[mnm1]

That's because it's not a strong economy. Millions have stopped looking for work and never started after the recession. Wages have stagnated even for white collar jobs. Employers are unwilling to pay competitively. Millions like the ones in the article are underemployed and underutilized. How the fuck is that a strong economy?

[sillyquiet]

You know, I keep hearing the 'many stopped working during the recession' thing bandied about like received wisdom, and have not seen any statistics to back that up. Note: I am not saying it's not true, just that I personally haven't seen any studies or reports to back up that fact. Have you a link? All the U6 (real) unemployment rate numbers I've seen indicate 'real' unemployment is back to pre-recession numbers

[Kalium]

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

There's this. This doesn't exactly back up the claim - there are a lot of reasons people might not be participating.

[HarryHirsch]

Especially this: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU01300060

25-54 year Labor Paticipation Rate is those that you'd expect to be working but aren't.

[JumpCrisscross]

The difference between the 25-54 and civilian participation rates are largely attributable to retiring boomers. Participation rates depend heavily on demographics. They matter for things like dependency ratios. But quoting them without the context of a large generation retiring and increasing time spent getting educated hides the full picture. That said, the 3 percentage point drop in 25-54 participation is largely attributable to the opioid crisis—that’s a disturbing start to a trend.

[mnm1]

How do you propose such statistics be collected if these people have given up and are no longer looking for a job and are no longer receiving unemployment benefits? I assume this is why the unemployment rate doesn't include these people and therefore doesn't ever reflect reality.

[sillyquiet]

I see. So you just feel like there are millions of such people, and don't have any actual facts to back that statement up.

And there is a statistic that does capture those kind of discouraged workers, it's the U6 unemployment rate. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080415/true-... And like I said, the U6 numbers do not reflect your original statement that millions of people gave up during the recession and have not worked since.

[slededit]

You would expect that as the largest cohort in modern history retires en mass that the ratio of people in the work force to those outside would start to shift. I think its valid to say that a lot of baby boomers were discouraged post-2008 and perhaps would have worked an extra decade had things been better. But at this point we're well into their retirement years.

[notadoc]

Except that, statistically, most baby boomers in the USA have zero to little saved for retirement, and can't afford to retire, and so they keep working.

[slededit]

They have not saved nearly enough but it hasn't stopped them from retiring. The number to watch is the "old-age dependency ratio" which has risen to 25/200 from 21 per 100 in 2010. The trend is for this number to increase as more boomers surpass 65.

As people age their skills and acuity decrease, so while some may want to continue working its not at all a sure thing they'd be able to even if 2008 hadn't happened. I can't think of a good statistic to capture this and we're both looking at second derivative statistics.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/retiring-baby-boomers-leave-the...

[ourmandave]

I know a few people who would have retired except they need the health insurance.

[slededit]

Isn't medicare better than most private insurance plans?

[notadoc]

Maybe a long time ago. Politics have dramatically since changed Medicare, which is why nearly all seniors buy supplement plans today.

[francisofascii]

Medicare doesn't start until 65. So they probably mean would have retired early.

[slededit]

Close to half the baby boomer cohort is 65 or older now. We're not talking about early retirement.