US labor force participation continues to slide(restaurant.org)
74 pointsby toomuchtodo13 hours ago7 comments
  • esbranson12 hours ago
    > In November 2023, the labor force participation rate reached 62.8%

    In November 2023, the prime age (25-54 years old) labor force participation rate was 83.4%.[1]

    > At the same time, the labor force participation rate edged down from 62.0% in February to 61.9% in March, the lowest level since November 2021.

    The prime age LFPR was 83.9% and 83.8% in February and March 2026, and 82% in November 2021.[1]

    The prime age labor participation rate is just about the highest it's ever been in recorded history. The gender gap is also the lowest it's ever been.[2]

    [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060

    [2] https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/spotlighting...

  • drillsteps510 hours ago
    Ufff.

    >Those readings were the strongest since February 2020 (63.3%), signaling that more people were re-entering the workforce and helping to ease labor shortages in the wake of the pandemic. Labor shortages. In the wake of the pandemic. That ended 4 years ago. Ssuuure.

    >For workers 55 and older, demographic factors are key, with more individuals retiring, particularly since the pandemic. Got it. "Retiring": giving up on finding a job because nobody hires 50+ yo (either in the trades or white collar)

    >These findings reinforce a clear post pandemic trend: young men remain the most likely to be on the sidelines of the labor force. This underscores the need for policymakers and businesses alike to develop strategies to draw more of them back into the labor market—efforts that could help ease workforce shortages by expanding the overall supply of labor.

    "Nobody wants to work"

    >As labor force participation among young people declines, fewer teenagers are gaining access to those formative early work experiences, and the essential skills that come with them, which have lasting implications for both individual career trajectories and the broader economy.

    Have 2 teenage sons, at 14, 15, and 16 (last 2 summers) they were looking for a summer job (US, suburbs), retail, fast food... Anything, really. I made them apply to as many places around us as possible. Nothing.

    >It also aligns with widespread anecdotal reports that finding employment today is more difficult than it was a year or two ago.

    "anecdotal" Who wrote this stuff???

  • andrewclunn13 hours ago
    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.
    • toomuchtodo12 hours ago
      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 to shrink. At the same time, we're seeing youth unemployment around 6%, including those with a college degree [1].

      As the piece mentions, young men are "staying on the sidelines" versus engage in low wage, low status restaurant work (in this context). So, who can hold out longer: businesses and industries historically underpaying workers but "desperate for them"? Or potential workers? Because as long as US immigration is constrained, as a business, you get to pick from who is on the soil at whatever that market clearing price for labor is.

      [1] Young men are struggling in a slowing job market, even if they have college degrees - https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/young-men-strugglin... - August 13th, 2025 ("Men ages 23 to 30 are discovering that a bachelor's degree doesn't offer the same protection from unemployment that it used to")

      • panny9 hours ago
        >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.

        • hackable_sand7 hours ago
          Ew
        • toomuchtodo8 hours ago
          Will young men support progressive policy? Their only chance at economic success in a punishing macro? To be determined.
          • bluefirebrand7 hours ago
            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

            • toomuchtodo6 hours ago
              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

              • bluefirebrand4 hours ago
                I agree with you. There's unfortunately not a lot of will for unionization among anyone I've spoken to about it, though. Besides, companies are very ruthless when it comes to union busting. Especially in software, how do you unionize when your company will just fire you all and hire overseas workers to replace you overnight?

                I am with you. I want to believe we can figure this out and collectively claw back from the corpos. I'm just discouraged because I do not think it's likely to actually happen in my lifetime

          • cmxch6 hours ago
            Not with the last 20 years in good memory.

            You would have to openly make them a protected class before that would happen.

      • alistairSH12 hours ago
        leaving only younger prime working age cohort, which continues to shrink

        I don't think that's literally true? There are more Millennials (~22% of US population) now than Boomers (~20%) or Gen X (~19%). Same for Gen Z (~21%).

        Or do you mean that for whatever reason, Millenials aren't participating in the work force?

        • jerlam12 hours ago
          Millenials (and some Gen X) have the highest participation rate since 2001:

          > By contrast, participation among “prime-age” workers (25–54) has held relatively steady, averaging 83.6% since January 2024 and registering 83.8% in March 2026. It hit 84.0% in January, the highest since March 2001, with the current rate just shy of that recent peak.

        • toomuchtodo12 hours ago
          > The US labor force is quietly shrinking, not because of a weak economy, but because of a demographic squeeze. The population is aging, fewer younger workers are entering the workforce, and relative stability amongst prime-age workers (aged 25-54) can’t fully offset the gap. The result, according to the BLS projections, will be roughly 4.3 million fewer workers by 2034 than would be expected if participation rates held steady.

          > Each year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) develops 10-year projections about the labor market. The latest projections for the decade stretching from 2024 to 2034 show a steady decline of the overall labor force participation rate (LFPR), from 62.6% in 2024 to 61.1% by 2034, a 1.5 percentage point drop over a decade. Given the size of the US labor market, that 1.5 percentage point decline represents roughly 4.3 million fewer people who are either employed or actively seeking work, relative to 2024 participation levels.

          > The projections point to a demographic squeeze on the US labor market. As the population ages, workers move into older age groups where participation is lower. At the same time, fewer younger workers are entering the labor market, and prime-age participation rates decline slightly. Even with strong participation among prime-age workers and later retirements among older adults, the population is gradually shifting toward age groups with lower structural participation. The result is a slow but persistent decline in the overall LFPR.

          https://web.archive.org/web/20260407201640/https://d341ezm4i...

          The Demographic Squeeze: Why Labor Force Participation is Projected to Fall Through 2034 - https://www.hiringlab.org/2026/04/07/why-labor-force-partici... - April 7th, 2026

          Our Labor Force Demographics Are Getting Worse - https://www.aei.org/domestic-policy/our-labor-force-demograp... - January 23rd, 2026

          The Rising Storm: One Year Later - https://lightcast.io/resources/blog/the-rising-storm-one-yea... - Published on Jan 15, 2026, Updated on Mar 6, 2026

          The Rising Storm: Building a Future-Ready Workforce to Withstand the Looming Labor Shortage [pdf] - https://www.datocms-assets.com/62658/1761154208-the_rising_s... - 2024

          (think in systems)

      • drillsteps510 hours ago
        > 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?

        • toomuchtodo10 hours ago
          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)

          • drillsteps56 hours ago
            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.
  • FrustratedMonky13 hours ago
    Is it? or were a few people, lets say, put across the border.
    • justonceokay12 hours ago
      Wouldn’t that tighten up the labor force, if true? Less pidgeons for the same number of boxes
      • Izikiel4311 hours ago
        Here it would depend on how much those boxes are paying.
      • etchalon12 hours ago
        [flagged]
    • aftbit10 hours ago
      Are people without authorization to work counted in these stats, one way or another?
  • josefritzishere11 hours ago
    It's almost like tariffs incrase prices and utterly basic laws of supply and demand prevail, thus slowing the economy.
  • Herring12 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • BeetleB12 hours ago
      Did you post to the wrong submission ...?
      • hackable_sand12 hours ago
        Liberals want to have their cake and eat it too.

        Conservatives want your cake

      • Herring12 hours ago
        [flagged]
  • FrustratedMonky13 hours ago
    Flagged? Really?

    In a post about labor shortages in Restaurants? We can't mention immigration?

    Who do you think worked in the kitchen?