Why Are Fewer People Looking for Jobs?

Dozens of job seekers line up to enter a National Career Fair, Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012 in New York. The number of people seeking unemployment aid stayed at a four-year low last week, the latest evidence that layoffs are low and the job market is slowly healing. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)
National Journal
Major Garrett
Jan. 21, 2014, 2:35 p.m.

I’m not an eco­nom­ist.

I don’t even pre­tend to be one on tele­vi­sion.

But something has been nag­ging at me through the af­ter­math of the Great Re­ces­sion, and it’s the labor-force par­ti­cip­a­tion rate, which enu­mer­ates Amer­ic­ans who have a job and Amer­ic­ans who want a job. The LF­PR has fallen from 66 per­cent to 62.8 per­cent since the Great Re­ces­sion began. That ac­counts for 12.6 mil­lion people leav­ing the work­force, ac­cord­ing to the Fed­er­al Re­serve Bank of At­lanta.

When the na­tion­al job­less rate fell from 7 per­cent to 6.7 per­cent, much of the de­cline was due to Amer­ic­ans leav­ing the work­force. The Wall Street Journ­al’s Mar­ket Watch grimly noted the LF­PR for Decem­ber 2013 was 62.8 per­cent. That matched Oc­to­ber’s data and her­al­ded the low­est LF­PR since 1978. You can see the trend since 1990 here.

There are com­pon­ent parts to this story. A quick scan of Labor De­part­ment data re­veals the fol­low­ing:

  • Part-time work (chart 7) is sig­ni­fic­antly high­er than at any time since 1990 — with the ex­cep­tion of a brief rise and fall in 1994. Moreover, the num­ber of Amer­ic­ans work­ing part-time be­cause they can­not find full-time work (chart 8) has jumped al­most four mil­lion since the dawn of the Great Re­ces­sion and con­tin­ues to run well ahead of data col­lec­ted since 1990.
  • Lastly, the rav­ages of the Great Re­ces­sion, like all re­ces­sions be­fore it, hit least edu­cated work­ers (chart 17) the hard­est. But the dam­age has been more wide­spread and longer this time around.

This sounds and looks like a calam­ity. For those look­ing for work, it is that and more — par­tic­u­larly if Wash­ing­ton does not ex­tend and ret­ro­act­ively provide long-term job­less be­ne­fits.

But is this a har­binger of a new, grue­some eco­nom­ic nor­mal of laid-off work­ers who can’t find work, young Amer­ic­ans cling­ing to col­lege and post-gradu­ate work — adrift in a job­less fu­ture, pil­ing up debt? Or is it a stat­ist­ic that looks alarm­ing but is really be­nign — a stat­ist­ic­al brew of trends in aging, school­ing, re­train­ing, and life choices that’s frothy and mys­ter­i­ous but no more dis­taste­ful than Guin­ness served too cold?

It seems an im­port­ant ques­tion. The LF­PR and what it says about our eco­nom­ic fu­ture will likely loom large in the mid-term elec­tions and could well be a heav­ily de­bated part of Pres­id­ent Obama’s eco­nom­ic leg­acy — thus a spring­board to the na­tion­al eco­nom­ic con­ver­sa­tion in 2016.

Stat­ist­ics can lead you in many dir­ec­tions, not all of them re­veal­ing. Ques­tions be­dev­il.

For ex­ample, the LF­PR for Amer­ic­ans ages 16 to 24 was 66.1 per­cent in 1992. It fell 2.9 per­cent from 1992 to 2002, ac­cord­ing to the Bur­eau of Labor Stat­ist­ics. From 2002 to 2012 it fell 8.4 per­cent, from 63.3 per­cent to 54.9 per­cent. That’s a big drop, es­pe­cially when you con­sider that the BLS pro­jects the LF­PR for this pop­u­la­tion will fall 5.3 per­cent from 2012 to 2022. A de­cline in the over­all pop­u­la­tion of this group ex­plains only part of the story (it fell .4 per­cent from 1992-2002, 1.4 per­cent from 2002-2012, and is pro­jec­ted to fall 1 per­cent from 2012-2022).

What’s happened and what is hap­pen­ing to these young work­ers try­ing to find their way in­to entry-level jobs or land that first job out of col­lege?

How about older Amer­ic­ans? What do the stat­ist­ics tell us about LF­PR and choices to re­tire or re­main in the work­force or re­turn to the work­force after test­ing the re­tire­ment wa­ters? Again, it’s a bit of a puzzle.

The LF­PR for work­ers 55 to 64 was 56.2 per­cent in 1992 and rose to 61.9 per­cent in 2002. It jumped again to 64.5 per­cent in 2012 and is pro­jec­ted to be 67.5 per­cent in 2022. This would ap­pear to be the Baby Boom bulge mov­ing stat­ist­ic­ally through the work­ing years and, there­fore, some­what easy to ex­plain. But data for work­ers 65 and older con­tin­ues this trend, which doesn’t ap­pear as eas­ily ex­plained. The LF­PR for work­ers over the re­tire­ment age of 65 was 11.5 per­cent in 1992. It rose to 13.2 per­cent in 2002 and to 18.5 per­cent in 2012. It’s pro­jec­ted to hit 23 per­cent in 2022.

I posed these ques­tions to the White House and top eco­nom­ists Mark Zandi, chief eco­nom­ist for Moody’s Ana­lyt­ics, and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former dir­ect­or of the Con­gres­sion­al Budget Of­fice.

Here’s Holtz-Eakin’s take:

“I think this is a big deal. Be­cause of its de­cline, the em­ploy­ment-to-pop­u­la­tion ra­tio (the frac­tion of the pop­u­la­tion work­ing) is now lower than be­fore the re­ces­sion star­ted. There are two pieces of this de­cline that we un­der­stand: re­tire­ment of the baby boomers and bad job growth. And there is one coun­ter­vail­ing force — the rise in the LF­PR of wo­men — that has stopped in re­cent years. But the re­mainder is un­ex­plained and deeply troub­ling.”

By his reck­on­ing, the re­tire­ment of baby boomers ac­counts for only one-third of the de­cline in LF­PR.

Here’s Zandi’s take:

“Of the just-over 3 per­cent­age point de­cline in labor-force par­ti­cip­a­tion since the Great Re­ces­sion, ap­prox­im­ately 2 per­cent­age points is due to the re­tire­ment of baby boomers and the oth­er 1 per­cent­age point is due to dis­cour­aged work­ers. Over the past year, most of the de­cline in par­ti­cip­a­tion is due to re­tir­ing boomers. Evid­ence of this is the num­ber of people that aren’t in the labor force but say they want a job. There are cur­rently about 1.5 mil­lion more of these folks than pri­or to the re­ces­sion. This is equal to 1 per­cent­age point of the labor force.”

I asked Zandi about dis­cour­aged work­ers or those who want a job but simply can’t find one.

“These dis­cour­aged work­ers will be­gin look­ing for work again and enter the labor force once un­em­ploy­ment falls an­oth­er per­cent­age point and wage growth be­gins to pick up. They won’t even be­gin look­ing for work un­til they feel that they can find a job that pays for com­mut­ing costs and child­care. A good num­ber of these dis­cour­aged work­ers also prob­ably pre­vi­ously worked in hous­ing-re­lated in­dus­tries and live in areas of the coun­try where there are few­er oth­er job op­por­tun­it­ies. But as hous­ing activ­ity con­tin­ues to im­prove, these people will be en­ticed back in­to the work­force by jobs that are more suited for their skills.”

I re­ferred Zandi to Holtz-Eakin’s con­cerns that the LF­PR data simply isn’t that clean and that re­tire­ment alone can­not ac­count for such a large part of the eco­nom­ic puzzle.

“I agree with Doug that the factors driv­ing the de­cline in par­ti­cip­a­tion aren’t fully un­der­stood. The aca­dem­ic re­search on the top­ic gen­er­ally shows that re­tire­ment is the most sig­ni­fic­ant factor, but what is be­hind the rest of the de­cline in par­ti­cip­a­tion is a mat­ter of le­git­im­ate de­bate. I proffered a couple of factors that I think are at work, but there are oth­er factors, some of which we un­der­stand (e.g., the de­cline in 16-24 par­ti­cip­a­tion is due in large part to young people go­ing back or stay­ing longer in school), and oth­ers that we don’t com­pletely un­der­stand. As such, I don’t think labor force par­ti­cip­a­tion will be a ser­i­ous is­sue a few years from now, but I can’t say that with com­plete con­vic­tion.”

Where is the White House on this?

Ex­tens­ive con­ver­sa­tions with a top Obama eco­nom­ist, whose candor came in ex­change for an­onym­ity, yiel­ded the fol­low­ing ob­ser­va­tions.

First, and I sup­pose un­der­stand­ably, there was a thirst for good news in the data. The har­vest was as fol­lows: Over the past 12 months, both the rates of short-term un­em­ploy­ment (26 weeks or less) and long-term un­em­ploy­ment (27 weeks or more) rates have de­clined by 0.6 per­cent­age point — for a cu­mu­lat­ive drop in the topline job­less rate of 1.2 per­cent­age points). Over the past 24 months, the short-term rate de­clined 0.7 per­cent and the long-term rate 1.1 per­cent­age point.

But what about the de­cline in LF­PR among young Amer­ic­ans? Is this a wor­ry­ing trend?

“Some of what we’re see­ing in the growth of 16-to-24 year olds out of the labor force is as­so­ci­ated with the weak labor mar­ket, but a good amount of this is due to in­creased school­ing,” the White House eco­nom­ist said. “While we’re see­ing few­er 16-to-24 year olds com­bin­ing work and school­ing, there’s been a rise in full-time en­roll­ment at school, and the change in total en­roll­ment has been pos­it­ive over the last five years.”

What about the rise in work­ers 55 to 64 and older than 65? Doesn’t that ar­gue against the no­tion that most of the na­tion­al de­cline in LF­PR is driv­en by baby boomers hit­ting the ham­mock or the fair­ways?

An­oth­er seni­or White House eco­nom­ist took a swing, meta­phor­ic­ally, at this ques­tion. The an­swer con­forms, gen­er­ally, with Zandi’s and Holtz-Eakin’s un­der­stand­ing of baby boomer heft as they move through the data on work, re­tire­ment, and LF­PR. The ba­sic ex­plan­a­tion is the num­ber of re­tir­ing baby boomers is so large it tilts the data, ob­scur­ing among baby boomers who de­cide not to re­tire or who re­turn to the work­force after dis­cov­er­ing — in­croy­able! — re­tire­ment is a crash­ing bore.

The meta­phor is right up my base­ball-lov­ing al­ley. I leave it to trained eco­nom­ists to judge its ana­lyt­ic­al and ex­plan­at­ory value.

“If on a base­ball team, you have nine play­ers — three who bat .100, three who bat .200, and three who bat .300, your lineup bats at an av­er­age of .200,” the White House eco­nom­ist ex­plained. “You then fo­cus on im­prov­ing the av­er­age of the low­est per­formers so that the .100s now bat .150. But you also end up adding more of them. Now you have five play­ers who bat .150, one who bats .200, and three who bat .300. The over­all team av­er­age now goes down to .189 — be­cause while the low­est-per­form­ing group im­proved, its share also in­creased.”

But why are older Amer­ic­ans work­ing? Are they bail­ing out chil­dren who can’t find work, are riddled with col­lege debt, or be­cause they were tor­pedoed by the Great Re­ces­sion?

This is also a top­ic at the White House, and eco­nom­ist No. 1 (for lack of a bet­ter des­ig­na­tion), offered the fol­low­ing:

“All of the evid­ence on the up­ward trend in par­ti­cip­a­tion among older work­ers in­dic­ates that this is a pos­it­ive de­vel­op­ment. The lit­er­at­ure points to rising edu­ca­tion, high­er pay­ing and less phys­ic­ally de­mand­ing jobs, in­creased at­tach­ment of older wo­men to the labor force, and bet­ter health as the main forces re­spons­ible for this up­ward trend. Re­mark­ably, more than a quarter of re­tir­ees will un-re­tire at some point, not due to fin­an­cial ne­ces­sity, but be­cause they find work more re­ward­ing and en­joy­able than re­tire­ment. Some com­ment­at­ors have spec­u­lated that the in­creased par­ti­cip­a­tion of older work­ers has been driv­en by losses of wealth dur­ing the Great Re­ces­sion, but the re­search that has in­vest­ig­ated this finds that these de­clines in wealth were con­cen­trated among the richest house­holds and that the data show no im­pact on labor-mar­ket be­ha­vi­or. “

No eco­nom­ic con­ver­sa­tion, as I have dis­covered, is ever com­plete or salted with every grain of stat­ist­ic­al con­text.

The num­bers don’t lie about his­tor­ic levels of long-term un­em­ploy­ment or in­vol­un­tary part-time work. Dis­cour­age­ment among work­ers, par­tic­u­larly the young, is not merely an­ec­dot­al. It’s in the data. And older work­ers are re­tir­ing, and that’s a big chunk of the de­cline in LF­PR. How big a chunk? The data is opaque and eco­nom­ists genu­inely dif­fer.

Holtz-Eakin thinks it un­wise to mark it all, or mostly, to re­tire­ments and young work­ers simply find­ing col­lege more at­tract­ive — either as un­der­grads or grads. Zandi con­siders it more be­nign, and the White House sees be­ha­vi­or­al ex­plan­a­tions be­hind the trends that don’t por­tend pro­longed eco­nom­ic blight — es­pe­cially con­sid­er­ing the down­ward trend in short-term and long-term job­less­ness. And the White House con­cedes the busi­ness cycle re­mains slack and more jobs with high­er wages must ap­pear to pull in­to full em­ploy­ment those who have giv­en up, those who are look­ing, and those stuck in part-time jobs.

As I said at the top, I’m not an eco­nom­ist.

And after this ex­er­cise, I damn sure won’t ever try to play one on tele­vi­sion.

The au­thor is Na­tion­al Journ­al cor­res­pond­ent-at-large and chief White House cor­res­pond­ent for CBS News. He is also a dis­tin­guished fel­low at the George Wash­ing­ton Uni­versity School of Me­dia and Pub­lic Af­fairs.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4647) }}

What We're Following See More »
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
20 hours ago

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
21 hours ago

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
22 hours ago

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
1 days ago

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Movie Based on ‘Clinton Cash’ to Debut at Cannes
1 days ago

The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."