Most of them have depleted their retirement savings by the time they qualify and will either have to get one of those scam "reverse mortgages" or work a patchwork of part time jobs to survive on Social Security.

But hey! We've got more billionaires than any other country! Go USA!

315,000,000. 92+ million is nearly a third of the entire nation. You are not
including minors (those under 18), are you? I know the unemployed rate is
high - but THAT high?

and today (2014) it's a little less than 63% -- a difference of 4+%. On paper it doesn't look that bad.
It could very well be very bad when translated into reality.

How many who want or need to be in the labor force are not able to find meaningful or living wage work? I don't care about the millions happily out of the labor force.
-Airplane

...because THOSE are the jobs we are celebrating.

...once American Workers got hungry and desperate enough to work for 3rd World Wages w/o benefits.

[font size=3]Ross was RIGHT...

The jobs lost during the recession were in the $35k-$70k range. And those jobs are not coming back. But we are getting a ton of jobs under $30k being created. And the above $100k is remaining steady.

This is why the middle class is falling apart.

But go on ahead and keep celebrating the low unemployment numbers since it's good for party politics....

Not everybody has to work.

The US economy has delivered two minor shocks in a week, prompting concerns that bond tapering by the Federal Reserve may be doing more damage than expected.

Non-Farm Payrolls data released on Friday shows that the workforce shed 806,000 jobs in April, a stunning drop that cannot plausibly be blamed on the weather. Wage growth and hours worked were both flat and the manufacturing hours per week fell.

This follows news earlier in the week that the economy to a halt in the first quarter. Growth plummeted to 0.1pc and is now well below the Fed’s “stall speed” indicator. Analysts blamed this on the freezing polar vortex over the winter.

Yet the jobs data confirm a disturbingly weak picture. The headline unemployment rate fell to 6.3pc but that was only because the labour “participation rate” plummeted back to a modern-era low of 62.8pc, last seen in 1978 when there were far fewer women in the workforce. The rate for males is the lowest ever recorded at 69.1pc.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/10805350/Shocking-US-jobs-data-impugns-recovery-Fed-tapering.html

Perhaps a more honest approach to the issue of the labor force participation. And what kind of hack news organization compares not seasonally adjusted numbers month to month?

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

They have traditionally used this "not in the workforce" number to shock and mystify people, because it is completely without context but sounds huge. It's as dishonest a procedure as can be. The other procedure on display here is to insist that every job that is created is a minimum wage service job (you know, the jobs for "losers" ). These are the people who claim to be most strongly behind the working class. Since they have been running this same program while the unemployment rate drops and drops, it is best to ignore their antics - they are more self-congratulatory than informative, and the display is really for their own little circle jerk of ideologues.

Rhode Island still sucks for jobs