HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Economy & Education » Economy (Group) » And one other bombastic l...

Thu Jul 26, 2018, 09:27 PM

And one other bombastic line of bull we'll be hearing - "Workforce Participation."

Let's check the facts - looks fairly average (on the low end) and unimpressive, doesn't it?

Nothing to brag about here!

13 replies, 1249 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply And one other bombastic line of bull we'll be hearing - "Workforce Participation." (Original post)
yallerdawg Jul 2018 OP
Crutchez_CuiBono Jul 2018 #1
yallerdawg Jul 2018 #2
Crutchez_CuiBono Jul 2018 #3
yallerdawg Jul 2018 #4
Crutchez_CuiBono Jul 2018 #5
Farmer-Rick Jul 2018 #6
yallerdawg Jul 2018 #7
progree Jul 2018 #8
yallerdawg Jul 2018 #9
progree Jul 2018 #10
yallerdawg Jul 2018 #11
progree Jul 2018 #12
progree Jul 2018 #13

Response to yallerdawg (Original post)

Thu Jul 26, 2018, 09:30 PM

1. Then there's worker PRODUCTIVITY

meaning...how many workers can we squeeze out of each individual worker....IE...your'e productive if you can do three peoples work for less than one person doing it (wage-wise) 15 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crutchez_CuiBono (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 26, 2018, 09:42 PM

2. Between you and the machines you operate now...

it's easy to be more productive - and replace a great number of human beings.

Even migrant farm workers are being replaced!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 26, 2018, 09:44 PM

3. Just sayin...The worker has to conform and compete w every corporate

capitalistic profit paradigm...and if we don't, our unemployment is somehow OUR fault, amirite?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crutchez_CuiBono (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 26, 2018, 09:54 PM

4. "More for less" is the bottom line.

Just one example of the dehumanizing aspect of capitalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 26, 2018, 09:57 PM

5. So true

and the blame for job loss is always laid in some form at the feet of people just wanting to work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 27, 2018, 09:03 AM

6. If I bounced around my tomatoes like that, I would only have tomatoe juice

What do they do to those tomatoes to make them bounce around like that and not split open?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Farmer-Rick (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 27, 2018, 09:05 AM

7. We should probably ask Monsanto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2018, 09:45 AM

8. Here's the age 25-54 LFPR (unaffected by boomer retirements)

Last edited Sun Jul 29, 2018, 02:41 PM - Edit history (3)

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300060

Series Id: LNS11300060
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate - 25-54 yrs.
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 25 to 54 years

GRAPH 1/1975 - 6/2018: (sometimes the graph disappears)
Yeah, now it starts at 1/1975 because BLS site now won't generate one beginning at 1/1976 or 1/1977
I "imgur'd" it, so it can't disappear (unless imgur.com starts acting up)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #8)

Sun Jul 29, 2018, 01:25 PM

9. I like to count everyone - we are the Party of inclusion, right?

But if you think a 1 or 2% increase over a couple years at the end of one of the most prolonged economic expansion cycles in history is something to crow about, by all means do!

Pre market action - just like Friday - indicates stock valuations declining, totally unimpressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #9)

Sun Jul 29, 2018, 01:42 PM

10. ??? Who said I was crowing about anything? Nor was I trying to impress anybody.

Just providing some added information. I thought it jived with your information -- even in what they call the prime-working age bracket (25-54), there is a 2.6% reduction from the dot-com peak, even counting the weak little upturn at the end.

"Party of inclusion". OK, but not everyone wants to -- or needs to -- work in their old age. Some of the participation rate decline is due to voluntary boomer retirements. Less than 6% of the people not in the labor force say they want a job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #10)

Sun Jul 29, 2018, 01:56 PM

11. "Unaffected by boomer retirements" was your only comment.

I had to guess at your intention.

You increased participation, referenced a shorter period, and highlighted a more noticeable increase - even though the range is still tiny.

This administration has been 'crowing' about how they will 'incentivize' more people to work - for instance, those who gave up looking, those who 'retired,' those who are on 'welfare' of some sort. Which would reflect greater particpation rates at all ages.

The Dotard says thse things have happened at his campaign rallies. Just keepin' up with his lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 29, 2018, 02:15 PM

12. Sorry, what other comment was I supposed to make about the age 25-54 demographic?

Last edited Sun Jul 29, 2018, 10:49 PM - Edit history (3)

I'm sure everyone here has read that much of the labor force participation (LFPR) decline is due to boomer retirements and the aging workforce in general. I was just trying to show that even in a younger demographic unaffected by boomer retirements, there is a sizable decline.

EDITED TO ADD THIS PARAGRAPH AND NEXT TWO AND THE GRAPH: Any financial / business media article that I've ever seen -- and this was true in the Obama era as well -- that delves even a little bit into the labor force participation rate -- talks about the boomer retirements and then looks at the age 25-54 so-called "prime working age" demographic, which doesn't have any retiring boomers. Just as I did. I didn't realize I was doing anything "wrong" or making rightie talking points.

The LFPR age 25-54 also began turning up during the Obama admin:

# October 2013 and Sept 2015: a sort of local double bottom at 80.6% -- the lowest since 1984
# Inaugural month, January 2017: 81.5% (a 0.9% gain during the Obama admin from the above local bottom)
# June 2018: 82.0% (up 0.5% since the inaugural month)

If anything, the rate of improvement has slowed down under Trump, but the graph is so ziggy and zaggy and statistically noisy that I can't make a firm statement about that.

Series Id: LNS11300060
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate - 25-54 yrs.
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 25 to 54 years

January 2013 - June 2018:


January 1975 - June 2018:



You increased participation, referenced a shorter period, and highlighted a more noticeable increase - even though the range is still tiny.


"Highlighed a more noticeable increase"

Whatever. I don't recall "highlighting a more noticeable increase". It's you who is making an enormous hoo hah about it. To me, the slight increase at the end is the equivalent to being able to get one's dick up enough to pee in the toilet instead of on one's feet.

As for the shorter period -- 1977 thru June 2018 instead of 1976 thru June 2018 -- 492 months instead of 504 months, uhh, like that changes the whole picture, right? I started at 1976 when I first posted, but when I checked later, the graph was gone, and I couldn't generate the graph at the BLS site starting at 1976. For some reason I could generate the graph at 1977. Strange, but that's what happened.

LATER, on Edit: Then the 1977 onward graph disappeared! And I couldn't generate it at the BLS site! Nor 1976 onward either! So I did 1975 and saved it to imgur and posted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 29, 2018, 02:16 PM

13. Crap, now the 1977 onward graph has disappeared! I'll have to Imgur it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread