Iirc, the last time we had this chat I pointed out that the country is still feeding everyone and exporting food. Perhaps the belief that the LFPR "should" be higher needs to be examined in light of productivity growth.
naw.. in that last thread you said the participation rate is dropping because the boomers are retiring early. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...2956&highlight=participation+rate#post3742956
What I actually said was, "That some boomers are staying in the labor market, or even that some are returning, does not necessarily mean that on net there are not more boomers leaving it." My use of "does not necessarily mean" indicates I was presenting a logic argument, logic which holds true whatever is happening with the boomer population. At any rate, 64 is the cut off for the LFPR.
That bit of logic doesn't mean you are correct. If people over the retirement age are returning to work, that doesn't bode well for your argument that people who can't even receive retirement benefits, are retiring early. I would like to see some evidence to support your statement.
I didn't make that argument, though. I made a logical assertion, that B does not necessarily follow A. B very well might follow A, but not necessarily.
Dude, it seems to me you were arguing early boomer retirement as the reason for the slide in the participation rate. This was my post: and you quoting me:
There are millions of unemployed who aren't even counted. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...why-the-country-is-unhappy-under-obama?page=2 If you are on disability, you are not considered to be in the labor force either. As of April, we have added 5.5 million people to the disability rolls since the beginning of 2009, several million above the previous trend. There are now roughly 9 million people on disability. In 1992, there was one person on disability for every 35 workers. It is now about one for every 16 workers. It is hard to believe that so many people have become disabled; disability has literally become another fallback position for people out of work. If disability had stayed at the pre-recession growth rate, unemployment would be at least one percentage point higher, leading to a true unemployment rate much closer to 10 percent and perhaps significantly more.
All that's a wash in terms of today's report, ie. it would also be true if the report was negative. Today's report is good news. Period.