natural" workforce participation rate would be something more along the lines of where women are today: 70%.  if people made more, that might be a sustainable place for the workforce.

it seems like conservatives will only be happy when everyone is working other than them. 

personally, my goal is to work less. 

how about you?

PS- i think the rising labor participation in the 65+ crowd is especially troubling.

[dondub]

 It's important to the Repos because they spin it as a huge negative so they can trash the "Obama economy", all while never ever mentioning the BushCo. crash.

 Have they even one time cooperated with Obama to aid the economic recovery of the American people...not that I know of. Have they sat on their flatulent asses in Congress and done jack shit for the American people....yes. Have they belittled the "Obama economy" every chance they get....yes.

 In the meantime, with no support from the repos to come to the assistance of the American people, severely damaged by the BushCo. crash, we have 10 million new jobs, a drastically lower UE rate, a saved auto industry, etc.

 Those vacuous toadys in Repo land should all be sent out of DC on a rail. We had a major fucking crisis and they di doodly squat.

[Deleted]

I honestly think there was always going to be a pendulum swing recorrction/rebalancing... Personal experince, homeschooling is a booming trend, as is reclaimin some modicum of life and family balance for work. These things also impact workplace participation rates.

[tallguy]

Hmmm, another disturbing trend on that graph is age groups post 2010. For 25-64 it is down, but 65+ it is up. I would have hoped just the opposite.

Combination of things, I would guess.  Not only have so many people amassed more debt than they should have so must continue working, but there is also the aftermath of the crash during the last decade.  People either can't afford to retire, or could but do not feel sure of their financial stability or preparation.  Older workers are continuing to work rather than retire, which does not open up those jobs for younger workers.

[Virgil Showlion]

Reposting from the "Why Vote Trump" thread:

To me, [the LFPR] is a very relevant metric (when used in conjunction with median wage and productivity per worker).

It gives us the best idea of a consumer-to-producer ratio, which, barring the accumulation of debt, is one of the few ways a nation can meaningfully change its standard of living. How many mouths are there to feed, backs to clothe, teeth to clean, etc.? How many people are there to produce the food, sew the clothes, clean the teeth?

Supply and demand, at its most fundamental level.

Admittedly it's more complicated than just one ratio. Productivity, economic disparity, concentration of wealth, job quality, etc. also play important roles. But of the official government metrics, the LFPR is the most important. It's not subject to seasonal adjustments and questionable data conditioning. While I won't hold it up as the be all and end all of macro statistics, it's of far greater value than the U3 or U6. That much I will commit to.

[djAdvocate]

and my response is the same as on that thread: i don't think it matters.  you can make a case for it being 50% or 100%, just as easily.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 11, 2016 9:54:49 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Aug 11, 2016 7:31:47 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Hmmm, another disturbing trend on that graph is age groups post 2010. For 25-64 it is down, but 65+ it is up. I would have hoped just the opposite.


I hope this discussion gets going, I just might loin sometin'!


I understand that the U3 rate, which is the one used officially to calculate the UE rate is bunk.  It does not count those who have given up looking for work, and those who are only employed part time, temporarily, or in jobs of last resort.


However U6 addresses most of these factors (I don't think it addresses those who are employed in jobs of last resort- like say an engineer working as a dishwasher)  Why do people dislike that measure?


It seems to me that LFPR is very useful in conjunction with U6, wage rates, and other data, but none of them have much stand alone value, other than maybe U6.

I have nothing to back this up,  but my gut tells me you have 2 maybe 3 camps that are driving this.  

1. Those that don't have savings to retire.   I think this is the largest group,  many many studies available to support this. 
2. Those that are delaying retirement due to market downturns, not wanting to pull out $ while stocks are still on the lower side.
3. Those that simply want to continue working.  I think there's a fairly significant group that is willing and able to continue working.  I call this my mom category.   She's always been a very busy person,  she found herself project management contracting -6-9 month contracts, and she's padding her retirement funds and as she puts it,  working for vacations now.   Almost all of her money is discretionary income at this point.   She's paid cash for her last few cars,  paid off house, no debt, very few financial obligations.  She's making (I believe) 6 figures annually and can pretty much spend it how she wants.   To be fair I'm not sure that I could walk away from that easily.  She enjoys her job,  and knows that she can walk away at any time.   

i agree with you Sroo, but i would add a criticism to #2, and that is that the market is at record highs, and LFP is not recovering.

i would also add that longevity and the cost of healthcare are factors.

[djAdvocate]

i will add one more thing: it looks like LFP is bottoming out, to me.  even the rate among men appears to be rising slightly.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 11, 2016 11:53:35 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Aug 11, 2016 11:42:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i agree with you Sroo, but i would add a criticism to #2, and that is that the market is at record highs, and LFP is not recovering.

i would also add that longevity and the cost of healthcare are factors.

Don't most 65+ enroll in Medicare?   I do agree on the longevity part,  today's 65-70 year olds are not the same as they used to be.   I think they are much more active and less 'old'. 

sure.  but MC doesn't cover all of the costs.  ie, they don't cover the cost of assisted living.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 11, 2016 12:05:57 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Aug 11, 2016 11:56:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

sure.  but MC doesn't cover all of the costs.  ie, they don't cover the cost of assisted living.

Right,  but chances are if you are in assisted living you are probably not working 

I mostly agree with you,  except for the healthcare bit. 

no, that was not my point.  my point is that people need to save for that.  if you want to lump that into #1, that's fine.  i just tend to NOT think of having some nurse changing my adult diapers as "retirement".