3 ms·

Unemployment, in the sense of "who is looking for a job but can't find one" is low, but the labor force participation rate is at 62.7%, close to a 30-year low [

Unemployment, in the sense of "who is looking for a job but can't find one" is low, but the labor force participation rate is at 62.7%, close to a 30-year low [0][1]. It seems to have bottomed-out in the last couple years and is currently holding steady, but the current level is not encouraging. Note that a low participation rate, as in, "people have just given up looking for a job and resigned themselves to permanent unemployment because there are no economic prospects in their vicinity" does tally quite well with the stories the media keeps talking. Note also that median wages are not yet climbing after their recession decline, despite the falling unemployment (classically, 5% is about the level at which you expect wages to start rising), suggesting that a lot of the new jobs being created are kind of shitty. [0] https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/labor-force-participation-rate-september-2014-2014-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/labor-force-participation-rat...

dragonwriter 10y ago
> labor force participation rate is at 62.7%, close to a 30-year low. It seems to have bottomed-out in the last couple years and is currently holding steady The LFPP is the share over the 16-and-over (with no upper age limit) population that is in working or seeking work. The effect you describe is kind of what you'd expect if a big demographic bulge had been passing into retirement age, and but then largely completed that move.
- Clubber 10y ago
  This is true, but I assume you are referring to the Baby Boomers. That generation wasn't so much a bulge as it was a boom, meaning the boomers also had at least as many children as they were (average 2 kids per couple). When the next generation goes to retirement, it will be just as large. I guess what I'm saying is if you believe the participation rate will increase because a large group of people are retired and the next generation is smaller, it isn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_State...
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Actually, no, Gen X was a bust compared to the Boomer generation, followed by another boom with the Millennials, which is why there is a transition directly from Boomers to Millennials as the numerically dominant generation. Fertility dropped starting in the late 50s and more sharply after 1964.
    - Clubber 10y ago
      Yes, you are correct, even accounting for immigration. GenX is of course larger than the Greatest Generation and the Lost Generation that preceded the boomers. We will get a little labor participation relief, but not much. GenX is still significantly larger than the generations proceeding the boomers.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
You have to move to find work now. People aren't willing to move any more - that is a part of their reserve price calculation. I have moved six times since 2003. "Median wages not climbing" much reflects the abject terror in almost all the economy - except that part of the economy which specializes in giving the appearance of innovation, tech - that one might actually innovate. Until you've bred, trained and presented the racehorse that will save $x million, only to have people tell you "we don't understand it[1], so we're scuttling it" , it might be harder to see. [1] "Do you understand Word and Excel macros?" "Yes, of course." "This is just like that." "We still don't understand." The private sector now is embracing a level of willful, egregious technological ignorance I've not seen in my adult life. The whole culture has been led down the garden path of "web development" and anything that is not that, is suspect.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> labor force participation rate is at 62.7%, close to a 30-year low. It seems to have bottomed-out in the last couple years and is currently holding steady The LFPP is the share over the 16-and-over (with no upper age limit) population that is in working or seeking work. The effect you describe is kind of what you'd expect if a big demographic bulge had been passing into retirement age, and but then largely completed that move.

Clubber 10y ago
This is true, but I assume you are referring to the Baby Boomers. That generation wasn't so much a bulge as it was a boom, meaning the boomers also had at least as many children as they were (average 2 kids per couple). When the next generation goes to retirement, it will be just as large. I guess what I'm saying is if you believe the participation rate will increase because a large group of people are retired and the next generation is smaller, it isn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_State...
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Actually, no, Gen X was a bust compared to the Boomer generation, followed by another boom with the Millennials, which is why there is a transition directly from Boomers to Millennials as the numerically dominant generation. Fertility dropped starting in the late 50s and more sharply after 1964.
  - Clubber 10y ago
    Yes, you are correct, even accounting for immigration. GenX is of course larger than the Greatest Generation and the Lost Generation that preceded the boomers. We will get a little labor participation relief, but not much. GenX is still significantly larger than the generations proceeding the boomers.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

You have to move to find work now. People aren't willing to move any more - that is a part of their reserve price calculation. I have moved six times since 2003. "Median wages not climbing" much reflects the abject terror in almost all the economy - except that part of the economy which specializes in giving the appearance of innovation, tech - that one might actually innovate. Until you've bred, trained and presented the racehorse that will save $x million, only to have people tell you "we don't understand it[1], so we're scuttling it" , it might be harder to see. [1] "Do you understand Word and Excel macros?" "Yes, of course." "This is just like that." "We still don't understand." The private sector now is embracing a level of willful, egregious technological ignorance I've not seen in my adult life. The whole culture has been led down the garden path of "web development" and anything that is not that, is suspect.