idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

One major flaw in the article are the employment numbers.
Most jobs created were part time low paying. This accounts for the malaise of those who are working as their high paying secure job was traded for a low paying part time job. Also the employment rate is completely fabricated. The libs pass it to the stupid Americans as very low but they forget to mention the millions that have given up looking for work and no longer collecting unemployment. They have just gone onto welfare. If you add those who gave up hope of ever working again to that number of unemployed it is one of the worst unemployment rates ever since the great depression.
Libs will say prove it because they are complete idiots. I say prove me wrong first by proving me wrong on the numbers and percent that have just dropped out of the work force in the last 8 years.

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

You are absolutely correct Architect. Obama makes the claim that he has created 4.5 million jobs since taking office. He is technically correct, but he never mentions that the population has increased by 20 million during this same time period. This is the most basic device for fooling people with numbers. All Presidents increase jobs because of the simple population expansion. Obama actually lost 4% of the workforce when you look at the labor participation rate.

DEBJENROB Loc: DELRAY BEACH FL

I do not think you understand the labor participation rate ..... the rate includes students and RETIRED people, housewives etc. .... people who are NOT looking for jobs ....... remember .. the retirement population is growing at the fastest rate ever .... to increase the participation rate you would have to require people like me to get a job .... I don't need a job ..... so will you put a gun to my head and order me to work ....

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Hmmm.... I don't think that it is supposed to include folks 65 years of age and older. http://xplaind.com/927402/labor-force-participation-rate

I also find it odd that having looked on the BLS and other government websites a clear definition is not easily found, at least that is to say that I have never found a definitive answer from a government source.

idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

Then we had better get rid of all these entitlements so we can protect SS and MC.

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

Sorry, but the Labor Participation Rate specifically does not include students and retired people, housewives etc... people who are not looking for jobs. Here is part of the definition from Investopedia:

"The participation rate is an important metric to use when analyzing unemployment data because it reflects the number of people who are interested in participating in the work force. These people are either looking for employment or are employed, and are at or above the working age of 16. People not included in the participation rate include those who do not want to work or can't work. This includes people such as students, homemakers, incarcerated people and retirees."

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/participationrate.asp

idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

It is not a coincidence that leftwing and lie both start with L

Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

I think this guy just didn't know what he was talking about!?

idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

LOL, which brings me to coincidence and convenience both starting with C. I know, pessimistic me.

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

Agreed. Just the typical lib slant on the participation rate.

DEBJENROB Loc: DELRAY BEACH FL

actually there is .... according to BLS there has been a structural change in employment which started in 2006 .... the participation rate has been negativity effected by 3 major factors .... the retirement of baby boomers(people born in 1945-6-7) who have dropped out on the labor market in unprecedented numbers ..... women leaving the labor market to become or return to homemaking and a large increase in the number of students entering post high school education .... if you consider the factors that have caused the decrease in the labor participation rate it would appear that we have in our society a large segment of the population that have sufficient financial resources so that they do not have to work .... for some .... my father had to work into his 70's before he could retire .... I retired at 59 ..... so it seems .... and I am assuming you do not work ..... we were able to "drop out" of the labor pool and stay out .... also people look to blame Obama .... but for you information ... the average labor participation for the period 1950 to 2016 was 63% .... as of the end of the calendar year 2016... the labor participation rate was 62.7% .... not bad for a country that went through the worst financial crisis sine the depression ....

DEBJENROB Loc: DELRAY BEACH FL

I don't think you read the entire definition or checked the BLS definition ...

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Rob, could you please link the BlS information, I have searched for it more than once because there does seem to be confusion around the definition and depending on the source the definitions do seem different. BLS who is the official source on US labor statistics is the definitive source and can lay all other definitions to rest.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

How many were hired by the government to do nothing ??