I'm not very impressed by a chart that has no zero values and then superimposes two different scales.
What, you can't figure out what's going on without that?
Labor force participation for older workers is flat. The recession hasn't dropped their rate at all, the worst it's done is slow its increase. The drop in labor force participation rate has come from workers below 55. This puts a lie to the argument I've seen that the drop may be due to retirement of baby boomers. Given that the trend line continued to decrease through 2011, it also indicates that the dropping unemployment rate isn't actually indicative of a turnaround in the employment picture.
Rather than communicating the data effectively and accurately, it is clearly something designed to make a point.
And? You can't figure out whether or not that point is correct?
ETA: The chart makes it look like "labor participation" in younger workers has fallen below that of workers 55 and over.
Only if you don't know how to read a graph.
In fact, closer examination shows that the figure for younger workers has dropped from about 80% to about 75.x%, a figure still substantially higher than the figure for older workers (which has risen from around 32.x% to 40.x%).
That had
better be the case, unless all our retirees start dying of really quickly.
And since it's tracking a change over a 10 year period, I doubt very much it's what explains the last 5 months of successive decreases in the national unemployment figure.
Of course it doesn't explain it. An understanding of what the unemployment statistic,
along with the labor participation rate, explains that: many people are becoming discouraged and are no longer even seeking employment. They have no job, but they don't count as unemployed.
ETA (again--sorry to keep adding things): The slight drop (80% to 75.x% over 10 years) in labor participation among the "younger" group might be in part due to increased educational opportunities. That is, more people might be going to school and not working.
Yeah, I don't think so. The drops correspond to recessions. That's not a coincidence.
The modest change among older people might be due in part to improved healthcare outcomes and better longevity
I don't doubt that. But that's not the point. The point is that they aren't the demographic that's hurting the most because of the recession, at least on the employment front.
At any rate, I doubt very much this confusing chart will sway as many voters as the news that was released today.
If you're going to try to make the argument that voters are ignorant and easily swayed, well, under that logic today's news won't matter either, the unemployment number at the time of the election is what will make the difference.
But neither the press nor the government have the credibility that they once had. I don't think the official unemployment statistic will matter as much as you think it will matter, whatever it turns out to be.
