US labor force participation continues to slide • Hacker News Board

Re: US labor force participation continues to slide

#21

Post by drillsteps5 » Tue, Apr 07, 2026, 10:14 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #8

andrewclunn wrote: post #4

Question, are these stats based on the most recent census data for population and then reported employment numbers? If so changes in population (considerable deportations for example) might effect an assumed denominator that no longer holds. That said if the labor numbers rely on above board work, then perhaps that would not impact the numerator as much either. The methodology is important here.

Submitter here, I posted because I think there is a confluence of interesting macroeconomic factors at work here. Certainly, immigration policy is factoring into this, as the restaurant industry is highly dependent on such labor. At the same time, we're still seeing 55+ leave the labor force rapidly (~4M Boomers continue to retire per year, ~330k/month), leaving only younger prime working age cohort, which continues…

> t the same time, we're still seeing 55+ leave the labor force rapidly (~4M Boomers continue to retire per year, ~330k/month)

Youngest Gen X are 46, oldest are 65. Can we stop with this "retiring boomers" thing?

Re: US labor force participation continues to slide

#22

Post by toomuchtodo » Tue, Apr 07, 2026, 10:34 PM UTC

drillsteps5 wrote: post #21

toomuchtodo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Submitter here, I posted because I think there is a confluence of interesting macroeconomic factors at work here. Certainly, immigration policy is factoring into this, as the restaurant industry is highly dependent on such labor. At the same time, we're still seeing 55+ leave the labor force rapidly (~4M Boomers continue to retire per year, ~330k/month), leaving only younger prime working age cohort, which continues…

> t the same time, we're still seeing 55+ leave the labor force rapidly (~4M Boomers continue to retire per year, ~330k/month) Youngest Gen X are 46, oldest are 65. Can we stop with this "retiring boomers" thing?

Total Boomer cohort doesn't reach at least 65 until 2029-2030 per the US Census. One does not qualify for Medicare until 65. It matters because 55+ working age population cohort is load bearing in the US labor force at the moment.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/12/by-2030-all-b...

https://www.accurate.com/blog/how-the-retirement-boom-has-im...

Are Older Workers Propping Up The U.S. Economy? - https://seekingalpha.com/article/4531829-older-workers-propp... | https://archive.today/sKeyE - August 9th, 2022

> There are now 20 million more 55+ employed than there were in 2000, an equivalent of the entire workforce of Spain. This unprecedented demographic / employment transition is worth a closer look. As the second chart shows, some of this increase is due to the rising population of Americans over 55 years of age - an increase of 42 million. In 2000, 30% of those 55 and older were employed. Today, over 37% are employed - a significant increase in the percentage of 55+ people who are working. In 2000, only 17.6% of the 55 and older populace had a job. Now the percentage is 37.5% A 20% increase in the percentage of 55+ who are employed in a 20-year span is unprecedented. If the percentage of employed 55+ had stayed the same, there would only be 17 million 55+ workers today. Instead, there are over 37 million. This raises a question: why are so many older workers continuing to work longer than they did in 1990 and 2000?

(obviously, older workers are continuing to work because they cannot afford not to, although I'm sure there is some amount of folks who continue to work despite not financially needing to)

Re: US labor force participation continues to slide

#23

Post by cucumber3732842 » Tue, Apr 07, 2026, 11:02 PM UTC

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #3

Flagged? Really? In a post about labor shortages in Restaurants? We can't mention immigration? Who do you think worked in the kitchen?

I'm seeing a lot more teenagers in fast food than I did 1-5yr ago...

Re: US labor force participation continues to slide

#24

Post by aftbit » Tue, Apr 07, 2026, 11:06 PM UTC

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #2

Is it? or were a few people, lets say, put across the border.

Are people without authorization to work counted in these stats, one way or another?

Re: US labor force participation continues to slide

#25

Post by panny » Tue, Apr 07, 2026, 11:38 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #8

andrewclunn wrote: post #4

Question, are these stats based on the most recent census data for population and then reported employment numbers? If so changes in population (considerable deportations for example) might effect an assumed denominator that no longer holds. That said if the labor numbers rely on above board work, then perhaps that would not impact the numerator as much either. The methodology is important here.

Submitter here, I posted because I think there is a confluence of interesting macroeconomic factors at work here. Certainly, immigration policy is factoring into this, as the restaurant industry is highly dependent on such labor. At the same time, we're still seeing 55+ leave the labor force rapidly (~4M Boomers continue to retire per year, ~330k/month), leaving only younger prime working age cohort, which continues…

>As the piece mentions, young men are "staying on the sidelines" versus engage in low wage, low status restaurant work (in this context).

Why do you think young men would work at a restaurant? They don't make tips the way pretty young girls do. Restaurants certainly don't pay a living wage.

Have you tried ending tip culture? If you did that, you might find more young men willing to work there and more patrons willing to eat there once the expectation of 30% tips are gone.

Re: US labor force participation continues to slide

#26

Post by toomuchtodo » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 12:31 AM UTC

panny wrote: post #25

toomuchtodo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Submitter here, I posted because I think there is a confluence of interesting macroeconomic factors at work here. Certainly, immigration policy is factoring into this, as the restaurant industry is highly dependent on such labor. At the same time, we're still seeing 55+ leave the labor force rapidly (~4M Boomers continue to retire per year, ~330k/month), leaving only younger prime working age cohort, which continues…

>As the piece mentions, young men are "staying on the sidelines" versus engage in low wage, low status restaurant work (in this context). Why do you think young men would work at a restaurant? They don't make tips the way pretty young girls do. Restaurants certainly don't pay a living wage. Have you tried ending tip culture? If you did that, you might find more young men willing to work there and more patrons willing…

Will young men support progressive policy? Their only chance at economic success in a punishing macro? To be determined.

Re: US labor force participation continues to slide

#27

Post by hackable_sand » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 2:02 AM UTC

panny wrote: post #25

toomuchtodo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Submitter here, I posted because I think there is a confluence of interesting macroeconomic factors at work here. Certainly, immigration policy is factoring into this, as the restaurant industry is highly dependent on such labor. At the same time, we're still seeing 55+ leave the labor force rapidly (~4M Boomers continue to retire per year, ~330k/month), leaving only younger prime working age cohort, which continues…

>As the piece mentions, young men are "staying on the sidelines" versus engage in low wage, low status restaurant work (in this context). Why do you think young men would work at a restaurant? They don't make tips the way pretty young girls do. Restaurants certainly don't pay a living wage. Have you tried ending tip culture? If you did that, you might find more young men willing to work there and more patrons willing…

Ew

Re: US labor force participation continues to slide

#28

Post by bluefirebrand » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 2:02 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #26

panny wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As the piece mentions, young men are "staying on the sidelines" versus engage in low wage, low status restaurant work (in this context). Why do you think young men would work at a restaurant? They don't make tips the way pretty young girls do. Restaurants certainly don't pay a living wage. Have you tried ending tip culture? If you did that, you might find more young men willing to work there and more patrons willing…

Will young men support progressive policy? Their only chance at economic success in a punishing macro? To be determined.

The last 15 or so years of progressive politics are doing nothing for young men except demand they be "allies" so it's absolutely not surprising that young men have largely moved Right

The Right is promising to make them great. It may be a lie, but it's a better message than what the Left has for them

Edit: and before you get the wrong idea, I'm pretty progressive. I have consistently voted left my entire life. This is stuff I view as weakness on my own side, not something I'm projecting on my opponents

Re: US labor force participation continues to slide

#29

Post by drillsteps5 » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 2:08 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #22

drillsteps5 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> t the same time, we're still seeing 55+ leave the labor force rapidly (~4M Boomers continue to retire per year, ~330k/month) Youngest Gen X are 46, oldest are 65. Can we stop with this "retiring boomers" thing?

Total Boomer cohort doesn't reach at least 65 until 2029-2030 per the US Census. One does not qualify for Medicare until 65. It matters because 55+ working age population cohort is load bearing in the US labor force at the moment. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/12/by-2030-all-b... https://www.accurate.com/blog/how-the-retirement-boom-has-im... Are Older Workers Propping Up The U.S. Economy? - https://see…

Even if you define Gen X birth years starting at 1965 (and not 1961 as some do), their oldest are already 61. So anybody between 55 and 61 is a Gen X, not a boomer. And for the 55+ group employment participation rate has been decreasing. Which does not mean that "boomers are retiring", it's Gen X's turn now.

Re: US labor force participation continues to slide

#30

Post by toomuchtodo » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 2:50 AM UTC

bluefirebrand wrote: post #28

toomuchtodo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will young men support progressive policy? Their only chance at economic success in a punishing macro? To be determined.

The last 15 or so years of progressive politics are doing nothing for young men except demand they be "allies" so it's absolutely not surprising that young men have largely moved Right The Right is promising to make them great. It may be a lie, but it's a better message than what the Left has for them Edit: and before you get the wrong idea, I'm pretty progressive. I have consistently voted left my entire life. This…

Organizing and unionizing, focusing on affordability, etc are what I’m referring to. “Good manufacturing jobs” ain’t coming back. If you want a good job today, it’s only coming through collective action to push wages up to living wages. There won’t be some magic that instantiates millions of good jobs for young men needing them, and even those with degrees are facing peril and economic insecurity. The jobs that exist are the jobs young men have to crank towards livability. Universal healthcare is a component of affordability, especially as it relates to family forming and the cost of US healthcare.

With structural demographics what they are, and labor slowly becoming more scarce year after year, the time is right. They took their chance on the Right, and polling shows some amount of buyer’s remorse.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/06/economy/young-men-joblessness