Don't get buffaloed by right-wing talking points! We do NOT have 93 million people "unemployed" or "long term unemployed". We only have 93 million people "not working" if you insist that there is something wrong with people retiring, staying in school, or staying home with kids.
There is a right-wing talking point out there, a talking point unfortunately picked up by some liberals and progressives, that there are "93 million people out there who are either 'not working' or 'unemployed' ".
I've talked about this many times. I've included pie charts; I've quoted the Bureau of Labor Statistics (the BLS) and I've tried to explain the difference between "unemployed", "not working", and "not in the labor force". Unfortunately, it seems as though there are people who simply can't understand these distinctions. My pie chart below is based primarily on two Bureau of Labor Statistics charts. The first is the breakdown of people not in the labor force HERE; the second is the breakdown of young people 16-24 by employment and education status HERE.
Here is an updated pie chart as of April 2015:
I've talked about this many times. I've included pie charts; I've quoted the Bureau of Labor Statistics (the BLS) and I've tried to explain the difference between "unemployed", "not working", and "not in the labor force". Unfortunately, it seems as though there are people who simply can't understand these distinctions. My pie chart below is based primarily on two Bureau of Labor Statistics charts. The first is the breakdown of people not in the labor force HERE; the second is the breakdown of young people 16-24 by employment and education status HERE.
Here is an updated pie chart as of April 2015:
S
I last wrote an article about this issue HERE back in January 2015. I explained, perhaps in way too much detail, who those 93 million are and why they are NOT the same as people who are the "long-term unemployed" or "not working".
My current concerns apply to a person who commented on the post I mentioned above, the post from January 2015. The person brought up many more points than just the business about the "93 million people unemployed or not working", but I'm only addressing that comment because that's the one I know the best.
I will say that if all of the assertions of the person commenting are correct (which they are NOT), we should all be supporting REPUBLICANS because it would be clear that Democratic economic policies haven't done a darned thing. I don't understand how people who believe as this commenter does can consider themselves liberals or progressives.
I have explained and explained who those 93 million people are and why they "aren't working". I don't know what more I can say, but I will summarize:
- Being "not in the labor force" is NOT the same as being "unemployed". And being "unemployed" or "not in the labor force" is NOT the same as "not working".
- If you need a job, one would think you would be looking for work. If you don't have a job and you are looking for work, you are "UNEMPLOYED".
- If you aren't working AND you aren't looking for work, AND you are at least 16 AND you aren't in an institution or the military, then you are NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE and you are part of the 93 million on the pie chart.
- There are some people who are not working AND not looking for work who nevertheless report themselves as "wanting a job". But until they get out there and look for work, just one effort a month, they are STILL considered "NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE".
- The percent of people not in the labor force who say they "want a job" is small; only about 2-3%.
- The overwhelming majority of people NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE are people 55+ years of age and they say they do NOT want a job. There are 50,166,000 of those people. Think RETIREMENT!
- Other groups of people who are NOT IN THE LABOR FORCE are people who are disabled but living at home, students in high school or college as long as they are 16, and people staying home with children.
- Do we really think this would be a better country if we forced people to work who were retired or disabled? If we forced kids to quit school at 16 and work? If we refused to let parents stay home with their kids if they want to and have the resources to do so?
- "But people are so miserable they are dropping out of the labor force in misery and despair! That's why there are so many people out there who are 'not working' " Uh, no. In April 2015, for every 1 unemployed person who "dropped OUT" of the labor force for any reason, 3.1 people dropped INTO the labor force and either started working or started looking for work.
How are the people "not in the labor force" living and paying their bills?
Based on the demographics of the people "not in the labor force", we know that most of them are retired. They are surviving on pensions, assets, Social Security benefits, perhaps part-time jobs, and some of them probably still have a working spouse.
The next largest piece of the pie are students; if they are in high school or college, they are probably being supported by their parents.
People from 24 to 54 who are not working are probably mostly people home with children. They are probably being supported by the working spouse.
But aren't there people who are homeless or who have no means of support?
Are there some people "not in the labor force" who have no means of support? Yes, there probably are. There are people who are homeless, people on the brink of losing their homes. The numbers of homeless people have declined over the past five years, but there are still many homeless people. But not 93 million. The number of homeless people in January 2014, over a year ago, was 578,000. About ten years ago, the number of homeless people was about 800,000. We've made progress, but we still have quite a ways to go.
In the meantime, just remember that we do NOT have 93 million people out there with no means of support or 93 million people out there "sponging" off of others.
Based on the demographics of the people "not in the labor force", we know that most of them are retired. They are surviving on pensions, assets, Social Security benefits, perhaps part-time jobs, and some of them probably still have a working spouse.
The next largest piece of the pie are students; if they are in high school or college, they are probably being supported by their parents.
People from 24 to 54 who are not working are probably mostly people home with children. They are probably being supported by the working spouse.
But aren't there people who are homeless or who have no means of support?
Are there some people "not in the labor force" who have no means of support? Yes, there probably are. There are people who are homeless, people on the brink of losing their homes. The numbers of homeless people have declined over the past five years, but there are still many homeless people. But not 93 million. The number of homeless people in January 2014, over a year ago, was 578,000. About ten years ago, the number of homeless people was about 800,000. We've made progress, but we still have quite a ways to go.
In the meantime, just remember that we do NOT have 93 million people out there with no means of support or 93 million people out there "sponging" off of others.
*************************************
July 2017 details HERE.
August 2017 reports will be released
Friday, September 1, 2017.
August 2017 reports will be released
Friday, September 1, 2017.
**************************************
There are 264 million people 18-64 years old and about 88 million of them are long term unemployed. I am not counting those retired unless they retired early. Some of us are living off of our spouse. My wife had two full time jobs for the last 15 years or so and just retired from one of them. That maybe how long-term unemployed are living.
ReplyDeleteWere some of those people forced to retire but wanted to work, that you mention? Many of us cannot afford to retire. Any the numbers I cite are for those 18-64 year old.
There are over 6 million jobs lost in the last Recession that have not come back and 3 million of those were college jobs.
Here is a fact: There are over 12 million unemployed (as they are receiving unemployment checks) and only 6 million open jobs. That is a 2:1 ratio or 2 people for every job. You know that 12 1/2 million were the number of unemployed at the height of the Great Depression 1931-32. We've had this many unemployed probably for about 10 years.
Here is another fact that while the poverty rate has dropped some, the sheer number of people in poverty is more now than it was in the mid-1960s when LBJ declared a War on Poverty.
When the jobs numbers come out they are talking about new open jobs, not necessarily filled. But they never mention the number of people who lost their benefits and are now part of that 88 million long-term unemployed and is one reason why the 'official' unemployment rate has been dropping.
I don't suppose you have any sources for any of your numbers, do you? Please come back and add a few sources otherwise I will delete your comment. It is absolutely false and I refuse to allow any "fake news" on my site.
DeleteBut here are a few of your false numbers: 1. You claim that there are 12 million people receiving unemployment checks. There are 1.9 million people receiving unemployment checks.
2. We do not count the unemployed by who is or who is not receiving unemployment checks. There is no connection between the two reports. You don't have to receive an unemployment check to be considered unemployed. People entering, reentering the job market, people who quit their last job are all counted as unemployed and none of them are receiving unemployment checks.
About 50 million people are in poverty and another about 50 million on welfare, just above the poverty line. Many of the jobs that are filled are so poor paying that both spouses need to work. So, it not just the quantity of jobs but the quality too. But the combination of one poor paying jobs and food stamps a number of people can live.
ReplyDeleteThe jobs are not where the people are such as rural America and the inner-city of large cities.
Inflation-adjusted wages started to go up again during the last years of the Obama administration. Unfortunately, the average inflation-adjusted wage is only where it was back in 1979 before the Reagan/Bush I years. The peak of inflation-adjusted wages was back in the early 1970's.
DeleteI don't know what your definition of "welfare" is as there are many programs that help those in need. If you are talking food stamps, there are about 41,500,000 people getting food stamps in May 2017, but that includes children, the elderly, the disabled, and the working poor. That is the lowest number in many years, and the number does keep dropping.
Delete