Obamanomics: 90 Million Unemployed

[_bcspace]

(CNSNews.com) - The number of Americans who are 16 years or older and who have decided not to participate in the nation's labor force has pushed past 90,000,000 for the first time, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The BLS counts a person as participating in the labor force if they are 16 years or older and either have a job or have actively sought a job in the last four weeks. A person is not participating in the labor force if they are 16 or older and have not sought a job in the last four weeks.

In July, according to BLS, 89,957,000 Americans did not participate in the labor force. In August, that climbed to 90,473,000--a one month increase of 516,000.

In January 2009, when President Barack Obama took office, there were 80,507,000 Americans not in the labor force. Thus, the number of Americans not in the labor force has increased by 9,966,000 during Obama's presidency.

Part of the increase in the number Americans not participating in the labor force can be explained by Baby Boomers reaching retirement age and deciding to stop working--and not be replaced by an equal number of younger people reaching age 16 and thus becoming part of the BLS labor force population.

However, it is also true that the overall percentage of the non-institutionalized population over the age of 16 that is working or seeking to work in the United States--which BLS calls the employment-population ratio--has declined significantly in recent years.

From July to August, it dropped from 58.7 percent to 58.6 percent. In January 2009, when President Barack Obama took office, it was 60.6 percent. It reached a historical peak in April 2000, when it was 64.7 percent.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/90473000-record-number-not-labor-force-almost-10m-under-obama

[_Brackite]

Here Are the Real Labor Force Dropouts

The dominant story about the job market is no longer the nation’s 11.3 million unemployed people or the painfully slow pace of hiring. It’s the growing portion of the working-age population that has dropped out of the labor force and isn’t even looking for a job.

The jobs report for August seemed upbeat on the surface, since the unemployment rate dropped by one-tenth of a point to 7.3%. But analysts have been quick to point out that the unemployment rate fell because the number of people looking for work -- part of the numerator in the equation used to determine the unemployment rate -- declined. That’s usually a sign of an ailing economy, not a recovering one.

Overall, the U.S. economy is being driven by a smaller portion of the population. The percentage of adults either working or looking for work peaked in the late 1990s, declined gradually until the recession began at the end of 2007, then began to fall more sharply, as this chart showing the labor-force participation rate chart reveals:

...

The labor force participation rate is now at the lowest level since 1978 -- before women flooded into the workforce, pushing the participation rate to record highs.

Ages and options

So who, exactly, is dropping out of the labor force? It’s well-known that male-dominated industries such as manufacturing and construction have endured painful and probably permanent shrinkage, which suggests a lot of middle-aged, blue-collar men are now sitting on the sidelines. Some analysts feel extended unemployment insurance has given a lot of laid-off workers a stronger incentive to collect a government check than look for a job. Then there are critics of the “47 percent” (now the 43 percent) of adult Americans who pay no income tax yet somehow eke out a living.

Not Looking for Work: Labor-Force Participation Hits 35-Year Low

The unemployment rate fell in August but for the worst of reasons: Many Americans stopped looking for work so they weren’t counted among the unemployed. What’s harder to tell is why they stopped looking. The political right chalks it up to laziness and government coddling, while the political left says people are giving up looking because a dysfunctional economy isn’t producing enough jobs.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics said the August unemployment rate was 7.3 percent, down a tick from 7.4 percent in July. The worrisome part is why the rate fell. The size of the workforce declined by about 300,000 and the participation rate fell to 63.2 percent from 63.4 percent—the lowest since August 1978. The participation rate is the number of people either working or actively searching for work as a share of the working-age population. It rose steadily over the years as more women entered the workforce before falling sharply in the 2007-09 recession, and it hasn’t recovered since.

Also disappointing was the payroll report. While the 169,000 added to employers’ payrolls in August wasn’t far below the 180,000 median prediction of economists surveyed by Bloomberg, there was a downward revision of 74,000 jobs to the previous two months’ reports. The government said June payrolls grew by only 172,000, rather than 188,000; July’s grew by only 102,000, instead of 162,000. In other words, while employment did grow in August, it was from a substantially lower starting point than previously believed.

[_ajax18]

[_Harold Lee]

This is just sad, not to mention 97% of new jobs lately are part-time, or 35:1.

Times like these I'm just grateful for what I have, even if it doesn't pay nearly what it should.

[_krose]

Really dumb.

So tell me what the president did to cause these numbers. Conversely, tell me what actions a president could have taken that would have lowered unemployment far below these numbers.

What are the principles of "obamanomics," and how are they currently being implemented?