Let me start by apologizing for the rather brutal tone of this article, but I’m over trying to be polite to people who whine about “civility” while energetically supporting everything Donald Trump does or says, no matter how grotesque, crude, or insensitive it may be. In my opinion, if you’re anywhere close to being on team “f*** your feelings“, you are not entitled in any way to “civility“, so feel free to hug a shark or go for a leisurely swim in a sewage reclamation tank, where you belong.
Anyhow, a classic Dunning-Kruger Trump supporter recently posted an attempt at a “refutation” of my article “Trump’s Labor Farce Problem” on his blog (no, I’m not going to link to it, it’s garbage and propaganda), citing a 2016 article from the Bureau of Labor Statistics as if it somehow refuted my point that the labor force participation rate hasn’t increased under Trump, apparently without actually having read it, or, more likely, while simply lacking the intelligence and education needed to understand it.
Here is the section from that article that he quoted:
“The labor force participation rate is the percentage of the civilian non institutional population 16 years and older that is working or actively looking for work. It is an important labor market measure because it represents the relative amount of labor resources available for the production of goods and services. After rising for more than three decades, the overall labor force participation rate peaked in early 2000 and subsequently trended down. In recent years, the movement of the baby-boom population into age groups that generally exhibit low labor force participation has contributed to the decline in the overall participation rate. From 2000 to 2015, most of the major demographic groups saw a decrease in labor force participation. Teenagers experienced the largest drop in participation, which coincided with a rise in their school enrollment rate. Young adults 20 to 24 years also showed a decline in labor force participation, but the decrease was not as steep as that for teenagers. The labor force participation rate of women 25 to 54 years also fell, with the decrease more pronounced for women who did not attend college. The labor force participation rate of men 25 to 54 years continued its long-term decline. As in the past, the decrease in participation among men with less education was greater than that of men with more education. However, labor force participation rates of men and women 55 years and older rose from 2000 to 2009 and subsequently leveled off.“
So let’s deal with this, point by brutal point. First, the Trumplican bolded, italicized, and underlined this sentence, believing that it provided an open and shut refutation of the premise of my article criticizing Trump’s inability to improve the labor force participation rate…
“In recent years, the movement of the baby-boom population into age groups that generally exhibit low labor force participation has contributed to the decline in the overall participation rate.“
He apparently thinks that it completely exonerated Donald Trump’s conspicuous failure to increase the labor force participation rate (as of the publishing of this article, 0.2 points worse than when he took office in 2017). This sentence would, indeed, have been damning if only it hadn’t been followed by other sentences that undermined his dopey assertion.
“Teenagers experienced the largest drop in participation, which coincided with a rise in their school enrollment rate.“
So where the Trumplican thought the article indicated that the steady retirement of Baby Boomers (his generation, by the by, because everything centers around the “Me Generation”, doesn’t it?), was the cause of the large decline in labor force participation rate, however, according to his own citation, the largest decline in employment was actually among teenagers, and, I just checked, teenagers aren’t Baby Boomers. (Also, since this article was published in September 2016, the improvements of education rate for teenagers was thanks to Obama, not Trump.)
But let’s continue…
“Young adults 20 to 24 years also showed a decline in labor force participation… The labor force participation rate of women 25 to 54 years also fell, with the decrease more pronounced for women who did not attend college.“
Here’s a definitive statement that the labor force participation rates of “young adults” and “women 25 to 54” both fell since 2000, which indicates that women were being driven out of the work force during this time. I just checked and, as it turns out, neither “young adults” or “women 25 to 54” are necessarily Baby Boomers. Regardless, these large demographics were driven out of the labor force and is available to reenter it, that is if Trump was at all delivering on his promises. He’s not, so they aren’t.
This is very simple logic, so of course a Trumplican can’t get it.
“The labor force participation rate of men 25 to 54 years continued its long-term decline. As in the past, the decrease in participation among men with less education was greater than that of men with more education.“
Another group that has lost a lot of ground, at least in the labor force, has been men between the ages of 25 to 54. Once again, men between the ages of 25 to 54 are not necessarily retiring Baby Boomers, and those 54 year olds in 2016 are now 56 years old in 2018 and should still be in the work force. Once again, except for the extremely simple minded, it is clear that there are entire demographic sections of the population available to improve the labor force participation rate, and yet it has not happened.
Last, but certainly not least, is the complete obliteration of the Trumplican’s original argument…
“However, labor force participation rates of men and women 55 years and older rose from 2000 to 2009 and subsequently leveled off.“
So, for the sake of clarity, let’s put this all together for the Trumplican and his brain dead ilk. There is a not insignificant portion of the population below the age of 57 years old who are in need of jobs but cannot find work. The labor force participation rate the day Trump took office was 62.9%. As of last month, it stands at 62.7%. That’s worse. It’s really that simple. The Trumplican’s argument as to why labor force participation hasn’t increased? It’s too hard, because Baby Boomers.
Unfortunately, the Trumplican’s own source states that labor force participation rates for Baby Boomers (which 100% of American men and women age 55 and older are), actually rose between 2000 to 2009 and has since “leveled off“, which is entirely inconsistent with the point he was trying to make. So, basically, if the cause of the loss of labor force participation rate was retiring Baby Boomers, but the labor force participation rate of Baby Boomers was observed as stable through the period in question, they can’t be the cause of the decline in labor force participation, can they?
Liberty is For The Win!