« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The grim labor force participation rate graph.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  January 21st, 2013 at 09:30 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

This is the rock that the Obama administration’s ship of state is going to founder on:

labor-participation-rate

(Data via the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

The graph shows the labor force participation rate for the last four years. The short version is that the LFP rate shows the percentage of the population that could be working that is actually working. And as you can see, that number was remarkably stable under Bush’s term. The rate more or less stayed around 66% from calendar year 2002 to 2008… and it dropped significantly in calendar year 2009. Now, some people would argue that this is not Obama’s fault… just like they would argue that it was not Obama’s fault that the rate dropped equally significantly in calendar year 2010, and dropped equally significantly in calendar year 2011, and dropped equally significantly in calendar year 2012 (that year’s average was 63.7%). The LFP rate for December 2012 itself was 63.6%, which as CNS helpfully notes is significant, in its way: “the labor force participation rate had not been as low as 63.6 percent since 1981, the year President Ronald Reagan took over from President Jimmy Carter.”

So, basically, based on this detail and others we seem to have all signed up for a grand thought experiment: What would have happened to the USA in 1981 if Jimmy Carter had actually won reelection? The bad news is, we can’t actually opt out of said grand thought experiment. The good news is that the system really is designed to survive the occasional fumbled-fingered idiot running it. If we managed to make it through James Buchanan and Woodrow Wilson, we’ll make it through this.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: I understand that the Left absolutely hates it when it’s pointed out that we’ve been steadily losing workers to despondency for the last four years. Bless their hearts, but can you blame them for trying to push back on this inconvenient truth? – The ironic bit is, of course, that progressives should be the ones screaming the loudest at Obama to get the real unemployment rate back down. You can’t run all of those government programs without tax money; and nobody smart actually thinks that you can get it all off of the ‘rich’…

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Kyle-MI

    Never thought I would have to live through Jimmy Carter again, let alone Carter with two terms.

  • Duke

    As I look at this graph and read Moe’s commentary I can’t help but consider that under this regime disability (including veteran’s disabilities), food stamps, unemployment and other means of paying people to stay home and talk on their Obamaphone has skyrocketed. What’s even more disgusting is that the pretender in the White House is taking the money to fund this fundamental transformation of our country out of my pocket (your’s too!).

  • conservitas

    With these kind of numbers, it is more imperative than ever that we finally wean America off the twin entitlement programs of Medicare and Social Security — they are simply unsustainable. Better to channel that money back into job training and reeducation for those who are still of a productive age — or better yet, reduce the burden on business owners than they expand — than to waste it on those who are no longer productive but simply leeching off the system.

    This is going to come down to hard choices, but it is silly to continue to sustain the nonproductive whitehair and bluehair class — finally time for them to fend for themselves.

  • MoeLane

    “Moe, my compliments on a making a reasonable sounding argument…”

    Annnnd that’s when you got tossed. Lefties are not allowed passive-aggressive attacks and backhanded compliments – something that you seemed to have a history of doing. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

    Moe Lane

    PS: Assuming that Sparky here tries to play “They banned me! ME!!!!!” somewhere else, please be advised that this guy tried to tacitly handwave away the effect that the post-WWII entrance of women into the workforce had on the labor force participation rate. Frankly, you can’t really compare even 1970 to 2012 because of that. You can compare 2002 to 2012, though – of course, if you do that then it becomes clear that Barack Obama is really, really bad at job creation.

    Which we all knew.

  • checkmate2012

    Always the statesman IMHO…as if you needed to give a P.S. ’cause you don’t. But it’s a treat to read an expanded version of the reason for the bam. You’re too kind Moe and I am being sincere, not sarcastic.

  • OhioHistorian

    This curve is jaw-dropping, especially its linearity; it shows now evidence of it abating. If we look at another curve that is linear like that, it is the delta between birth rate in 1946-1948. This is the one thing that has had an effect that I would wonder about its impact. The Baby Boomers started turning 65 in 2011; what is the impact on this curve of that cohort of our population?

    About 3.4 million people were born in 1946, 3.6 million in 1947 and 3.8 million in 1947 3.6 million in 1948 http://www.bbhq.com/bomrstat.htm. This is over 10 million people (ignoring deaths and public sector workers) going onto Social Security (at least coming of age) in 2011-2013. Question is, how much of this line is the graying of the population and how much is due to the abysmal policies of Dear Leader (oh, excuse me liberals; I meant President Obama, may peace be upon him).

    Of course, if you look at the 21-30 year olds that are unemployed, they have not entered the work force, which means that we are not seeing this curve taper off due to new employment; THAT is definitely because of the easy welfare policies of this President as well as his Dodd-Frank bill and other policies that have stymied growth.

  • spinoneone

    The problem with “cutting” SSI/Medicare is that everyone over the age of 50 was told that they were “buying” an insurance policy that would be there for them in their retirement years. No one talked much about SSI/Disability or Medicaide. So, in fact, most people over the age of 50 don’t see SSI/Medicare as an entitlement but rather as a return on their investment. Of course, Congress long ago spent all the money workers deposited in their “insurance” accounts, so the costs have to be paid from general funds

  • aeaeren

    Expanding on a thought. How will history judge Obama? Some think that killing Bin Laden* will be one of those events that will propel him into the history and make him a great President, or maybe it will be the Financial Crisis or even ObamaCare or his Green Energy agenda ect. The point is none of these events will make him a Lincoln or FDR, he will be a foot note to these events as they were not events large enough to be more then regular history. The only accomplishment that might been more then a footnote is he is the First Black President.

    Obama is trying hard to make a legacy so he isn’t just another 30 second coverage in some history class. The problem is he might accomplish this goal of being more then a 30 second coverage but end up being remember like Nero or Commodus.

    *P.S. Do you remember where you were when you heard Bin Laden was dead? I can remember EXACTLY where I was when the towers fell just like it just happened. When I heard Bin Laden was dead I thought about time and went on with my business. It was expected we would eventually get him and it just wasn’t that big of a deal as the Liberals think it was.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    >>>> I assume you’re being facetious?

    That was nice of you (in a snotty, condescending sort of a way that seems the only way in which you are even capable of remaining civil).
    As for you being confused, tattoo that to your forehead. It will save you having to say that anytime someone says anything that contradicts one of your opinions which probably had already occified by the time you reached the age of 15.

  • grumpyKoz

    part Regulation and Ideals.
    Part Congress. This is NOT all the President’s fault. We can lay much of that blame on the sitting Republicans who have not taken even one step to the protections of Constitutional Sanity.

    On a lighter note, the President will now have to claim that he has inherited the WORST ECONOMY ever from the previous president. Unfortunately for him is that it was himself.

  • grumpyKoz

    I understand that argument. I have a lot of friends and family that believe it.
    BUT, it was never intended to be a social welfare or investment program. It was designed to TAKE from those that have, and to be spent by Government as it sees fit.

    BTW, I purchased stock of G.M. just before The Government take over. They tossed my investment to the wind. That money was taken from me without even a ‘thank you’.
    Why, on Earth, would we believe that S.S. or any of the other programmed THEFT, would be any different?