Skip to comments.Where have all the people gone? (vanity)
Posted on 01/15/2012 8:51:40 AM PST by FreeAtlanta
Data extracted on: January 15, 2012 (11:22:34 AM)
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Series Id: LNS11000000
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
The only way that can happen is if 10s of millions of people left our country and have not been replaced, or there was a massive increase in deaths, or the Obama government is lying through their teeth.
Oh, I forgot alien abductions.
My vote is Obama and his pathetic lefty administration are lying.
Haven’t you heard, today’s youngsters are moving into the basement in their parent’s or grandparent’s home. They have not left, they are just in hiding hacking into computers and promoting conspiracies.
The ‘labor force’ does not consist of all people between 16 and 65. Many of them are students, housewives, retired, etc.
The BLS definition of the labor force is those people who either have a job or business, or have taken action during the past 4 weeks to find a job or start a business. This is in some ways a judgment call, but there really is no better way anyone can think of to exclude people who for various reasons are not interested in earning money right now.
It is still very odd that the numbers have gone flat for the first extended (more than a year) time in 60 years.
Obama’s gang are playing with numbers. Jimmy Carter’s team of commie peanuts didn’t even get away with this, much less even try it.
Now that you mention it.
No, actually I think people are falling victim to the zombie apocalypse of which Obama is the tip of the spear.
I just did a cutout of 'ol Rango there and just wanted to see how it looked on a webpage. And one of your threads is the perfect place to test dumb things. teehee
Hey, I resemble that remark...
What is mucho oddiemente mas is that the major candidates and the media have not broadcast this data that clearly shows a grotesque lie, since Year Zero Obama, in the unemployment numbers.
I'm happy to assume government skullduggery in the meantime.
Here is the graph extended back to pre-Carter
Amazing. I have seen many cases of the Government lying and fudging numbers, but never this transparent.
Same thing probably happened during the last depression. Nothing unsual considering the economy.
It is. They think they've won...
Obviously, people are avoiding entering the labor force or dropping out of the labor force right now because jobs are scarce. People who don’t think they’ll find a job either don’t look or give up looking.
Some retire, some go back to school, some become housewives, some are living with relatives. You don’t need much to get by if your needs are simple.
Unless Bill Clinton was the only person having sex in the 1990’s, it doesn’t make sense that our population has suddenly stopped growing.
Or, as Rosie O'Donnell might put it, "I resent that insemination"...
That would certainly explain it. Big drop in 2009 with little recovery. I had thought that the labor force was the potential number of workers while the participation rate defined who was employed or seeking work. Given the numbers, your explanation sounds sensible.
rather than a “Hockey Stick” Graph, that looks like a golf club. Appropriate since we have a putts (sic) for a POtuS.
Unfortunately, this particular bls.gov data set only goes back to 1948. Still, it shows no crazy lying chicanery like what the lefties are trying to pull starting in 2008.
The data says "Civilian labor force" so, call me a moron, but to me that means all people who can work. BTW, this graph is in thousands, so basically, b>the missing population - extrapolating the graph - is about 30 million people.
Many have become collectors..they are collecting a gmint check.
When they are not busy collecting a gmint check they are in the sign making business...as in, “will work for food” to help suppliment their “free” income.
Don’t be surprized when the MSM reports the economy “unexectentedly crashed overnight” because its been 3+ years in the making.
Oddly enough, this number is roughly the same as the number of illegal aliens that were said to be in this country at the start of the Obama regime...
Excellent graph. I just researched the same thing last week and found they were excluding people for reasons unknown.
About 2 million people each year turn 18, yet, the number of working age people declined under Obama’s administration. This is an outright lie.
My only conclusion if these numbers were right is that the Baby Boomer population is retiring and they are a huge part of the population. However, 10,000 baby boomers have a birthday each day, so that is 3.65 million peope leaving the workforce each year, but many baby boomers are still working well past 68 to make ends meet.
So, we still have a major gaps in the numbers. If baby boomers are working then there are more unemployed than is being counted.
I am expecting all these missing people to be added back in if Obama looses. They might trickle them in, or add them all at the same time about a 3 years into the new administration.
I really hate dishonest people. I know hate is a strong word and I shouldn’t hate people, but dishonesty really gets under my skin.
If you haven’t seen i, info you might be interested in:
Without all the intricate details that would put most of the American population to sleep, our candidates need to be showing this graph and asking the American population, “What is Obama doing with the missing people?” Using a TV ad and some simple graphics showing the extrapolation, this should be a nice big dagger to the heart.
People have or are loosing trust in this “Transparent” administration. Graphs like this will add to the defeat by a thousand cuts.
This is why I supported the “Birther” stuff. It showed the incredible dishonesty and dubiousness of Obama.
You are right about the lie in using this as a baseline in UE. Really, they should use another means to get at that, as many of the people who are gone are truly unemployed.
OK- the earliest I can easily find are for 1940 figures of Civilian Labor Force
(I think there are ealier figures, perhaps the Federal Reserve of St Louis has them - they have MANY older docs)
OK- I WAS WRONG — In the Great Depression, the Total Civilian Labor Force INCREASED (which is amazing, considering the population wasn’t growing like before or after)... Here is the PDF: p24 of 134
It is several (9.3 MB) of data - 134 pages, for anyone interested.
Can someone verify for me if ANY of the images from the BLS website are displaying on their browsers? Neither my Firefox and Chrome browsers show any of the images.
1st column YEAR
2nd column TOTAL LABOR FORCE (in thousands);
3rd column TOTAL CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE (in thousands)
1929 49,440 49,180
1930 50,080 49,820
1931 50,680 50,420
1932 51,250 51,000
1933 51,840 51,590
1934 52,490 52,230
1935 53,140 52,870
1936 53,740 53,440
1937 54,320 54,000
1938 54,950 54,610
1939 55,600 55,230
1940 56,180 55,640
1941 57,530 55,910
p24 of 134 fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/publications/employment/1960s/empl_051966.pdf
Thank you for the detailed explanation. It’s a shame you can’t get on Limbaugh — he gets this labor force/unemployment thing all screwed up.
So, the trend even through the Great Depression was still an increase in labor force.
What in the name of the end of the world are we going through now? Is it actually worse than the great depression, but is being artificially hidden?
I am more concerned now than I was before I saw your numbers.
They are not showing up for me, either.
Looking at the image URLs, it looks like they might be dynamically generated and time out/disappear after a time.
FreeAtlanta, it looks like you need to capture the images and host them yourself for them to be permanent.
Thanks for the validation on that.
What we are going through...
It’s called ask an actuarial about a math formula and you will always get the response...what answer do you want it to be?
Those sneaky bastages.
I thought it added more credibility if I linked to their lying data directly. I will rerun the graphs and post.
I hope this helps. Thanks, FreeAtlanta
What labeling should the Y-axis have?
It is thousands.
You can get this graph and a lot of other data at this link
After you check the data you want and submit, a page comes up that has a table. There is a check box at the top that will graph it for you. Click it and resubmit.
I hope you are right, and you probably are, that Obama and his minions are playing games with the numbers. While I have never seen (anecdotal) an environment like this since perhaps 1982, it IS different in that people get benefits MUCH longer than then, and there are more benefits. Also, I can’t tell you how many people I know who’ve been on disability for decades, with seemingly nothing physical wrong with them. I believe some of the unemployed are getting disability, when they might not have in the past.
I think one major difference between now and the GD, is then, we had a future. The family was intact, people believed in more than themselves, the govt was smaller AND we had WWII to look forward to /half wry comment
We were also a creditor nation then. Now, we are stealing from the future so pols can get re-elected. In many ways, while we may not be worse off NOW, I think our future could be pretty bleak.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.