Latest Breaking News

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)

16. There are certainly interpretations to be made regarding the number...I was addressing the poster's

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 12:44 PM

Apr 2013

utterly false definition. He claimed in no uncertain terms that retirement is not taken into account when calculating the Persons not in the Work Force number supplied by the BLS. That's overtly, definitively UNTRUE.

How you want to interpret retirement is obviously an interesting question of interpretation. The economist I cited there believes that retirement has to be accounted for when interpreting the raw number, that it is meaningful. I agree. I certainly think comparing "Persons in the Workforce 2013 to 1979" without considering baby boomer retirement is ridiculous. But I agree these are interpretive questions.

I was commenting primarily on the outright false statement of fact made by Jim Rob in the previous post.

Cheers.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

23 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

People Not In Labor Force Soar By 663,000 To 90 Million, Labor Force Participation Rate At 1979 Leve [View all] Jim.Rob58 Apr 2013 OP

no surprise, since the republicans have been blocking every jobs program proposed still_one Apr 2013 #1

Wow! You can see when George Bush Junior became president on that graph. loudsue Apr 2013 #2

Welcome to DU, Jim Rob alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #3

Mucho's Gracis, Amigo! n/t Jim.Rob58 Apr 2013 #5

I don't know who this "Mucho" might be, or why he possesses a "Gracis" alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #6

LOL. n/t Jim.Rob58 Apr 2013 #10

Talk of cuts to Social Security won't help. earthside Apr 2013 #4

I largely agree with you. Jim.Rob58 Apr 2013 #7

What impact does baby boomer retirements have on labor force participation rates? denverbill Apr 2013 #8

None, nor should they. Jim.Rob58 Apr 2013 #9

That's absolutely false alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #13

Well yes and no dmallind Apr 2013 #15

There are certainly interpretations to be made regarding the number...I was addressing the poster's alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #16

We have less people working now than in 1980... lib2DaBone Apr 2013 #11

maybe the sequester will help Enrique Apr 2013 #12

Only 6M of whom want a job, and only 3M of whom have looked ONCE in a year. dmallind Apr 2013 #14

Baby Boomer here. I dropped out... I retired OKNancy Apr 2013 #17

It's those lazy worker's fault that there are no jobs librechik Apr 2013 #18

K&R DeSwiss Apr 2013 #19

the private sector is doing fine. quadrature Apr 2013 #20

You're kidding Right? Munificence Apr 2013 #21

The private sector is doing fine? OhioChick Apr 2013 #22

Locking, sorry, this is a duplicate. Please continue discussion and post updates here: Rhiannon12866 Apr 2013 #23