Labor Force Participation is the rate of people looking for a job. If you are not looking to work, or have given up on finding work (so not looking) you count as out of the labor market. So long as you are looking you count as in the labor market. Once in the labor market, the distinction is between employed and unemployed.
So offshorin…
Labor Force Participation is the rate of people looking for a job. If you are not looking to work, or have given up on finding work (so not looking) you count as out of the labor market. So long as you are looking you count as in the labor market. Once in the labor market, the distinction is between employed and unemployed.
So offshoring and automation have little to do with labor force participation rates; if people are looking for a job, they are in the labor force. Only those who stop trying to work count as out of the labor force.
EDIT: I should have mentioned those working (not just looking) are also included in the labor force. That was unclear of me.
Labor Force Participation are the able bodied capable of work and are working. See https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/participationrate.asp. Before women in large numbers went into the labor force, numbers were in the 50-60% range. Women then provided more hands as two income households took over. Might have left some children behind, but so what - more workers for a wee bit more product. Aside from the fact that a household actually is work and important work, apparently it's better for society that we all work?
The labor force isn't just those capable and working, but those who are looking as well. The "unemployed" count as in the labor force in the technical sense, as you are only unemployed if you are looking for work but can't find it. Also, being non-institutionalized (not in prison of some sort) and not in the military is necessary to count. Able bodied isn't so much relevant as "working or looking for work, or not".
I agree that there is a lot to be said for household work, and single earner families have a lot of benefits that are missed. The most worrisome thing about a low LFP rate is when specific groups are just not working much, and almost certainly aren't raising kids, e.g. 16-35 year old single males. At some point one has to wonder what they are doing with their time...
"16-35 year old single males" - A 2016 book Men Without Work: America's Invisible Crisis (https://www.amazon.com/Men-Without-Work-Americas-Invisible/dp/1599474697). The current reviews are of interest as the politics arrive. But the loss of this talent along with family formations that are less stable remains a concern. Work of any kind often gives a sense of purpose. Whether the displacement of men as women entered the workforce makes us wonder if that is fulfilling for either or society at large.
Labor Force Participation is the rate of people looking for a job. If you are not looking to work, or have given up on finding work (so not looking) you count as out of the labor market. So long as you are looking you count as in the labor market. Once in the labor market, the distinction is between employed and unemployed.
So offshoring and automation have little to do with labor force participation rates; if people are looking for a job, they are in the labor force. Only those who stop trying to work count as out of the labor force.
EDIT: I should have mentioned those working (not just looking) are also included in the labor force. That was unclear of me.
Labor Force Participation are the able bodied capable of work and are working. See https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/participationrate.asp. Before women in large numbers went into the labor force, numbers were in the 50-60% range. Women then provided more hands as two income households took over. Might have left some children behind, but so what - more workers for a wee bit more product. Aside from the fact that a household actually is work and important work, apparently it's better for society that we all work?
The labor force isn't just those capable and working, but those who are looking as well. The "unemployed" count as in the labor force in the technical sense, as you are only unemployed if you are looking for work but can't find it. Also, being non-institutionalized (not in prison of some sort) and not in the military is necessary to count. Able bodied isn't so much relevant as "working or looking for work, or not".
I agree that there is a lot to be said for household work, and single earner families have a lot of benefits that are missed. The most worrisome thing about a low LFP rate is when specific groups are just not working much, and almost certainly aren't raising kids, e.g. 16-35 year old single males. At some point one has to wonder what they are doing with their time...
"16-35 year old single males" - A 2016 book Men Without Work: America's Invisible Crisis (https://www.amazon.com/Men-Without-Work-Americas-Invisible/dp/1599474697). The current reviews are of interest as the politics arrive. But the loss of this talent along with family formations that are less stable remains a concern. Work of any kind often gives a sense of purpose. Whether the displacement of men as women entered the workforce makes us wonder if that is fulfilling for either or society at large.