Labor force participation rate as high as ever for prime age workers

[SC Maintenance]

Figured I would post this here so next time someone says "no one wants to work anymore" I can link to it.

Labor force participation rate for prime age workers - 25 to 54. This is the demographic that really matters - too old for college, too young to retire - generally. Mostly considered the key age for labor force. Also the key age for consumption - the largest driver of the economy.

Hasn't been anywhere near this high since mid 1990's - when the silent generation was still working. Its very, very close to peak.

So next time someone tells you no one wants to work anymore, just refer them here.

Reference: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060

 

[tblt44]

Not seeing this in the real world

 

[Zee09]

In today's economy it makes perfect sense. Everybody and their brothers and kids and dogs have to work to survive.
Even the chronically lazy had to unearth themselves...

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Below is U6. This is the unemployment rate which is a combination of unemployed plus those who have PT jobs for "economic reasons". As you can see it's extremely. This is from 1994 - present. Businesses are having a hard time hiring because the supply of labor is very tight. Take note how it bottoms out prior to every recession.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Not seeing this in the real world

So the federal reserve doesn't track data in the real world?

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Not seeing this in the real world

Yeah, especially when just 3 years ago this time, we were being told it was the LOWEST in recorded history and that the number was in the low 60s %, and had slowly declined since about the end of WWII. I’ll spend some time digging today, since that would be a beautiful illustration of the bias of legacy media!

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Businesses are having a hard time hiring because the supply of labor is very tight.

If labor was as tight as you’re being led to believe, money would not be evaporating from pockets at a rate never seen in history. I think it was a WSJ article that was referenced- in the past 16 months not only has nearly $5T been erased from private savings accounts ($5.7T accumulated just post-stimulus checks) down to about $825M total savings. Personal debt has also reached new heights. I’ll see if I can find the reference.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Yeah, especially when just 3 years ago this time, we were being told it was the LOWEST in recorded history and that the number was in the low 60s %, and had slowly declined since about the end of WWII. I’ll spend some time digging today, since that would be a beautiful illustration of the bias of legacy media!

What your referring to is media not fact - ie story telling - bias - either way for or against. It doesn't matter what they say. The chart I posted is data. Its published in the public domain for the world to scrutinize - the source data can be found at the same site - follow the link.

Any story you can find that contrary to the above is simply narrative.

If labor was as tight as you’re being led to believe, money would not be evaporating from pockets at a rate never seen in history. I think it was a WSJ article that was referenced- in the past 16 months not only has nearly $5T been erased from private savings accounts ($5.7T accumulated just post-stimulus checks) down to about $825M total savings. Personal debt has also reached new heights. I’ll see if I can find the reference.

Savings is moving from the bottom 50% to the top 5%. Inflations hurts more the further down the income scale you are. If your in the bottom 25% you spend 100% of your income on inflating neccesities. If your in the top 25% you invest in real estate, bonds and bitcoin.

The federal reserve also posts savings rates and personal debt. You can find it all in one place - again data you can access and peer review to your hearts content. Forget the narratives of the Wal Street Journal or Time or Facebook. Just go to the source and educate yourself. Thats my whole point - don't believe the talking heads.

savings rate: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT Personal savings rates are historically low, but were much lower from 2005 to 2008. Hmm, what happened in 2008 - anyone remember

Debt service payments are higher than a year ago but still extremely low by historical standards

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

If labor was as tight as you’re being led to believe, money would not be evaporating from pockets at a rate never seen in history. I think it was a WSJ article that was referenced- in the past 16 months not only has nearly $5T been erased from private savings accounts ($5.7T accumulated just post-stimulus checks) down to about $825M total savings. Personal debt has also reached new heights. I’ll see if I can find the reference.

People who are working are no less likely to overspend or have incomes which are unable to keep up with inflation.

 

[Lapham3]

Increases in population naturally lends itself to more workers.

 

[jeepman3071]

Typical characteristics I see from companies claiming nobody wants to work:
-starting pay is below market value
-poor health benefits
-poor retirement benefits
-toxic work environment
-sign-on bonuses
-poor management

 

[jeepman3071]

People who are working are no less likely to overspend or have incomes which are unable to keep up with inflation.

Unemployment is low, but wages have not kept up with inflation for decades now.

 

[Pew]

Typical characteristics I see from companies claiming nobody wants to work:
-starting pay is below market value
-poor health benefits
-poor retirement benefits
-toxic work environment
-sign-on bonuses
-poor management

That is what I'm seeing as well, with poor management and toxic work environment coming in at #1. A few of the c-level execs here claim the same thing about people not wanting to work when it is themselves that is driving the company straight into the ground. Nobody wants to work for a company whose CEO says "it's my company, I can do whatever I want."

 

[SC Maintenance]

Unemployment is low, but wages have not kept up with inflation for decades now.

Not to mention employers got to collect $26,000 per employee a year from the start of the pandemic until the end of 2021 via the employee retention credit plus the American Rescue plan, and they still underpaid.

The Budgetary Effects of the Employee Retention Tax Credit During the Coronavirus Pandemic

CBO provides additional information about the budgetary effects of the employee retention tax credit.

www.cbo.gov

 

[jeepman3071]

That is what I'm seeing as well, with poor management and toxic work environment coming in at #1. A few of the c-level execs here claim the same thing about people not wanting to work when it is themselves that is driving the company straight into the ground. Nobody wants to work for a company whose CEO says "it's my company, I can do whatever I want."

Yep, at my last company management was having difficulty hiring entry level positions. The issue was they had a bad environment, and starting pay was close to half of the current market. I left, a bunch of other employees left, and to this day I think they are still doing damage control trying to keep people on.

 

[jeepman3071]

Not to mention employers got to collect $26,000 per employee a year from the start of the pandemic until the end of 2021 via the employee retention credit plus the American Rescue plan, and they still underpaid.

The Budgetary Effects of the Employee Retention Tax Credit During the Coronavirus Pandemic

CBO provides additional information about the budgetary effects of the employee retention tax credit.

www.cbo.gov

During the pandemic many employers showed their true greedy colors. I work in the tech field, and my previous company raked in the money during the pandemic while claiming we were all just lucky to have a job, very minimal raises especially for the entry level folks, while all of us were working extra hours.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

What your referring to is media not fact - ie story telling - bias - either way for or against. It doesn't matter what they say. The chart I posted is data. Its published in the public domain for the world to scrutinize - the source data can be found at the same site - follow the link.

Any story you can find that contrary to the above is simply narrative.

Actually, this wasn’t narrative, that’s why I said I was going to look for it. The chart I saw (this was 2+ years ago IIRC) was Labor Dept chart. Not trying to argue “with you”… just saying that it’s hard to believe anything they tell us when 1. The numbers vary widely; 2. The reality we see doesn’t appear to match the numbers; 3. It’s curious how various departments all under the same umbrella somehow come up with different results for the same question.

Hopefully I can find that chart… I know I’m not “misremembering” because seeing that low of a participation was a gut punch.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

People who are working are no less likely to overspend or have incomes which are unable to keep up with inflation.

I got ahead of myself and left out some of the point I was trying to make. If labor was really that tight, we would see average pay rising much faster, along with performance and longevity bonuses because when jobs are plenty and workers are few, businesses need more perks to lure their needed workforce away from whatever they’re doing today.

In a period of labor oversupply, wages fall because there are an excess of bodies for every opening, and those people simply want a job, even if the pay is lower.

We appear to be in a quandary, where “supposedly” labor is shorter than it has ever been, while wages are effectively shrinking. According to economists, this either should never happen, or should only be seen in short, transitory periods. Neither of those is panning out right now.

 

[dishdude]

Actually, this wasn’t narrative, that’s why I said I was going to look for it. The chart I saw (this was 2+ years ago IIRC) was Labor Dept chart. Not trying to argue “with you”… just saying that it’s hard to believe anything they tell us when 1. The numbers vary widely; 2. The reality we see doesn’t appear to match the numbers; 3. It’s curious how various departments all under the same umbrella somehow come up with different results for the same question.

Hopefully I can find that chart… I know I’m not “misremembering” because seeing that low of a participation was a gut punch.

Any numbers about labor force participation that old are worthless. The pandemic caused massive changes in the workforce, a lot of older workers retired and we lost a large number of workers to the virus.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

I got ahead of myself and left out some of the point I was trying to make. If labor was really that tight, we would see average pay rising much faster, along with performance and longevity bonuses because when jobs are plenty and workers are few, businesses need more perks to lure their needed workforce away from whatever they’re doing today.

In a period of labor oversupply, wages fall because there are an excess of bodies for every opening, and those people simply want a job, even if the pay is lower.

We appear to be in a quandary, where “supposedly” labor is shorter than it has ever been, while wages are effectively shrinking. According to economists, this either should never happen, or should only be seen in short, transitory periods. Neither of those is panning out right now.

Inflationary pressures hit businesses as well. Businesses are under pressure to keep wages from spiraling so they don't have to raise prices on goods/services and don't ignore the impact of higher interest rates on their debt servicing. One area I've seen wages increase is in the food service industry. Employers are trying to pass on higher wages by eliciting tips at the end of the transaction rather than raising their prices.