4 ms·

Despite a tighter labor market Laughable. Any reasonably intelligent person who makes this claim is either willfully ignorant or dissembling for political rea

Despite a tighter labor market Laughable. Any reasonably intelligent person who makes this claim is either willfully ignorant or dissembling for political reasons. The population employment ratio is below 60%: http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS12300000_1948_2015_all_period_M06_data.gif http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_... The labor market is not tight and hasn't been this over-supplied since the early 80s.

rtpg 11y ago
that graph's axes can make that graph extremely misleading. Isn't the reasoning backwards though? An employment ratio of 50% means more people are looking for work than if the employment ratio is at 60%, right? I mean if the employment ratio is 100% surely the labor market would be tight right?
- roymurdock 11y ago
  Labor Force Participation = Labor Force / Working-age Non-institutionalized Population = (Unemployed + Employed) / Working-age Non-institutionalized Population = (People looking for work + People working) / (Anyone who is physically and legally able to work) Decline in LFP means that the labor force (people employed and/or looking for jobs vs. discouraged but otherwise able-bodied workers) is shrinking relative to overall population. This is caused by at least 1 of 2 things. (1) A decrease in the numerator: workers becoming discouraged and leaving the labor force - note that if workers simply shift from being employed to unemployed, the LFP ratio doesn't change. (2) An increase in in the denominator: more working-age, non-institutionalized workers in the overall population. If the LFP is 100% then everyone who is able to work is either employed or actively seeking employment. If the LFP is 50% then 50% of the total population is not actively seeking employment. With the current unemployment rate of 5.3%, this would mean that 44.7% of the total labor force is employed, 5.3% is unemployed but searching, and 50% is content to not work/discouraged. Confusing to say the least, but in the end it's a proxy for the amount of discouraged workers in the total labor force.
  - seanmcdirmid 11y ago
    How would baby boomers effect this? Their is a huge bump in the work force that is now rapidly retiring.
    - roymurdock 11y ago
      Annual Growth Rate of Civilian Labor force By Age (2012-2022) [1] --- 55-64: 1.4% 65-75: 5.6% 75 & older: 6.4% --- 16-19: -2.6% 20-24: -1.0% --- 25-54: 0.2% The share of older people in the workforce is growing rapidly (not retiring like they used to), the share of younger people in the workforce is declining, and the share of middle aged workers remains largely flat. [1] http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_304.htm http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_304.htm
    - JamesBarney 11y ago
      Ideally when people use the employment-population ratio they are using the prime age employment-population ratio. This only includes workers age 25-54 which ideally filters out changes due to demographic shifts.
adventured 11y ago
The labor force participation rate was 62.6% as of June. That's the same rate as what we had in the late 1970s and early 1980s, before women were more fully into the work force. It's about 2.5% to 3% lower than what was considered healthy for about 25 years. Half of that drop can easily be explained by boomers rapidly exiting the work force. The U6 has dropped dramatically, from 18% to 10.x%, and there has been seven million full-time jobs created in about 3.5 years. We clearly have a tighter labor market - just not tight enough yet.
- carsongross 11y ago
  We clearly have a tighter labor market (lol) Asserting something doesn't make it so. If you want to goalpost-move and switch to labor participation rate, lets have a look at that long-term graph, shall we? http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_1948_2015_all_period_M06_data.gif http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_... Does that look like a tightening trend to you? (lol) Whatever, man.

rtpg 11y ago

that graph's axes can make that graph extremely misleading. Isn't the reasoning backwards though? An employment ratio of 50% means more people are looking for work than if the employment ratio is at 60%, right? I mean if the employment ratio is 100% surely the labor market would be tight right?

roymurdock 11y ago
Labor Force Participation = Labor Force / Working-age Non-institutionalized Population = (Unemployed + Employed) / Working-age Non-institutionalized Population = (People looking for work + People working) / (Anyone who is physically and legally able to work) Decline in LFP means that the labor force (people employed and/or looking for jobs vs. discouraged but otherwise able-bodied workers) is shrinking relative to overall population. This is caused by at least 1 of 2 things. (1) A decrease in the numerator: workers becoming discouraged and leaving the labor force - note that if workers simply shift from being employed to unemployed, the LFP ratio doesn't change. (2) An increase in in the denominator: more working-age, non-institutionalized workers in the overall population. If the LFP is 100% then everyone who is able to work is either employed or actively seeking employment. If the LFP is 50% then 50% of the total population is not actively seeking employment. With the current unemployment rate of 5.3%, this would mean that 44.7% of the total labor force is employed, 5.3% is unemployed but searching, and 50% is content to not work/discouraged. Confusing to say the least, but in the end it's a proxy for the amount of discouraged workers in the total labor force.
- seanmcdirmid 11y ago
  How would baby boomers effect this? Their is a huge bump in the work force that is now rapidly retiring.
  - roymurdock 11y ago
    Annual Growth Rate of Civilian Labor force By Age (2012-2022) [1] --- 55-64: 1.4% 65-75: 5.6% 75 & older: 6.4% --- 16-19: -2.6% 20-24: -1.0% --- 25-54: 0.2% The share of older people in the workforce is growing rapidly (not retiring like they used to), the share of younger people in the workforce is declining, and the share of middle aged workers remains largely flat. [1] http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_304.htm http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_304.htm
  - JamesBarney 11y ago
    Ideally when people use the employment-population ratio they are using the prime age employment-population ratio. This only includes workers age 25-54 which ideally filters out changes due to demographic shifts.

adventured 11y ago

The labor force participation rate was 62.6% as of June. That's the same rate as what we had in the late 1970s and early 1980s, before women were more fully into the work force. It's about 2.5% to 3% lower than what was considered healthy for about 25 years. Half of that drop can easily be explained by boomers rapidly exiting the work force. The U6 has dropped dramatically, from 18% to 10.x%, and there has been seven million full-time jobs created in about 3.5 years. We clearly have a tighter labor market - just not tight enough yet.

carsongross 11y ago
We clearly have a tighter labor market (lol) Asserting something doesn't make it so. If you want to goalpost-move and switch to labor participation rate, lets have a look at that long-term graph, shall we? http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_1948_2015_all_period_M06_data.gif http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_... Does that look like a tightening trend to you? (lol) Whatever, man.