LMAO.
In one month there are going to be lots of people touting the unemployment rate who aren’t now.
It’ll be sunshine and lollipops.
Wrong - the labor participation rate is not based on an age issue. It is based SOLEY on workers who are able-bodied who can and should work, but do not have a job. The senior citizens, who receive SS or get pensions and who cannot work because of old age are NOT counted in this group.
Thus, a low labor participation rate indicates the number of able-bodied people who are not in the labor force either by choice (do not want to lose welfare payments or other benefits) or by job environment (they cannot find a job so they gave up looking).
And anything “good” won’t happen in a day, much less on a given day. It’s nice to have confidence, even better to understand the complexities.
This thread started about our kids. They’re not skilled labor and they aren’t looking for jobs repairing bridges or selling boots to those who do. And now there’s talk there won’t be the infrastructure work promised.
The potential emoyers with the mid-level opportunities they want wont ramp up in January without the orders for the goods and services. Those cycles take time. Fed employees may be laid off in mega numbers, adding to competition in some skill sets.
And some want to play pie in the sky and act as if it’s all rosey cuz someone says it will be? Or blame it all on ACA? Or the age old argument about ‘durn forriners?’
Best of luck to all.
Savvy works. Temp to hire is a real opportunity, but not in all fields. Open your eyes.
I’m in that rate and am not working but neither take SS nor pension. There are plenty like me. We are older but not “seniors”. There is an attrition in that rate due to people like me. Regardless, the decline in the labor participation rate is only a few percent over many years anyway. Additionally, I believe it also captures many people who work under the table. I’m sure we all know people like that. Gainfully “employed” but outside the system and not contributing to the system. Bottom line, it is complex and can’t be easily determined to be just a few factors. To say otherwise, without valid statistical proof, is misleading and oversimplifying IMO.
So, for historical purposes:
Unemployment rate after Obama’s first full month in office: 8.7% (reached a peak of 10% after but I’d argue that was continued fallout from events during the GWB administration)
Unemployment rate December 2016: 4.6%
We can check back in the years to come and see how it goes. 
This is because they would know they are talking to uninformed and that is all that most people often understand.
The number to watch is the labor participation rate - when that starts to go up with simultaneous holding or an uptick in the unemployment rate, then it would be cause to celebrate.
Another statistical thing to look for - when the job market becomes actually healthy, the reported unemployment rate would most likely go up because people will see that there are jobs out here and begin looking again. At the time they start looking and BEFORE they get a job, they will be NOW counted as unemployed.
Therefore, a healthy job market in this current situation of low labor participation rate would likely see an uptick in unemployment, then as jobs match job seekers the number would settle back down or hold at a slightly higher rate and more people seek work.
“Another statistical thing to look for - when the job market becomes actually healthy, the reported unemployment rate would most likely go up because people will see that there are jobs out here and begin looking again. At the time they start looking and BEFORE they get a job, they will be NOW counted as unemployed.”
That is a load. If I am currently employed and looking, I am counted as employed.
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#employed
"Who is counted as unemployed?
People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. "
Note: “and” means all three need to be met.
Awc, I think you missed Emily’s point.
And the numbers for parents to watch aren’t about mashing stats on the economy, certainly not from an armchair. It will be how our sons and daughters actually fare. That group of lookers, recently done with their schooling. Not the mass public. Our kids. Able and willing.
The labor force participation rate does include old people, retired people and social security recipients in the denominator. I don’t know if there is an age cutoff, but the only exclusion I can find are people that are in an institutional setting, like a nursing home. I don’t know if people in assisted living would be excluded or not. I am surprised how difficult it is to find that information. Age 16 and above are included, so no younger children.
Re: decline in the Labor Participation Rate to back up points I made previously
“The decline in the participation rate is almost entirely due to structural factors and there is little prospect of a rebound in the next few years. The downward trend in the participation rate actually began as far back as 2000, driven by the aging of the population, rising disability and the upward trend in post-secondary education enrollment.”
“The upshot is that, with the unemployment rate very close to 5%, the labour market really is very close to full employment. Admittedly, the still elevated rate of involuntary part-time workers indicates that there is some slack left. Beyond that, however, there are not hordes of disillusioned job seekers just waiting to flood back into the labour force once conditions improve.”
http://www.aei.org/publication/why-the-labor-force-participation-rate-may-not-rise-anytime-soon/
AEI, by the way, is viewed as a conservative think tank, so no liberal bias or Obama bias there.
Just shows that posters can “interpret” statistics with an aim to supporting the narrative they are choosing to put forth…
“Must have,” you say?
OK, you do not know the law then - ACA allows for many foreign workers brought here on temporary 3 and 5-year visa not to be given health insurance under ACA and are also exempt from most payroll taxes at the federal level.
However, the error you are making here is that the ACA does NOT override existing trade agreements - it cannot override existing trade agreements because that would be in violation of what countries already agreed to and the rules companies already operate under. Thus, the major carve out that exists is if foreign workers are brought in under existing trade agreements, then the ACA does not apply. That would be changing the rules in the middle of the game.
Additionally, the ACA has its own exemptions. The law is some 3,000 pages long and accompanied by some 30,000 pages of regulations - do you really think you know what it fully says and all of its exceptions/exemptions? Even people who study the law for a living hedge their bets when talking about immigrants and the ACA.
From October 27, 2016:
I draw your attention to the words in bold above. Note the word “generally” is not equivalent in meaning to “must have.” “Generally” means that there are many cases where they d o not have to have heath insurance.
I also draw your attention to the term “if otherwise qualified.” That is the bureaucratic catchall of saying an immigrant has to be qualified in some other way to then be “generally” included in the ACA mandate. Talk about an out the size of Jupiter.
Do you know which companies, jobs, and visa are actually not “otherwise qualified” and thus not “generally” included to be under ACA? Good luck wading through the many pages of regulations to figure it out. I will give you a hint though - it is a lot and that is where many companies are hiring.
Bottom line - nowhere in the attorney’s memo is the word “must have” ever used. it would be silly to because there is a trade agreement or an exemption somewhere that could nullify that and they would look stupid.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43561.pdf
(Emphases mine)
Show me proof that companies are hiring measurable numbers of foreign workers for more than seasonal work and not providing them healthcare while they are in the USA and then I might start giving some weight to the point you are trying to make. Otherwise, it’s just a lot of words.
Still awaiting explanation of your “culturally more stable” claim as well, @awcntdb . Should we read that as racist/xenophobic?
A significant percentage in the drop in the Labor Participation rate was expected and tied to the aging baby boomers.
The CBO says that roughly half of the three-percentage-point decline in labor-force participation since the end of 2007 is due to the aging of the workforce.
Judging by the incoming cabinet, I think there’s going to be a lot more offshoring and outsourcing, and a lot of downward pressure on wages and benefits. I don’t think there’s a golden age for employees around the corner, or in the foreseeable future.
One other factor in the reduced labor participation rate and high unemployment in some industries which doesn’t get talked about as often…the accelerating trend of replacing workers in such jobs with machines/automation.
And this is really nothing new as this has been going on since the industrial revolution.
Unfortunately, there hasn’t been much willingness or discussion about implementing meaningfully viable solutions to figure out a way to provide those displaced workers with comparable/better paying employment or retraining opportunities for such employment which doesn’t place them into greater financial distress.
Agree entirely with @doschicos so let’s play a game called “name three.” If this–high skilled jobs being filled with foreign workers to avoid ACA expenses–is common, it should be trivial to come up with three meaningful examples.
Do I believe it can happen? Yes. Do I believe it’s common? Not even a little bit for skilled employment.
Yes, that may be the real issue from an employee’s point of view, although it is rarely mentioned. The changes in available types of work may be coming faster now, but gaining the qualifications for new types of work may be getting more expensive in time and money (tuition). Note the general increase in the types of jobs covered by occupational licencing, and the increasing requirements for some existing licensed professions.
Actually, I don’t know why any of us are even worried about the future, because, ““Over two millennia ago, a new hope was born into the world, a Savior who would offer the promise of salvation to all mankind. Just as the three wise men did on that night, this Christmas heralds a time to celebrate the good news of a new King.”
Hallelujah! 
Yeah but that savior king told his followers to give up their worldly goods and follow him… not really a positive sign for increased job growth 
(unless of course, we’re supposed to take those abandoned jobs!)
@busdriver I saw that and actually thought it was “fake news.” Then my S found the direct quote from the press release and we were both speechless. Really, at this point I just think we are all doomed – this is sheer lunacy.
Thanks for the reference, HM1. I was wondering about BD for a sec.
Ponies and lots of flowers and everyone is fine. Yup.