7 ms·

What We Know About the 92M Americans Who Aren’t in the Labor Force

67 points by curtis 11y ago

aschearer 11y ago
TLDR: They're students, retired boomers, or sick middle agers.
- linkregister 11y ago
  Except for the 2 million who "want a job but aren't looking"
  - aschearer 11y ago
    2 million out of 318 doesn't seem especially newsworthy.
    - partisan 11y ago
      It's an insidious problem. Those two million people are not doing any particular thing on any particular day, but en masse, they are taxing the social safety net in ways it is not meant for. Services become limited as resources dry up, healthcare costs go through the roof as the industry soaks up every dollar the government is willing to spend, quality of education plummets as people determine there is no sense in striving for the American dream, prison system costs skyrocket as crime increases, and the list goes on. So it's not newsworthy when taken as a statistic, but you can find that the problem and its societal and human costs definitely are. If your bubble is big enough to keep you insulated from all this, then good for you.
    - fiveoak 11y ago
      To put it in perspective: there are more people who want a job but aren't looking for a job than there are people in the entire US prison system (2.6 million vs 2.4 million).
      - aschearer 11y ago
        It would not surprise me if the two are related. Google says there are approximately 20 million felons in the US. It's not difficult to imagine many of them are unable secure employment.
- fiveoak 11y ago
  Yep, although it is slightly worrying that there are 2.6 million people who want a job but aren’t looking. If I had to guess, probably a lot of that is due to a lack of marketable skills.
  - clavalle 11y ago
    Or lack of demand for services in their area. I wonder how they are clustered geographically.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- 001sky 11y ago
  This comment is overly reductionist -- 'disabled' is a code word for long-term un-employable. Just eyball the proportion of working adults in the 50 to 60 year range. It is only ~5x the number of disabled. In other words, that is a huge %--maybe 20%--of potential workers in that age bracket. Any employment process that disables 20% of its workforce would be normally considered a problem. But instead we call the un-employable 'diabled', to sweep the data under the rug. It almost certainly helps keep other people in their jobs, tho (like burecrats and academics).
  - intopieces 11y ago
    >'disabled' is a code word for long-term un-employable. Correct. This is the legacy of the Clinton era 'welfare to work' program: we moved people from welfare to disability. This will grow as automation takes hold of ever more industries. "Disability" is the U.S.'s first step toward guaranteed minimum income or a negative income tax. We will never have enough jobs for everyone in America, so we need to figure out what we're going to do to keep the economy going.
    - mynameishere 11y ago
      It really has nothing to do with "keeping the economy going". The purpose of "disability" insurance is just like that of Social Security originally--keeping people from destitution and poorhouses. It's not a good thing, but an unavoidable thing.
      - intopieces 11y ago
        >It really has nothing to do with "keeping the economy going". Not sure what you mean. When we give poor people money, they spend it. That's good for the economy. Welfare and disability are definitely good things.
  - BadCookie 11y ago
    Right. I also wonder how many people are only in school because a decent job is out of reach. If you're older and can't find a job, you go on disability. If you're young, you take out loans and go to school. It's a huge generalization, but I think there's some truth to it.
- bsder 11y ago
  You're leaving out the really large "taking care of family" block. That includes "taking care of elderly" as well as "taking care of kids". Especially the "taking care of elderly" is putting a very large drain on resources that is simply going to get worse and worse as the boomers age.
  - larrymyers 11y ago
    It's especially difficult with how non-existent the possibility of "professional but part-time" is. I know my wife would love to begin putting her engineering degree back to use 15-20 hours a week, but the only real option is to go full time and enroll our daughter in full time daycare, which we really would prefer not to do.
choward 11y ago
I'm most surprised about the all the retired 16-20 year olds.
palehose 11y ago
What about entrepreneurs starting a business that is not yet profitable? Is that something the government doesn't care about or are the numbers just too small?
- nostromo 11y ago
  They're counted as employed.
  - palehose 11y ago
    Not if there is no investment and no one is getting paid anything yet.
    - nostromo 11y ago
      Not true. If you work for yourself and you're losing money and you get polled by the CPS, you would rightly report that you are self-employed, and you would be counted as working. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm It doesn't matter if there are investors or a profit.
sjg007 11y ago
18-22 year olds looking for a job would be more interesting. This measures post high school and the "in college" fraction.
- _delirium 11y ago
  Yeah, I think these brackets could use reworking for present-day interpretability. Working-age population traditionally starts at 16 in U.S. government statistics, since that's the traditional age where both mandatory schooling, and most child-labor-law restrictions ended. However the first part of that is becoming less true: currently only 30% of states still allow you to legally leave school at age 16. Another 20% have extended mandatory schooling to age 17, and 50% to age 18.
discardorama 11y ago
I have a neighbor who used to work as a landscaper. The money was decent (in SF); his specialty was masonry. Then a couple of years ago, he decided to drop out. Claimed he had MS and started getting SSDI checks of about $2K/month (I think). After he dropped out, I've seen him lift 100lb stones; frequently, he'll drive down to Arizona for fishing trips with buddies; and recently, he drove cross-country to Georgia for a HS reunion, and made it from Albuquerque to SF in 1 day. All this, despite having MS. I feel, if he can do all these activities, he can damn well work; but he's been able to fool the system for the last 3-4 years. If you look at the SSDI stats: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/dibStat.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/dibStat.html it is interesting to see that when the Financial Crisis happened, the number of applicants jumped drastically; a 34% increase from 2007 to 2009. And as the economy has picked up recently, the number of applications has gone down; a 15% drop from 2010 to 2014. While I do support the idea of a "safety net", I don't like the idea of people dipping into SSDI when they don't feel like working (or can't get work). Added later: (1330PST): A lot of people are saying that he could just be having a good day or two. Maybe; but he has enough good days (when I see him), there's no reason that he would not work on his "good days". Secondly: my last conversation with him (3-4 weeks ago) was about how he could go about getting a cash-only gig, and he wanted my opinion (me being a tech guy). I recommended Postmates/TaskRabbit, but he shied away from those, opting for cash gigs from Craigslist. Maybe the 1099 would have ratted him out? I dunno.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  This is infuriating. My mother is 58. Her lower spinal column was collapsed, and she's had it reconstructed using titanium plates and screws during a 6 hour surgery. She has been denied for disability by the Social Security Administration twice, and currently has to wait ~500 days for her next appeal (https://www.ssa.gov/appeals/DataSets/01_NetStat_Report.html https://www.ssa.gov/appeals/DataSets/01_NetStat_Report.html) in front of an panel of judges (this backlog is caused by Congress providing insufficient funding to process said backlog). How the hell are people who don't need disability getting approved, and the people who don't need it are stuck in purgatory?
  - tsotha 11y ago
6stringmerc 11y ago
Huh, I've seen consistent material over at Zero Hedge[1] indicating that since 2007 the cohort that has made the most job gains is over the age of 55. "...while the elderly workers in the US have risen by a whopping 7.4 million since the start of the Depression in December 2007, workers aged 25-54 are down 4 million!" As shown in this chart: http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/08/Jobs%20by%20age%20group%20LT_0.jpg http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/im... If there's a person here with a good handle on how the WSJ article and the noted Zero Hedge article relate to one another, I'd be very interested in your perspective. [1] Article source, August 2015. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-07/prime-aged-workers-tumble-july-workers-55-and-over-surge-new-all-time-high http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-07/prime-aged-workers-...
- michaelZejoop 11y ago
  What is the nature and quality of the jobs these post 55 people have taken. Do the jobs they land in compare favorably with the jobs they were displaced from? Did they go from professional jobs to service sector jobs? This distinction is important. As a forced-into-early-retirement, former aerospace engineer, I am curious, and I will check your links later. As for my future, I am trying to create my own asset/company and I don't see myself reentering the workforce as an hourly wage earner again.
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    From the data I've seen, yes, they have gone from professional jobs to service sector jobs - or, at least the data indicates that those are the type of jobs that are being filled during recent memory. It's been a hunch of mine that the displaced older workforce's jobs simply don't exist anymore (layoffs due to technology, better for investors) and the service sector jobs would normally be for the younger population as they 'move up' through the ranks...but they can't get in...those spots are taken by the over 55 group. I think that they almost have to work, e.g. no retirement savings, unwilling to move to rural/low-income areas where their SSI might be sustainable. Vexing.
    - 11y ago
cryoshon 11y ago
This article doesn't really delve into the percentage of the population that "doesn't look, but still wants a job". This population is the most important one as far as generational wealth and health is concerned; retiring and disabled boomers are to be expected. Part of this is an intentional misrepresentation of the employment numbers. In order to be counted as "unemployed" you must first have had stable "employment". Thus, people just out of high school or college that are unable to find their first job (which is often extremely hard to come by) are not counted as unemployed, despite being so. The other problem is that after unemployment benefits expire, people aren't counted as unemployed anymore, so the unemployment stat goes down, but the percentage not in the labor force goes up. Employment indicators U3/U6 are remarkably poor for depicting gainful employment in the wake of economic depressions; they're meant to measure unemployment that is expected to be transient. Super long-term unemployment, difficulty finding a first job, and underemployment are not adequately measured, though the part-time employment stat is somewhat taken into account.
- TallGuyShort 11y ago
  I think the whole point of the article was that we need to know more about that percentage of the population that "doesn't look, but still wants a job", because dismissive explanations are insufficient. Does anyone on HN have suggestions of possible explanations for some of that percentage? I don't understand it. Is it people who wanted a job, but gave up looking? Other situations that would fall into this category other than simply "lazy"?
  - Mz 11y ago
    Sometimes, people would rather see themselves as lazy or free spirits than admit to disability. I was acquainted for a time with a homeless man who seemed able bodied but had a mental health issue. He quit his job and walked away from his worldly possessions to get off the zombifying drugs required to make him employable. I have a different disability but made similar choices, so I am sympathetic. But he was very resistant to admitting that he was too handicapped to hold down a job. I knew him a while before that became clear to me. And it isn't anything you would infer at first glance. If you saw him, he looked tall and strong and able bodied, he sounds intelligent and is intelligent and the degree to which he is not mentally sound is just not obvious to casual inspection. I have two adult sons who have never had jobs. They also look hail and hardy. They both have some issues. We are still trying to work out how they can make money in spite of being basically unemployable. I suspect this happens more than is recognized. My handicap was not identified until age 35. I got called "lazy" a lot until I had a diagnosis. I am a woman and was fortunate to be able to hide out for many years behind the title of full time wife and mom.
michaelZejoop 11y ago
There is a portion of the spectrum that seems like it is in the "wants a job, but is not looking" category that is not properly represented. I am in sub-category of "wants a gainful future (after being laid off - essentially forced into early retirement - from a long aerospace career) but is not looking for a job (either in the sector I left, or in the service sector). Aerospace is notorious for ageism, and I have no future there. I will not look for a job as a barrista or a clerk at Home Depot, so, no, I am not looking. I am however trying to create my own future as an entrepreneur and build my own company. This effort being bootstrapped, on my own dime, using funds that should have been reserved for retirement. There is a lot of solid engineering talent and experience that is laying dormant - I am trying to counter that by building my own asset/company.
- omarchowdhury 11y ago
  Aerospace is ageist towards the older people? That's interesting, I'd think that experience would be the most important factor in that space.
  - e40 11y ago
    It's because that industry uses a lot of old (software) technology and older folks tend to know it best.
    - omarchowdhury 11y ago
      The grandparent (no pun intended) said he was forced into early retirement though. Shouldn't he be more valuable as he grows older?
      - nickff 11y ago
        It seems that the salary schedule is out of line with the actual value of the employee's labor (assuming that there is no widespread irrational behaviour in the industry). This could be related to a skills development plateau, decreased attitude/attention/enthusiasm, or possibly even risk-aversion in older employees.
oconnore 11y ago
But the "in the labor force" category includes people who are forced to work part time so they don't collect benefits, get bumped from job to job, have unreliable hours, make less than the cost of living, etc. The graph should be split: - Has a reliable full time job with benefits - Has a minimum wage job, or is a part time employee/contractor making less than $20-30k a year.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- _delirium 11y ago
  It's not shown here, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics does further break down workers into full-time, voluntarily part-time, and involuntarily part-time [1]. Numbers for part-time workers below are for September 2015. Part-time for economic reasons (6 million) Slack work or business conditions (3.6 million) Could only find part-time work (2.1 million) Other (0.3 million) Part-time for noneconomic reasons (20 million) [1] http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
  - oconnore 11y ago
    Thanks, so depending on how you count unincorporated, self employed workers, you get between 3.5% [1] and 9% [2] of the labor force underemployed (not looking at salary). I suspect there are more Uber drivers than successful independent consultants, but we don't have data about that. That's better than I expected. [1]: (6036) / (2357 + 146464 + 19656) [2]: (6036 + 8357 + 820) / (2357 + 146464 + 19656)
nsheth17 11y ago
The impact of this is going to become so obvious when interest rates start going up. Let me explain. Ultimately, how much money the workforce is making matters to consumer spending. People may be ok not having a job, because they have some way to stay at their standard of living. But unless a bunch of them are sitting on family trusts, it also means they don't have a growing amount of money to spend. Yet consumer spending has been growing steadily for the last 5 years. How can that be? The likely scenario is really cheap debt. The kind that disappears when interet rates aren't basically zero anymore. We've shoved a lot of stuff under the "free money" carpet. When the Fed bumps up the interest rates, all those spiders are going to come out to play.
- edc117 11y ago
  Just curious, what do you mean by 'free money'? Most loans I've seen over the last few years vary from anywhere between 2.5%+ (houses) to 17% (credit cards). I don't think anyone would think of those as 'free'. I would think the interest rates going up would actually encourage people to save more.

67 points by curtis 11y ago

aschearer 11y ago

TLDR: They're students, retired boomers, or sick middle agers.

linkregister 11y ago
Except for the 2 million who "want a job but aren't looking"
- aschearer 11y ago
  2 million out of 318 doesn't seem especially newsworthy.
  - partisan 11y ago
    It's an insidious problem. Those two million people are not doing any particular thing on any particular day, but en masse, they are taxing the social safety net in ways it is not meant for. Services become limited as resources dry up, healthcare costs go through the roof as the industry soaks up every dollar the government is willing to spend, quality of education plummets as people determine there is no sense in striving for the American dream, prison system costs skyrocket as crime increases, and the list goes on. So it's not newsworthy when taken as a statistic, but you can find that the problem and its societal and human costs definitely are. If your bubble is big enough to keep you insulated from all this, then good for you.
  - fiveoak 11y ago
    To put it in perspective: there are more people who want a job but aren't looking for a job than there are people in the entire US prison system (2.6 million vs 2.4 million).
    - aschearer 11y ago
      It would not surprise me if the two are related. Google says there are approximately 20 million felons in the US. It's not difficult to imagine many of them are unable secure employment.
fiveoak 11y ago
Yep, although it is slightly worrying that there are 2.6 million people who want a job but aren’t looking. If I had to guess, probably a lot of that is due to a lack of marketable skills.
- clavalle 11y ago
  Or lack of demand for services in their area. I wonder how they are clustered geographically.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
001sky 11y ago
This comment is overly reductionist -- 'disabled' is a code word for long-term un-employable. Just eyball the proportion of working adults in the 50 to 60 year range. It is only ~5x the number of disabled. In other words, that is a huge %--maybe 20%--of potential workers in that age bracket. Any employment process that disables 20% of its workforce would be normally considered a problem. But instead we call the un-employable 'diabled', to sweep the data under the rug. It almost certainly helps keep other people in their jobs, tho (like burecrats and academics).
- intopieces 11y ago
  >'disabled' is a code word for long-term un-employable. Correct. This is the legacy of the Clinton era 'welfare to work' program: we moved people from welfare to disability. This will grow as automation takes hold of ever more industries. "Disability" is the U.S.'s first step toward guaranteed minimum income or a negative income tax. We will never have enough jobs for everyone in America, so we need to figure out what we're going to do to keep the economy going.
  - mynameishere 11y ago
    It really has nothing to do with "keeping the economy going". The purpose of "disability" insurance is just like that of Social Security originally--keeping people from destitution and poorhouses. It's not a good thing, but an unavoidable thing.
    - intopieces 11y ago
      >It really has nothing to do with "keeping the economy going". Not sure what you mean. When we give poor people money, they spend it. That's good for the economy. Welfare and disability are definitely good things.
- BadCookie 11y ago
  Right. I also wonder how many people are only in school because a decent job is out of reach. If you're older and can't find a job, you go on disability. If you're young, you take out loans and go to school. It's a huge generalization, but I think there's some truth to it.
bsder 11y ago
You're leaving out the really large "taking care of family" block. That includes "taking care of elderly" as well as "taking care of kids". Especially the "taking care of elderly" is putting a very large drain on resources that is simply going to get worse and worse as the boomers age.
- larrymyers 11y ago
  It's especially difficult with how non-existent the possibility of "professional but part-time" is. I know my wife would love to begin putting her engineering degree back to use 15-20 hours a week, but the only real option is to go full time and enroll our daughter in full time daycare, which we really would prefer not to do.

choward 11y ago

I'm most surprised about the all the retired 16-20 year olds.

palehose 11y ago

What about entrepreneurs starting a business that is not yet profitable? Is that something the government doesn't care about or are the numbers just too small?

nostromo 11y ago
They're counted as employed.
- palehose 11y ago
  Not if there is no investment and no one is getting paid anything yet.
  - nostromo 11y ago
    Not true. If you work for yourself and you're losing money and you get polled by the CPS, you would rightly report that you are self-employed, and you would be counted as working. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm It doesn't matter if there are investors or a profit.

sjg007 11y ago

18-22 year olds looking for a job would be more interesting. This measures post high school and the "in college" fraction.

_delirium 11y ago
Yeah, I think these brackets could use reworking for present-day interpretability. Working-age population traditionally starts at 16 in U.S. government statistics, since that's the traditional age where both mandatory schooling, and most child-labor-law restrictions ended. However the first part of that is becoming less true: currently only 30% of states still allow you to legally leave school at age 16. Another 20% have extended mandatory schooling to age 17, and 50% to age 18.

discardorama 11y ago

I have a neighbor who used to work as a landscaper. The money was decent (in SF); his specialty was masonry. Then a couple of years ago, he decided to drop out. Claimed he had MS and started getting SSDI checks of about $2K/month (I think). After he dropped out, I've seen him lift 100lb stones; frequently, he'll drive down to Arizona for fishing trips with buddies; and recently, he drove cross-country to Georgia for a HS reunion, and made it from Albuquerque to SF in 1 day. All this, despite having MS. I feel, if he can do all these activities, he can damn well work; but he's been able to fool the system for the last 3-4 years. If you look at the SSDI stats: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/dibStat.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/dibStat.html it is interesting to see that when the Financial Crisis happened, the number of applicants jumped drastically; a 34% increase from 2007 to 2009. And as the economy has picked up recently, the number of applications has gone down; a 15% drop from 2010 to 2014. While I do support the idea of a "safety net", I don't like the idea of people dipping into SSDI when they don't feel like working (or can't get work). Added later: (1330PST): A lot of people are saying that he could just be having a good day or two. Maybe; but he has enough good days (when I see him), there's no reason that he would not work on his "good days". Secondly: my last conversation with him (3-4 weeks ago) was about how he could go about getting a cash-only gig, and he wanted my opinion (me being a tech guy). I recommended Postmates/TaskRabbit, but he shied away from those, opting for cash gigs from Craigslist. Maybe the 1099 would have ratted him out? I dunno.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
This is infuriating. My mother is 58. Her lower spinal column was collapsed, and she's had it reconstructed using titanium plates and screws during a 6 hour surgery. She has been denied for disability by the Social Security Administration twice, and currently has to wait ~500 days for her next appeal (https://www.ssa.gov/appeals/DataSets/01_NetStat_Report.html https://www.ssa.gov/appeals/DataSets/01_NetStat_Report.html) in front of an panel of judges (this backlog is caused by Congress providing insufficient funding to process said backlog). How the hell are people who don't need disability getting approved, and the people who don't need it are stuck in purgatory?
- tsotha 11y ago

6stringmerc 11y ago

Huh, I've seen consistent material over at Zero Hedge[1] indicating that since 2007 the cohort that has made the most job gains is over the age of 55. "...while the elderly workers in the US have risen by a whopping 7.4 million since the start of the Depression in December 2007, workers aged 25-54 are down 4 million!" As shown in this chart: http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/08/Jobs%20by%20age%20group%20LT_0.jpg http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/im... If there's a person here with a good handle on how the WSJ article and the noted Zero Hedge article relate to one another, I'd be very interested in your perspective. [1] Article source, August 2015. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-07/prime-aged-workers-tumble-july-workers-55-and-over-surge-new-all-time-high http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-07/prime-aged-workers-...

michaelZejoop 11y ago
What is the nature and quality of the jobs these post 55 people have taken. Do the jobs they land in compare favorably with the jobs they were displaced from? Did they go from professional jobs to service sector jobs? This distinction is important. As a forced-into-early-retirement, former aerospace engineer, I am curious, and I will check your links later. As for my future, I am trying to create my own asset/company and I don't see myself reentering the workforce as an hourly wage earner again.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  From the data I've seen, yes, they have gone from professional jobs to service sector jobs - or, at least the data indicates that those are the type of jobs that are being filled during recent memory. It's been a hunch of mine that the displaced older workforce's jobs simply don't exist anymore (layoffs due to technology, better for investors) and the service sector jobs would normally be for the younger population as they 'move up' through the ranks...but they can't get in...those spots are taken by the over 55 group. I think that they almost have to work, e.g. no retirement savings, unwilling to move to rural/low-income areas where their SSI might be sustainable. Vexing.
  - 11y ago

cryoshon 11y ago

This article doesn't really delve into the percentage of the population that "doesn't look, but still wants a job". This population is the most important one as far as generational wealth and health is concerned; retiring and disabled boomers are to be expected. Part of this is an intentional misrepresentation of the employment numbers. In order to be counted as "unemployed" you must first have had stable "employment". Thus, people just out of high school or college that are unable to find their first job (which is often extremely hard to come by) are not counted as unemployed, despite being so. The other problem is that after unemployment benefits expire, people aren't counted as unemployed anymore, so the unemployment stat goes down, but the percentage not in the labor force goes up. Employment indicators U3/U6 are remarkably poor for depicting gainful employment in the wake of economic depressions; they're meant to measure unemployment that is expected to be transient. Super long-term unemployment, difficulty finding a first job, and underemployment are not adequately measured, though the part-time employment stat is somewhat taken into account.

TallGuyShort 11y ago
I think the whole point of the article was that we need to know more about that percentage of the population that "doesn't look, but still wants a job", because dismissive explanations are insufficient. Does anyone on HN have suggestions of possible explanations for some of that percentage? I don't understand it. Is it people who wanted a job, but gave up looking? Other situations that would fall into this category other than simply "lazy"?
- Mz 11y ago
  Sometimes, people would rather see themselves as lazy or free spirits than admit to disability. I was acquainted for a time with a homeless man who seemed able bodied but had a mental health issue. He quit his job and walked away from his worldly possessions to get off the zombifying drugs required to make him employable. I have a different disability but made similar choices, so I am sympathetic. But he was very resistant to admitting that he was too handicapped to hold down a job. I knew him a while before that became clear to me. And it isn't anything you would infer at first glance. If you saw him, he looked tall and strong and able bodied, he sounds intelligent and is intelligent and the degree to which he is not mentally sound is just not obvious to casual inspection. I have two adult sons who have never had jobs. They also look hail and hardy. They both have some issues. We are still trying to work out how they can make money in spite of being basically unemployable. I suspect this happens more than is recognized. My handicap was not identified until age 35. I got called "lazy" a lot until I had a diagnosis. I am a woman and was fortunate to be able to hide out for many years behind the title of full time wife and mom.

michaelZejoop 11y ago

There is a portion of the spectrum that seems like it is in the "wants a job, but is not looking" category that is not properly represented. I am in sub-category of "wants a gainful future (after being laid off - essentially forced into early retirement - from a long aerospace career) but is not looking for a job (either in the sector I left, or in the service sector). Aerospace is notorious for ageism, and I have no future there. I will not look for a job as a barrista or a clerk at Home Depot, so, no, I am not looking. I am however trying to create my own future as an entrepreneur and build my own company. This effort being bootstrapped, on my own dime, using funds that should have been reserved for retirement. There is a lot of solid engineering talent and experience that is laying dormant - I am trying to counter that by building my own asset/company.

omarchowdhury 11y ago
Aerospace is ageist towards the older people? That's interesting, I'd think that experience would be the most important factor in that space.
- e40 11y ago
  It's because that industry uses a lot of old (software) technology and older folks tend to know it best.
  - omarchowdhury 11y ago
    The grandparent (no pun intended) said he was forced into early retirement though. Shouldn't he be more valuable as he grows older?
    - nickff 11y ago
      It seems that the salary schedule is out of line with the actual value of the employee's labor (assuming that there is no widespread irrational behaviour in the industry). This could be related to a skills development plateau, decreased attitude/attention/enthusiasm, or possibly even risk-aversion in older employees.

oconnore 11y ago

But the "in the labor force" category includes people who are forced to work part time so they don't collect benefits, get bumped from job to job, have unreliable hours, make less than the cost of living, etc. The graph should be split: - Has a reliable full time job with benefits - Has a minimum wage job, or is a part time employee/contractor making less than $20-30k a year.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
_delirium 11y ago
It's not shown here, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics does further break down workers into full-time, voluntarily part-time, and involuntarily part-time [1]. Numbers for part-time workers below are for September 2015. Part-time for economic reasons (6 million) Slack work or business conditions (3.6 million) Could only find part-time work (2.1 million) Other (0.3 million) Part-time for noneconomic reasons (20 million) [1] http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
- oconnore 11y ago
  Thanks, so depending on how you count unincorporated, self employed workers, you get between 3.5% [1] and 9% [2] of the labor force underemployed (not looking at salary). I suspect there are more Uber drivers than successful independent consultants, but we don't have data about that. That's better than I expected. [1]: (6036) / (2357 + 146464 + 19656) [2]: (6036 + 8357 + 820) / (2357 + 146464 + 19656)

nsheth17 11y ago

The impact of this is going to become so obvious when interest rates start going up. Let me explain. Ultimately, how much money the workforce is making matters to consumer spending. People may be ok not having a job, because they have some way to stay at their standard of living. But unless a bunch of them are sitting on family trusts, it also means they don't have a growing amount of money to spend. Yet consumer spending has been growing steadily for the last 5 years. How can that be? The likely scenario is really cheap debt. The kind that disappears when interet rates aren't basically zero anymore. We've shoved a lot of stuff under the "free money" carpet. When the Fed bumps up the interest rates, all those spiders are going to come out to play.

edc117 11y ago
Just curious, what do you mean by 'free money'? Most loans I've seen over the last few years vary from anywhere between 2.5%+ (houses) to 17% (credit cards). I don't think anyone would think of those as 'free'. I would think the interest rates going up would actually encourage people to save more.