Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low

Gotta make those numbers look good before the election. Don't you be spoiling Obama's re-election with your little honesty and facts.

This appears to be completely made up. Please vet articles before posting to Rational Progressives group.

After accounting for the annual adjustments to the population
controls, the employment-population ratio (58.5 percent) rose in
January, while the civilian labor force participation rate held at
63.7 percent.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

James... do you read your own links?

In January, 2.8 million persons were marginally attached to the labor
force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not
seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force,
wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime
in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because
they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
(See table A-16.)

They did not include the population increase in their report... the seeded link does include that population adjustment.

They did not include the population increase in their report...

Even so, that does not validate the claims made:

essentially unchanged from a year earlier

No one "fell" out of the labor force; the numbers are as reported, just as they are every month. If "Tyler Durden" wants people to count as he does, it will take more than a few unsubstantiated charts thrown up on a web page.

James' point is correct. The BLS reports on 'marginally attached' every month in those reports. Those numbers are included in the under/unemployment rate, a rate which is different from the actual unemployment rate.

In January, 2.8 million persons were marginally attached to the labor
force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not
seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force,
wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime
in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because
they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
(See table A-16.)

Another point glossed over is:

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for November was
revised from +100,000 to +157,000, and the change for December was
revised from +200,000 to +203,000. Monthly revisions result from
additional sample reports and the monthly recalculation of seasonal
factors. The annual benchmark process also contributed to these
revisions.

So there were also 160,000 more jobs between November and December which weren't included in the previous calculations, which probably contributes to the overall unemployment percent reduction to its current 8.3%

James, what the BLS did was count the population growth, but not as unemployed (even though they even state they were) because they had simply not looked in 4 weeks. This means that population increased by 1.2 million (lowering unemployment) far more than the 240k jobs. Even though the people are unemployed they don't count as unemployed.... hmm...

Even though the people are unemployed they don't count as unemployed

Exactly. However, the numbers are counted the same way every month, and every year. The UE rate dipped last summer for the same reason - demographic changes, not the raw number of jobs.

That's the way things are counted. Whether they count the way some like, or not, the numbers still do not warrant the characterizations made.

What this article does is the equivalent of saying "When you count retirees, small children, and foreigners on a visa, the jobless rate SKYROCKETS!!!"

The numbers are calculated a certain way, and that is how we have decided to measure month-to-month changes. If "Tyler" wants to propose a new method to the Labor Bureau, I am sure they will consider it.