[stylin19a]

GWBush is President. So let's change the formula. NOW it's Bush's fault. .....

[Congressman Billybob]

As I wrote in my column two weeks ago, the "drop out" rate -- those who have left the work force because they are discouraged -- is NOT an unknown. It stands at 0.30% now. During the Clinton interregnum, it stood at 0.23%. The difference amounts to 91,000 extra unemployed but unreported people.

The indirect statistics in this article come from an economics professor on the same faculty as Paul Krugman. Need I say more?

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Please do it now.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

In the past year, the number of people who were "not in the labor force" rose by 1.4 million. They're leaving for different reasons. Some are going back to school. Some are retiring early.

All signs of a prosperous economy that allows people to improve themselves or enjoy their accumulated wealth.

At 62.1% in March, the employment-to-population ratio is hovering near its lowest level in a decade.

I wonder how this compares within a longer historical perspective and how much of that is due to mothers having the ability to stay home with their children.

[Peach]

Under Clinton, the discouraged worker drop out rate was 0.23%.

Under Bush, the discouraged worker drop out rate is 0.30%.

A distinction without a difference.

This was discussed on CNBC and in an article by the Heritage Foundation last week. I do not have a link to that article or I'd place it here.

[Too_Bad]

A growing number of people, however, effectively have stopped looking for work. When this happens, people who might otherwise be counted as unemployed are instead counted as not in the labor force, helping to hold down the unemployment rate.

In the past year, the number of people who were "not in the labor force" rose by 1.4 million. They're leaving for different reasons. Some are going back to school. Some are retiring early. Some are too discouraged to even look for a job.

Others who are no longer in the labor force are those who have become "professional investors", i.e. those who live on the income from their assets such as stocks, bonds, trust funds, annuities, real estate and other investments. These individuals are out of the defined labor force by choice.

[Always Right]

In the past year, the number of people who were "not in the labor force" rose by 1.4 million. They're leaving for different reasons. Some are going back to school. Some are retiring early. Some are too discouraged to even look for a job.

Self-employment has grown about by 1 million, so that is the #1 reason and it is not even mentioned. Can't WSJ find someone smart enough to really examine this and not leave out important factors.