Hacker News Reader

Comment by slashcom | Hacker News Reader

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_State... 27.1% of the US is under 21 and 14.5% is over 65. I know 16 should be working but a good chunk should be getting education. That leaves only 58.4% even eligible for labor participation.

View on HN

The BLS only counts the people who aren't in prison, and are over 16 as the Labor Force participation rate. You aren't counted if you are thought of by employers as too young or too old to work; so there are a substantial number of seniors who aren't counted because they aren't in the labor force according to the BLS.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

> Employers think they are too young or too old,

According to this[1] only 16+ year olds are counted for the purposes of determining labor force participation.

[1] http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

this x2

we are at full employment and those statements about only 62% employment might need to be looked at in more detail, they are wildly inaccurate when looking at the big picture, I am astounded this is even considered as reality.

how many families have both parents working if there are two in a house?

those numbers are based on use of welfare and unemployment. if those statements were alarming the people that are homeless would be astronomical at the moment.

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/p...

What do you mean "eligible". Are people over 65 somehow not eligible to work that you exclude them from the LFPR?

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU02000097

9 million workers 65+ would be very interested in how they're not eligible to be a part of the labor force.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com