Episode Details

On Rachel Barber, “Workers keep leaving the US labor force. Experts can’t agree why,” USA TODAY, July 9, 2026.

I went to LDT with hope in my heart.

Thirty-six years into a career that had taken me through Detroit and Stuttgart and Chennai, I wanted to relearn the thing I had loved first, which was the assembly floor. I arrived carrying everything I had been formed to know. I left broken.

Not because the work was hard. The work is supposed to be hard. I left because the floor was organized as a three-way war — the people against management, management against the union, the union against the conditions — and a structure at war has no aperture for a gift. It didn’t matter what I brought. There was no place to set it down. My body stopped being willing to suffer, and by then the floor had already refused what I had to offer.

Now read the numbers USA Today published on July 9. Over the past year about a million Americans left the labor force. Seven hundred and twenty thousand in June alone. Participation fell to 61.5 percent, the lowest reading in five decades once you set the pandemic aside. Six experts were consulted. Between them they produced five explanations: swollen 401(k) balances, return-to-office mandates, the cost of care, exhaustion after a search that never ends, and the body that finally says no.

Every one of those explanations is about the worker. Not one is about the job.

That is the argument. The participation rate is not the finding. The shape of the inquiry into it is the finding. A million people walked out of the building, and the building was never questioned — not once, by anyone, in a piece whose entire premise is that we cannot work out why they went. Ask a worker why he left and you will get an answer about his life. Ask the job why he left and you will get an answer about the job. We have run the first study a million times. We have never run the second.

And the unemployment rate improved. It fell to 4.2 percent — not because more people were hired, but because fewer were counted as looking. Daniel Zhao of Glassdoor said it fell for “the wrong reasons.” He is right, and his sentence is the whole indictment. A statistic got better because we stopped counting the people it was built to describe. The article prints the line and walks past it.

The third state

The sharpest number in the piece is the one that gives the game away. Participation among workers fifty-five and older fell to 37.1 percent in June. A twenty-one-year low.

Two explanations are offered, three paragraphs apart, and never introduced to each other. Bill Adams of Comerica says the market boomed, retirement accounts swelled, and older Americans felt able to step away. Michele Evermore of the National Employment Law Project says that after decades on the job, people assume the timing is theirs and then discover that “oftentimes it’s up to their bodies.”

One says they left because they could afford to. The other says they left because they had to. Both are true of somebody. Both assume the same thing — that a person at sixty-two has exactly two available states.

Still doing the job. Or gone.

I am fifty-five and older. I have a 401(k). Had I walked out of LDT in June rather than when I did, I would have entered the count as one of the 720,000, and Adams would have booked me as a wealth-effect retirement. Evermore would have said my body told me. Both would have been describing a man they had never met. Neither would have written down that I came back to the floor on purpose, at the end of a global career, and that the floor had no use for what I carried.

There is a third state. The knees that can no longer walk the line can still walk a new hire down it. The back that cannot lift can still catch the lift that is about to go wrong. The body wears out decades before the judgment does — that is the cruelty and the opportunity both