I usually ignore the "non-participation" side of those figures. The civilian labor force in the U.S. is defined far too broadly -- because it is based only on a minimum age and factors such as imprisonment and institutionalization.
The biggest contributor to the declining labor force participation rate is RETIREMENT.
Someone who is 85 years old, doesn't live in a nursing home, and has been retired for 20+ years is considered a "non-working labor force participant" -- which is ludicrous.
Not as I find it, in their own site's info. Oner reads....
Under "Characteristics", "Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons...."
Source: https://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm
"While studying employment, another important figure to determine is the labor force participation rate. Here, we compare the size of the labor force with the number of people that could potentially be a part of the labor force. It is important to note that we do not include people under the age of 16 in this figure. In addition, students, retirees, the disabled, homemakers, and the voluntarily idle are not counted in the labor force. The labor force as the percentage of the total population over the minimum working age is called labor force participation rate."
Source: https://www.econport.org/content/handbook/Unemployment/Define.html
My wife just turned 65. I'm 8 days from 67. My wife is actively processing paperwork to retire. We're currently debt free and have put aside resources for retirement. My reservation is some looming costs. We probably need a new roof based on the $hit$how in the kitchen last night when a flash flood generating downpour generated a rain storm over the kitchen sink. Still, it would be nice to leave the 55 to 80 hour weeks in the rear view mirror. It will result in a huge decrease in income. We'll be buying less and paying fewer taxes.