• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low

I think with that tripe, you owe the audience. There are millions of job openings right now, and we've added 10 million jobs since the recession.ended. The low labor force isn't because there are no jobs available.

Yes such tripe that the millions of jobs open people don't have skills for - especially in the inner cities. You asked for better ideas, now that you've got them you criticize it. Typical liberal.
 
Less government intetfearance in the private sector.
Because that worked so well just a few years ago that we're having fun trying to bring back the jobs that were lost from that approach.
 
And we have a record number of people actually living in this Nation right now.

And a record number of baby-boomers retiring, even admitted by FOX.

And 54 straight months of private sector job growth--148,000 in August--888,000/month
more than the disaster Bush left him in that 6-month stretch .
 
Because that worked so well just a few years ago that we're having fun trying to bring back the jobs that were lost from that approach.

Care to explain? Or, have you noticed the labor participation rate that is at a 36 year high?
 
Care to explain? Or, have you noticed the labor participation rate that is at a 36 year high?

Relaxed regulations of private industry caused the great recession. Returning to those policies is counterproductive to solving the problems that those policies created.
 
A president who promotes business growth instead of personal welfare? A president who uses the bully pulpit to promote better education options like charter schools in urban cities? A president who can work with congress instead of just spew idealogue partisan nonsense? A President who pushes for adult training and skill workshops instead of pushing more foodstamps to get people out of work working again?


That will be $250,000 please. No personal checks.

Really, you want the government to create jobs? How do you reconcile that with your libertarian lean?
 
A president who promotes business growth instead of personal welfare? A president who uses the bully pulpit to promote better education options like charter schools in urban cities? A president who can work with congress instead of just spew idealogue partisan nonsense? A President who pushes for adult training and skill workshops instead of pushing more foodstamps to get people out of work working again?


That will be $250,000 please. No personal checks.

The very definition of the Shock Doctrine. Cite a problem and propose a laundry list of discredited conservative policies to solve it, no matter how irrelevant to the problem, and no matter how they have failed in the past. I'm impressed.
 
How about a reality check?

Labor force participation went up from 1948 to 2000 primarily because WOMEN WERE JOINING THE WORKFORCE. We should keep in mind that conservatives resisted this social change for decades.

While women were joining the workforce, men were leaving the workforce. They've been leaving since 1948.

The big change was that starting around 2001, women also started leaving the workforce.

We are obviously dealing with long-term trends, and no president or political party is likely to be at fault. Recessions and recoveries have almost no discernible effect on these overall trends. Socioeconomic conditions are much more likely to be involved.

Last but not least, look at the X axis on most of the other charts. The chart in the first post ranges from 52% to 68%. Things look a tad less dramatic when the X axis goes from 20% to 90%....

US-Labor-Force-Participation-by-Sex-June-2013.png
 
Relaxed regulations of private industry caused the great recession. Returning to those policies is counterproductive to solving the problems that those policies created.

Nope, that's not what happened. What caused the recession was the government forcing the banks to make those risky loans.
 
Nope, that's not what happened. What caused the recession was the government forcing the banks to make those risky loans.
Whatever narrative gets you through the night. Mean old government twisting the arms of poor defenseless financial giants...
 
Open the borders !!!!!!!. We need more people to pay for that are not contributing to society. Let's extend the 47% to 75% and make Democrats very happy. I have another idea, since some Americans are willing to work and pay taxes and they are rich we need to take all their money and share it. Oh, sorry about that....Obama already has that idea. Besides we OWE it to all those poor people, they deserve it.
 
Whatever narrative gets you through the night. Mean old government twisting the arms of poor defenseless financial giants...

Your fantasy has been debunked for years, now.
 
Really, you want the government to create jobs? How do you reconcile that with your libertarian lean?

No where did I state I want government to create jobs.
 
The very definition of the Shock Doctrine. Cite a problem and propose a laundry list of discredited conservative policies to solve it, no matter how irrelevant to the problem, and no matter how they have failed in the past. I'm impressed.

What more impressive is the lefts solution: More dependency on government assistance from food stamps to housing, healthcare to cell phones. Oh that's SO much better. :lamo
 
The solution to this is to grind up senior citizens into Soylent green
 
Your fantasy has been debunked for years, now.
Funny, I didn't think right wing apologists were officially being given full credit for "debunking" anything yet. I just assumed that they were throwing a Hail Mary out there and hoping someone foolish enough would bite.
 
How much of this is explained by baby boomers deciding to retire?

Probably nothing at all, but neither you nor I know the answer, making it rather irrelevant. :peace
 
It depends on what you mean by "employable." Those not in the labor force face no LEGAL restrictions to work, but 37 million are 65 or older and of those under 65, 11 million are disabled. And another 11 million are age 16-24 and are enrolled in school.

It's harder to count stay at home spouses, but overall 93.2% of those not in the labor force say they don't want to work.

And while the Labor Force Participation is at a 36 year low...it's higher than any year before 1978.

Link please to the stat that proves that 93.2% of those not in the work force SPECIFICALLY stated that they 'don't want to work'...as you stated?
 
Last edited:
Because that worked so well just a few years ago that we're having fun trying to bring back the jobs that were lost from that approach.


Its working GREAT in States like Texas.

We're incentivizing private sector investment, profit and wealth creation and we're leading the Nation in Jobs creation.

And thats across ALL income levels.

And what happened a few years ago was ALSO the Consequence of Government intervention into the private sector.

You should do a bit of research into the Democrat policies that forced Banks to lower their decades long lending standards.

And the Democrat policies that co-opted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the Sub-Prime Bussiness.
 
How much of this is explained by baby boomers deciding to retire?

Probably a lot (I read a Fed report that suggested as many as half).

However, how many of those are retiring entirely because they cannot find work and were thus forced to retire?
 
Back
Top Bottom