For those doing the early retirement thing (which once again, represents the majority of workers who have left the workforce), this is pretty much the truth. Who coulda known that juicing the stock market to record highs would have unforeseen and unintended consequences?
For those claiming that this doesn't explain why they can't hire a wage slave at the local bar & grill - a lot (not all, but most) of those early retirees had to get replaced by some other warm body, and so you've likely got this trickle-up "pull" reverberating through the workforce. Meanwhile, you're losing experience and tribal knowledge every time one of those greybeards walks out the door for the last time.
Ex.: Steve the 60-year-old manager doesn't come back from summer vacation after deciding to day-trade; he doesn't start collecting Social Security because LOL why bother when he's making more on good days than his yearly government payout would be. So he's not technical "retired" but he ain't coming back. The company promotes his second-in-charge (who hopefully didn't leave for the competitor who's paying 25% more), and that ripples all the way down to the 19-year-old who just got pulled from shipping and receiving to do whatever inn the quality office.
As a related side note - anyone here want to justify the process of giving nothing more than standard COLA raises of 2-3% to existing employees but paying new workers 25% more to fill the same spot when the existing guy walks after failing to negotiate a meaningful raise? Regardless of vocation, I constantly hear this from friends and family, and it seems completely ass-backwards when one considers the cost of swapping out an experienced employee for someone new. I mean, if you're upgrading talent each time this swap occurs, great - but I haven't heard this consistently happening. I know several people in particular that work in niche industries, and they just rotate through a handful of companies and pick up big raises every time they move.