The total U.S. population age 16 and over is at least 243 million.
Subtracting the nearly 156 million Americans in the labor force in June
2013 -- that is, those who were either working or looking for work --
leaves 87 million Americans, which is close to 90 million.
However, the 90 million number is padded, since this number includes a
lot of Americans who wouldn’t be expected to be working. Specifically:
• People age 16 to 17, who likely are in high school: 9 million
• People who are enrolled in either two- or four-year colleges: 21 million
• People age 65 and older, who have reached retirement age: 40 million people
That means 20 million people are of normal working age, not in
college and not working. That’s less than one-quarter the amount
repeatedly cited in the blogosphere.
So the 90 million number is exaggerated. Even so, the idea that fewer
people are joining the workforce is something that worries economists.
All things being equal, economists like to see more people working
because it helps economic growth (though not at the expense of dropping
out of school, which can limit future employment opportunities and
earnings potential).
To gauge these trends, economists can calculate the labor force
participation rate, which is the percentage of the population that is
either working or looking for work, and they can calculate the
employment to population ratio, which is the percentage of the
16-and-over population that is currently employed. Both statistics
generally track each other, but not in lockstep.
The total U.S. population age 16 and over is at least 243 million.
Subtracting the nearly 156 million Americans in the labor force in June
2013 -- that is, those who were either working or looking for work --
leaves 87 million Americans, which is close to 90 million.
However, the 90 million number is padded, since this number includes a
lot of Americans who wouldn’t be expected to be working. Specifically:
• People age 16 to 17, who likely are in high school: 9 million
• People who are enrolled in either two- or four-year colleges: 21 million
• People age 65 and older, who have reached retirement age: 40 million people
That means 20 million people are of normal working age, not in
college and not working. That’s less than one-quarter the amount
repeatedly cited in the blogosphere.
So the 90 million number is exaggerated. Even so, the idea that fewer
people are joining the workforce is something that worries economists.
All things being equal, economists like to see more people working
because it helps economic growth (though not at the expense of dropping
out of school, which can limit future employment opportunities and
earnings potential).
To gauge these trends, economists can calculate the labor force
participation rate, which is the percentage of the population that is
either working or looking for work, and they can calculate the
employment to population ratio, which is the percentage of the
16-and-over population that is currently employed. Both statistics
generally track each other, but not in lockstep.
ok... so you're saying the workforce is 20 million. according to the us census there are 7.2 million teachers in the united states. so you're telling me that 1/3 of our workforce are teachers?
ok... so you're saying the workforce is 20 million. according to the us census there are 7.2 million teachers in the united states. so you're telling me that 1/3 of our workforce are teachers?
loggers and pundits have said that 90 million Americans either aren’t working or aren’t looking for work. That’s a real number, but it includes high schoolers, college students and retirement-age Americans, leaving perhaps 20 million a better approximation.
Right because nobody, actually zero people, in college or over the age of 65 are looking for work.
That's a "better approximation" when you're left wing like the people at Politifact.
0
loggers and pundits have said that 90 million Americans either aren’t working or aren’t looking for work. That’s a real number, but it includes high schoolers, college students and retirement-age Americans, leaving perhaps 20 million a better approximation.
Right because nobody, actually zero people, in college or over the age of 65 are looking for work.
That's a "better approximation" when you're left wing like the people at Politifact.
loggers and pundits have said that 90 million Americans either aren’t working or aren’t looking for work. That’s a real number, but it includes high schoolers, college students and retirement-age Americans, leaving perhaps 20 million a better approximation.
Right because nobody, actually zero people, in college or over the age of 65 are looking for work.
That's a "better approximation" when you're left wing like the people at Politifact.
You sound like you're going bananas....
And yet you provide 0 evidence to refute Politifact's claims..
0 Indeed it's funny!
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
loggers and pundits have said that 90 million Americans either aren’t working or aren’t looking for work. That’s a real number, but it includes high schoolers, college students and retirement-age Americans, leaving perhaps 20 million a better approximation.
Right because nobody, actually zero people, in college or over the age of 65 are looking for work.
That's a "better approximation" when you're left wing like the people at Politifact.
You sound like you're going bananas....
And yet you provide 0 evidence to refute Politifact's claims..
Bloggers and pundits have said that 90 million Americans either aren’t
working or aren’t looking for work. That’s a real number, but it
includes high schoolers, college students and retirement-age Americans,
leaving perhaps 20 million a better approximation. We rate the claim
Mostly False.
0
Bloggers and pundits have said that 90 million Americans either aren’t
working or aren’t looking for work. That’s a real number, but it
includes high schoolers, college students and retirement-age Americans,
leaving perhaps 20 million a better approximation. We rate the claim
Mostly False.
The unemployment rate stands at 7.6%. That doesn't include those who have stopped looking for work. Not a bright picture regardless of what is said in the blogosphere. Who believes shit reported by most bloggers anyways
0
The unemployment rate stands at 7.6%. That doesn't include those who have stopped looking for work. Not a bright picture regardless of what is said in the blogosphere. Who believes shit reported by most bloggers anyways
If only 20 million are unemployed (some of which aren't looking for work), and since the demographics you provided are apparently all not looking for work.
I think you have just solved the unemployment problem.
Somebody call Barry and tell him he fixed it.
It actually wouldn't surprise me if we see this emerge as Clinton-surplus-esque talking point.
If you cook the numbers enough. we could be below 1% unemployment.
0
If only 20 million are unemployed (some of which aren't looking for work), and since the demographics you provided are apparently all not looking for work.
I think you have just solved the unemployment problem.
Somebody call Barry and tell him he fixed it.
It actually wouldn't surprise me if we see this emerge as Clinton-surplus-esque talking point.
If you cook the numbers enough. we could be below 1% unemployment.
Stiln may be suggesting that unemployment rate might not be as bad as some believe. According to U.S. labor department, current 7.4% unemployment rate is the lowest in 4-5 years. This is close to 5-6% range that economists consider acceptable for full employment and inflation control of economy.
0
Stiln may be suggesting that unemployment rate might not be as bad as some believe. According to U.S. labor department, current 7.4% unemployment rate is the lowest in 4-5 years. This is close to 5-6% range that economists consider acceptable for full employment and inflation control of economy.
Stiln may be suggesting that unemployment rate might not be as bad as some believe. According to U.S. labor department, current 7.4% unemployment rate is the lowest in 4-5 years. This is close to 5-6% range that economists consider acceptable for full employment and inflation control of economy.
Huh?
7.4 is close to the 5-6% range?
7.4 is an added 1.4 to 2.4% ,
Or close to an extra 25%
that's pretty significant
0
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
Stiln may be suggesting that unemployment rate might not be as bad as some believe. According to U.S. labor department, current 7.4% unemployment rate is the lowest in 4-5 years. This is close to 5-6% range that economists consider acceptable for full employment and inflation control of economy.
Unemployment declined from 7.6 percent in June because more Americans found jobs, and others stopped looking and were no longer counted as unemployed. Still, Friday's report from the Labor Department pointed to a less-than-robust job market. It suggested that the economy's subpar growth and modest consumer spending are making many businesses cautious about hiring. The government said employers added a combined 26,000 fewer jobs in May and June than it previously estimated. Americans worked fewer hours in July, and their average pay dipped. And many of the jobs employers added last month were for lower-paying work at stores, bars and restaurants
0
Unemployment declined from 7.6 percent in June because more Americans found jobs, and others stopped looking and were no longer counted as unemployed. Still, Friday's report from the Labor Department pointed to a less-than-robust job market. It suggested that the economy's subpar growth and modest consumer spending are making many businesses cautious about hiring. The government said employers added a combined 26,000 fewer jobs in May and June than it previously estimated. Americans worked fewer hours in July, and their average pay dipped. And many of the jobs employers added last month were for lower-paying work at stores, bars and restaurants
On the positive side, the difference between 5% and 7.4% is 2.4%. Looking at the big picture, 92.6% employment rate only has to rise by 2.5% to reach ideal 95%. Higher than 95% would be inflationary.
0
On the positive side, the difference between 5% and 7.4% is 2.4%. Looking at the big picture, 92.6% employment rate only has to rise by 2.5% to reach ideal 95%. Higher than 95% would be inflationary.
yeah I agree it was a stretch... but far better then double digits...
do you disagree with what he said about the numbers being the lowest in 4-5 years?
If the numbers were legit after Bush & now, yes
The one thing I'm unclear of though is this including govt jobs or just private sector.
Also still confused when unemployment "drops" when at some point those that no longer collect benefits still are unemployed but are no longer counted as unemployed
0
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
yeah I agree it was a stretch... but far better then double digits...
do you disagree with what he said about the numbers being the lowest in 4-5 years?
If the numbers were legit after Bush & now, yes
The one thing I'm unclear of though is this including govt jobs or just private sector.
Also still confused when unemployment "drops" when at some point those that no longer collect benefits still are unemployed but are no longer counted as unemployed
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.