Record 94,031,000 Americans Not in Labor Force...Unemployment drops...because far fewer people WANT to work.

Unemployment rate drops as fewer and fewer people even want to work.

Record 94,031,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Stuck at 38-Year Low for 3rd Straight Month

(CNSNews.com) - A record 94,031,000 Americans were not in the American labor force last month -- 261,000 more than July -- and the labor force participation rate stayed stuck at 62.6 percent, a 38-year low, for a third straight month in August, the Labor Department reported on Friday, as the nation heads into the Labor Day weekend.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/record-94031000-americans-not-labor-force-participation-rate-stuck-38-year

OK, Markle.  You obviously cling to this economic data point.  This is your chance to make your case and explain to all of us exactly why it is that you feel the Labor Force Participation rate is the end-all economic data point. You seem to be under the impression that posting the same chart again and again is a valid, substantive entry into any discussion, no matter the topic.  This is your chance to lay out why you feel that is the case.

I'll just go ahead and get this out of the way now to save you the time.  The labor force participation rate:





So there it is. This is the holy-grail of all economic data points in Markle-land.   Notice the long rising trend that lasts between the years 1963 and 2000.  Many would attribute that to cultural changes that took hold in the US during that time.  We evolved from a society in which women had a very specific roll - a homemaker - to a society in which women are empowered to gain education and work.  This is just one factor perhaps among many.  That said, Makle likely discounts conventional wisdom and instead has his own theories to explain that increase, and I suspect they're all political.

Also notice the peak in the year 2000 and the subsequent decline.  Some would say the peak was the end of the "dot com" era in which we saw massive gains in productivity in large part due to widespread adoption of computers and the internet in business.  What followed was a steady trend of automation combined with a massive aging cohort (baby boomers) that were reaching retirement age and that began to exit the workforce.  But here again, I'm sure Markle has his own theories and I'm sure they're all based in politics.

So, with that said, the floor is yours, Markle.  Let's hear it.  Tell us all why the labor force participation rate is the end-all economic data point that trumps everything from jobless claims, to GDP, to retail sales, to consumer confidence, to the employment situation.  Enlighten us as to why we see the movements that we do in this data point, which clearly are long long running trends.  

Please proceed, governor....

Retired and retiring Baby Boomers are a big part of the reason fewer people are seeking employment. This means semi-demented poster Markle is a part of the problem he is trying to define.

I posted this example a couple of days ago. The oil & gas industry is getting ready for an entire reset, since over 70% of currently employed oil & gas professionals happen to be > 50 years or old. The U.S. oil and gas industry calls this the Big Crew Change. The average age of oil & gas professionals in 2012 was 60, with half of these expected to retire in the following 10 years. The industry is having to target younger demographics to replace these workers and is adjusting hiring accordingly.

The Big Crew Change – What is it and how to prepare
http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2015/08/the-big-crew-change-what-is-it-and-how-to-prepare-part-1.html?cmpid=EnlDailyPetroSeptember22015&eid=288268884&bid=1166824

Salinsky wrote:Hahahahaha ....

Repetition is one of the keys to good comedy.

Not at all surprising.

To my Progressive good friends, continued month after month failure in the jobs market and the economy is FUNNY!

Nice!

Early onset dementia......Mr. Markle is Bill Murray and it is groundhog day. I guess those 10k babyboomers retiring every day include those whose lights are dimming rapidly.

2seaoat wrote:Early onset dementia......Mr. Markle is Bill Murray and it is groundhog day.  I guess those 10k babyboomers retiring every day include those whose lights are dimming rapidly.

What percentage of 94,031,000 is 10,000?

The Labor Force Participation Rate was 65.7% the day semi-retired President Obama took office.

The Labor Force Participation Rate today is 62.6%. Setting a record the last three months. Not one anyone would LIKE to have but nonetheless, Progressives are the "WINNERS".

Salinsky wrote:Hahahahaha ....

Repetition is one of the keys to good comedy.

Wow...if that were true, there sure would be a LOT of comedy writers out of businesses and late night talk shows would have a lot of time to fill!

I don't see it reveling to point out success or failure. We see pollyanna boards only post good govt numbers.

A measure of both is where the truth lays... those that only believe one or the other are simply uninformed.

PkrBum wrote:I don't see it reveling to point out success or failure. We see pollyanna boards only post good govt numbers.

A measure of both is where the truth lays... those that only believe one or the other are simply uninformed.

No one is pointing out failure here. That is the issue. We have the economically illiterate pointing to a particular data point and simply saying "Ah ha! See that? Failure!"; but when asked to explain that, we get "....."

See the difference there? Substance versus optics.

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I don't see it reveling to point out success or failure. We see pollyanna boards only post good govt numbers.

A measure of both is where the truth lays... those that only believe one or the other are simply uninformed.

No one is pointing out failure here. That is the issue. We have the economically illiterate pointing to a particular data point and simply saying "Ah ha! See that? Failure!"; but when asked to explain that, we get "....."

See the difference there? Substance versus optics.

You never mitigate your flowery govt numbers. You don't mention that the protections wind up 50K above the released number... you never start a thread when the numbers are adjusted downward months later. You are a pollyanna govt shill.

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I don't see it reveling to point out success or failure. We see pollyanna boards only post good govt numbers.

A measure of both is where the truth lays... those that only believe one or the other are simply uninformed.

No one is pointing out failure here.  That is the issue.  We have the economically illiterate pointing to a particular data point and simply saying "Ah ha!  See that?  Failure!";  but when asked to explain that, we get "....."

See the difference there?  Substance versus optics.  

You never mitigate your flowery govt numbers. You don't mention that the protections wind up 50K above the released number... you never start a thread when the numbers are adjusted downward months later. You are a pollyanna govt shill.

I post the employment situation release every month, regardless of what comes out of it.  All of the adjustments and nuance that you're whining about are included in the very report that I post...every month.   I do the same for GDP, including every revision to GDP.  

But even if I didn't, that fact still wouldn't support your argument that Markle is simply acting as some sort of contrarian voice.  Markle posts data and then tries to associate that data with failure, though he isn't able to explain why.  He is simply parroting talking points that he can't even explain and that he himself doesn't even understand.

May I suggest actually reading the reports instead of instantly discarding them as government math?

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I don't see it reveling to point out success or failure. We see pollyanna boards only post good govt numbers.

A measure of both is where the truth lays... those that only believe one or the other are simply uninformed.

No one is pointing out failure here.  That is the issue.  We have the economically illiterate pointing to a particular data point and simply saying "Ah ha!  See that?  Failure!";  but when asked to explain that, we get "....."

See the difference there?  Substance versus optics.  

You never mitigate your flowery govt numbers. You don't mention that the protections wind up 50K above the released number... you never start a thread when the numbers are adjusted downward months later. You are a pollyanna govt shill.

I post the employment situation release every month, regardless of what comes out of it.  All of the adjustments and nuance that you're whining about are included in the very report that I post...every month.   I do the same for GDP, including every revision to GDP.  

But even if I didn't, that fact still wouldn't support your argument that Markle is simply acting as some sort of contrarian voice.  Markle posts data and then tries to associate that data with failure, though he isn't able to explain why.  He is simply parroting talking points that he can't even explain and that he himself doesn't even understand.

May I suggest actually reading the reports instead of instantly discarding them as government math?

That is a flat out lie. What is worse is that you know it is a lie but not at all surprising coming from a Progressive.

Are you saying that a repeatedly record breaking HIGH rate of capable workers, who have CHOSEN NOT TO WORK, needs an explanation?

As you know, that rate artificially reduces the unemployment rate. Which, as you also know, is still sky high compared with a healthy economy.

Perhaps you noticed, EVEN VP Joe Biden came out swinging about the poor economy for low and middle income workers.

Keep up the good work, you too are an excellent foil.

Wordslinger wrote:
And people accuse me of being anti Amerikan!  If there's a riot, it's Obama's fault.  If ISIS beheads a few hundred hostages, it's Obama's fault.  If our economy sucks, it's Obama's fault.  In fact, while I'm openly anti-Amerika Inc., Semi-sane "I know NOSSING! Markle jumps for joy every single time a problem for America is forefront in the media.  Middle class wages and income falling? It's Obama's fault.  U.S. Healthcare in trouble? It's Obama's fault.  U.S. educational rating continuing to sink, it's Obama's fault.  When the chaos in Ferguson erupted, I openly opposed the tragic reality of a militarized police force confronting unarmed protesters.  Semi-sane claimed it was all Obama's fault.

We just bring you the facts, fair and balanced.  You do the deciding!. Reality

Not at all.  As you well know, you have repeatedly stated that you are PRO Amerikan.

Signed...YOUR CHOICE; AMERIKA...the name your friend, Adolph Hitler gave his personal train.

Let me see if I can bring clarity to Mr. Markle's confusion

115. Real estate agent

IQ rating for a realtor

21. Economist

IQ rating for a economist

Some gaps in conceptual misunderstanding cannot be bridged for obvious reasons. Some folks a little higher up the list get it. Some folks a little lower are incapable of grasping the concepts economist deal with. No big deal Some folks are challenged and stay within the parameters of competency, others just say F' it and pretend and puff....they just cannot help selling BS.

2seaoat wrote:Let me see if I can bring clarity to Mr. Markle's confusion

115. Real estate agent

IQ rating for a realtor [Realtor]
21.  Economist

IQ rating for a economist

Some gaps in conceptual misunderstanding cannot be bridged for obvious reasons.  Some folks a little higher up the list get it.  Some folks a little lower are incapable of grasping the concepts economist deal with.  No big deal  Some folks are challenged and stay within the parameters of competency, others just say F' it and pretend and puff....they just cannot help selling BS.

IF you had been one, you would know it is a trademark and is always capitalized.

I'm sure you thought you had a point when you made this post.

IF you had been one, you would know it is a trademark and is always capitalized.

I'm sure you thought you had a point when you made this post.


You just confirmed my post. Realtor was a generic term used for over a hundred years and the trademark does not change the generic meaning for the same......if you were higher up the list you would understand this. However, the union tells all the simpletons to fight the original generic use of the term realtor in a futile attempt to create union rules which allows the monopoly on the outdated MLS database which is being attacked on every front with the changing RESPA rules and the title company, lender, and for sale by owner databases which are rendering the union and monopoly quickly irrelevant in real estate transactions. Like the UAW screwing up Detroit with their union rules, your parent company is a dinosaur of another era. Young people are intelligent, and they no more use a broker to buy stock, or go through a travel broker to get a plane ticket, and they certainly understand that these old union rules and their futile attempt to trademark generic terms in order to maintain the monopoly and freely are buying houses without small r realtors.

2seaoat wrote:IF you had been one, you would know it is a trademark and is always capitalized.

I'm sure you thought you had a point when you made this post.


You just confirmed my post.  Realtor was a generic term used for over a hundred years and the trademark does not change the generic meaning for the same......if you were higher up the list you would understand this. However, the union tells all the simpletons to fight the original generic use of the term realtor in a futile attempt to create union rules which allows the monopoly on the outdated MLS database which is being attacked on every front with the changing RESPA rules and the title company, lender, and for sale by owner databases which are rendering the union and monopoly quickly irrelevant in real estate transactions.  Like the UAW screwing up Detroit with their union rules, your parent company is a dinosaur of another era.  Young people are intelligent, and they no more use a broker to buy stock, or go through a travel broker to get a plane ticket, and they certainly understand that these old union rules and their futile attempt to trademark generic terms in order to maintain the monopoly and freely are buying houses without small r realtors [Realtors].

You are SUCH an outstanding foil.  You do love boldly proving your ignorance on the subject.  Not surprising since you failed.  That's okay, more than 80% who try, thinking it is easy, fail.

Major, major difference between stock brokers, travel agents and the real estate industry. That you don't know what it is probably helped contribute to your failure.



Some folks said that the listing agent would soon disappear because of the coming of the internet.  That was over 30 years ago.

But then, you have little or nothing else to do.

Oh, by the way, there is no such thing as a "Managing Realtor" either.

Oh, by the way, there is no such thing as a "Managing Realtor" either.


You just cannot get it right can you.......managing broker....but you said that did not exist either. You probably are clueless on the new Respa rules or the vertical integration of lenders who are encroaching on the monopoly.....sorry young people are buying houses without licensed real estate folks and are using title companies and lawyers to buy and sell real estate.....always was that way with smart money.......having a flunky tell you about the cute flower bed is not a value added to the transaction. Like the travel agent and stock broker.....the times they are a changing, and folks are buying without brokers.

2seaoat wrote:Oh, by the way, there is no such thing as a "Managing Realtor" either.


You just cannot get it right can you.......managing broker....but you said that did not exist either.   You probably are clueless on the new Respa rules or the vertical integration of lenders who are encroaching on the monopoly.....sorry young people are buying houses without licensed real estate folks and are using title companies and lawyers to buy and sell real estate.....always was that way with smart money.......having a flunky tell you about the cute flower bed is not a value added to the transaction.  Like the travel agent and stock broker.....the times they are a changing, and folks are buying without brokers.

I live and teach in FLORIDA.  What is that so difficult for you to grasp?

Besides, what difference does it make? All Illinois did was change the name of the license from broker to managing broker.

Few young people are buying houses because they 1.  Can't get a job and if they do, 2.  they owe $30,000+ in student loans for a worthless degree.