Your data STILL contradicts the narrative that the low labor participation rate is due to a mass of retirees.
How so?
Let's say there are 5 people in the 25-54 age range and 50 in the 55+ range. If 2 people in the 25-54 range get a job and 10 in the 55+ range get a job and 30 in the 55+ range retire...then the labor force participation would still go down, even though the 55+ range experienced a larger increase in jobs.
So, no, it doesn't contradict the narrative at all. All it shows is that, since January 2011, the abnormally large demographic of Baby Boomers has gained over 4 million jobs.
So we can add some needed context to your # by posting the 30 year low labor participation rate, right ?
You could, but as I've already shown, I don't see the point. I believe it was Kush who, either in this thread or another, posted the link to the information which showed nearly half of the drop in participation rate can be attributed to retirees and I know I've seen the graph which shows how the participation rate has dropped since around 2000 multiple times.
So...I guess if you want to add context you can, but be sure to include ALL context, not just the ones which fit your obviously biased agenda.
lol...talk about cherry picking!?! The POTUS is responsible for the entire length of his presidency
A) A recession is not a recovery and anyone who says otherwise is being silly
B) A President is not responsible for a recession which started before he even took office. To say otherwise is silly.
Perhaps you ought to look up the definition of cherry picking data.
My data included Obama's entire presidency...there is no cherry picking.
Including job losses in a recession which occurred before Obama took office and including job losses which occurred before a President's policies could possibly begin having an effect IS cherry picking. It's incredibly dishonest, but you know that already.
And since you accused my data of cherry picking
It is. Just like you always do.
And btw, according to National Bureau of Economic Research, the Great Recession Ended in June 2009. That is when the 'recovery' began. You are the one who is trying to Cherry pick statistics.
Everyone knows the effects of the recession continued, even after the recession technically ended. Saying otherwise is being blatantly dishonest. The economy is not a light switch.
Could you be any more obvious with regards to your bias? For someone who loves to claim you're neither Dem or Rep, you sure do try awfully hard to falsify and/or manipulate data in a dishonest manner to present a fictional narrative against our current President.