@markr041

Yes, but it is not sole reason.

Putting unemployed outside labor force is common worldwide practice now.

The change in the age structure is the main reason, by far, for the rise in number of people outside the labor force in the US, as the number of over60's has been increasing since at least 1900, as has the number of people not in the labor force (except there has been an the increase in female labor-force participation).

It is interesting to see statistics here as it is exactly "over 60" people who keep their job most as far as I remember reports. Despite more of old guys.

The definition of unemployment has remained essentially unchanged also - people looking for work, by their own statement, and without a job.

As far as I am aware statistics not rely on common definition as they have no way to ask everyone. So they made assumptions and corrections, including all people you did not find work at specific period, they strike them out of labor force considering that they don't want job.

It is true that when unemployment is high and the probability of getting a job is relatively low, people drop out of the labor force (the "discouraged"), but that is mainly a cyclical phenomenon. And the unemployment rate is now relatively low.

Can you tell more about cyclical phenomenon? What you mean under this?

This is not to say that there is no trend also in people not in the labor force at every age, but it is certainly not in evidence in the graphs posted, which are most readily explained by demographic shifts. Find labor-force participation trends by age (and sex) to see better what is going on (that takes out demographics) - say the trends for 30-35 year olds by gender.

Well, I did not made any statement under charts, so it is more on you to look for US statistics reports.

My own opinion is formed not by charts mostly, but by direct communication feedback from various people living in US.

Most jobs will be replaced permanently by robots, that's a fact. Expect unemployment rates of 50+ percent unless there is some kind of "new deal."

The big fake deal over Carrier not moving to Mexico--this means fewer, not more jobs. The government is paying the factory to automate--that's right, we are paying our tax dollars to replace people.

"The CEO of United Technologies just let slip an unintended consequence of the Trump-Carrier jobs deal (UTX)

Donald Trump spoke at the Carrier plant in Indianapolis on Thursday, formally announcing his agreement with the company to keep the plant open and reportedly saving some 1,000 jobs from moving to Mexico. Media: TIME

Greg Hayes, the CEO of United Technologies, the parent company of the heating and air-conditioner manufacturer Carrier, just let slip a consequence of a deal struck to keep jobs in Indiana.

And American workers won't like it.

Carrier said last month that it would keep more than 1,000 jobs across two locations in Indiana, following pressure from President-elect Donald Trump. The decision was touted as a win for the incoming president, who had pledged keep the jobs from moving to Mexico.

In a wide-ranging interview with CNBC's "Mad Money with Jim Cramer" that aired Monday, Hayes set out the comparative advantages of moving to jobs to Mexico, the motivation behind his decision to keep those jobs in Indiana, and the ultimate outcome of the deal: There will be fewer manufacturing jobs in Indiana. Before we get to that

First, Hayes was asked what's so good about Mexico. Quite a lot, it turns out. From the transcript (emphasis added):

JIM CRAMER: What's good about Mexico? What's good about going there? And obviously what's good about staying here?

GREG HAYES: So what's good about Mexico? We have a very talented workforce in Mexico. Wages are obviously significantly lower. About 80% lower on average. But absenteeism runs about 1%. Turnover runs about 2%. Very, very dedicated workforce.

GREG HAYES:And I think that's just part of these — the jobs, again, are not jobs on assembly line that people really find all that attractive over the long term. Now I've got some very long service employees who do a wonderful job for us. And we like the fact that they're dedicated to UTC, but I would tell you the key here, Jim, is not to be trained for the job today. Our focus is how do you train people for the jobs of tomorrow?

"The assembly lines in Indiana — I mean, great people," Hayes said. "Great, great people. But the skill set to do those jobs is very different than what it takes to assemble a jet engine."

Hayes was then asked why he decided to cancel the move to Mexico. From the transcript (emphasis added):

GREG HAYES: So, there was a cost as we thought about keeping the Indiana plant open. At the same time, and I'll tell you this because you and I, we know each other, but I was born at night but not last night. I also know that about 10% of our revenue comes from the US government. And I know that a better regulatory environment, a lower tax rate can eventually help UTC of the long run. But here's the kicker

GREG HAYES: But what that ultimately means is there will be fewer jobs.

We should also remember that 50% of America is on some form of public assistance (in other words, not contributing to GDP or the tax base) and that 50% pay no federal income taxes. Why work when incentivized not too?

Lots on public assistance still contribute. They earn a salary that is taxed. They just fall below poverty levels which means they might get free school lunches or free health care for their kids. Kids put very little strain on the health care system since they don't often need advance medical care.

There are 10s of millions of people living on money that is taxed away (or deficit spent) from the other 10s of millions. Homeowners get extorted for owning a home, earning income, etc, while others get section 8 housing, ebt cards, obama phones, etc.

That, along with the foreign adventurism, excessive bureaucracy, and the outright fleecing that the 1% are doing to the public constitutes a totally dysfunctional setup. At some point it's either going to collapse, or some unpopular hardliner will be voted in to 'do' something about it, good or bad. Looks like Trump will be that guy.