The sharp decline of the LFPR since the onset of the recent recession is due to long-term shifts related to demographic trends and to the cyclical downturn in the labor market. A variety of evidence indicates that, on balance, trend factors account for about half of the decline in labor force participation from 2007 to 2011, with cyclical factors accounting for the other half.'
Cyclical downturn in the labor market?
Cyclical factors accounting for the other half?
That means (in essence) they left the work force because the economy sucked.
It does not specify what they did once they left (like go back to school, go on disability, take up knitting, kill themselves, explore the wonders of living in a box, etc.).
I am not going to go around and around on this with you.
The Fed itself states (in essence) that 1/2 of those that have left the workforce since Obama took over have left because they could not find work (I.e. 'cyclical downturn in labor market').
That means that they are still unemployed (as they left because they could not find work).
And that means that adding in those people to the workforce (since Obama took over) brings the unemployment rate to over 9%.
And you have posted zero links to disprove any of this - just more spinning theories of yours.
Either post links to unbiased sources that disputes this or you will be ignored on this...I do not care about your wild theories...back them up with unbiased sources and maybe then I will pay attention.
Have a nice day.
'What kind of sick and twisted toy factory is this?'
'We are all the sum of our tears. Too little and the ground is not fertile, and nothing can grow there. Too much, the best of us is washed away.'
"Better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool."
But again, the point to that is during the recession, many seniors would have put off retiring because their investments were in the toilet. Now, many of them are more likely to retire since their investments are at, or near, all-time highs.
George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005
snipThe dramatic growth of the housing GSEs over the last decade, as well as recent accounting and operational problems, underscore the importance of protecting the broader financial markets from systemic risks caused by their actions. The housing GSEs' outstanding debt is approximately $2.5 trillion, and they provide credit guarantees on another $2.4 trillion of mortgages. By comparison, the privately held debt of the Federal government is $4.1 trillion. Housing GSE debt is issued largely to support sizable portfolio investments that are unnecessary to fulfill the GSEs' housing mission. Given the size and importance of the GSEs, Congress must ensure that their large mortgage portfolios do not place the U.S. financial system at risk. H.R. 1461 fails to provide critical policy guidance in this area.
The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers. Likewise, provisions that divert profits will lead to increased risk-taking and decreased market discipline, while exacerbating systemic risk.
The Administration remains committed to bringing real reform to the housing GSEs and looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to ensure that the needed reforms are part of any final legislation.
That's what I did for Bush; which made the unemployment rate 10% when Obama took over. By you saying it's up now even more than 10% because of that means you're factoring in the participation rate twice now for Obama.
What you're trying to do, and it's not working out for ya, is increasing the unemployment rate based on the drop in the LFPR. But the mistake in your equation is that you're only factoring in the drop in LFPR since January of 2009; when in fact, that drop began much earlier.
That means what you're doing is comparing the 7.8% that Obama inherited without factoring in the LFPR with the current 7.6% rate while factoring in the LFPR.
Apples to oranges. If you want apples to apples, you have to factor in the LFPR drop while Bush was president, which elevates the unemployment rate from 7.8% to 9.9%. So again, even by that metric, Obama lowered unemployment.
What part of that bolded part confused you?
You're still stuck with guessing what that number is and you refuse to understand that because no one measures those factors, you will never have anything but your guess to fill in that number, since there is no data on it.