Friday, December 02, 2011

What Really Counts in the Unemployment Numbers

That's the Employment-to-Population (above 16 years of age) ratio.

As you can see, from 1990 to 2008, that averaged about 63%.  Now?

Ugly.

That chart takes into account the 'not-in-labor-force' group, which grew by 315K this period.

HT: Confidential
Posted by at

7 comments:

Jim said...

Remember that some of the increase in "not-in-labor-force" can be attributed to the Baby Boomers beginning to retire in larger numbers.

12/03/2011 1:09 PM
Saint Revolution said...

Jim:

Please prove that via links to solid statistical evidence.

Please provide evidence to back up your statement.

12/04/2011 4:03 AM
Jim said...

Well, besides being obvious (there was a Baby Boom, there are Baby Boomers, Baby Boomers are retiring, thus leaving the workforce), here is some statistical evidence:

Catalpa Capital Advisors

12/04/2011 12:23 PM
Dad29 said...

Jim--from your source:

some boomers without jobs are not ready to retire and they are accounting for an increasing share of the unemployed. In the mid 1990s, 6.7% of unemployed Americans were 55 or older; today that share is already 15.6%. Even as the business cycle expansion continues to gain momentum, the aging of the unemployed might be a permanent feature of the US labor market

By the way, your source missed something VERY significant: the post-1965 entry of women into the labor market. EEO had a serious impact on the participation rate. They also missed the entry of PRChina.

At the time when EEO took hold (1965-1985 or so) there was plenty of prosperity to go around in the US, as PRChina was still off the grid for practical purposes.

That changed with MFN status (Clinton), and likely has something to do with the part/rate now, too.

12/04/2011 12:54 PM
Jim said...

There is no doubt that people are giving up looking for work. I didn't deny that. I only pointed out that the percent of Americans in the workforce has declined in part because a significant percent of the workforce is beginning to retire.

In other words, it's not all Obama's fault.

12/04/2011 2:15 PM
Dad29 said...

No, it is not Bozo's fault.

The indictment belongs to LBJ, the 1965-66 whore called "Congress", and most of their successors.

12/05/2011 4:30 PM
Jim said...

Wow, I'd love to read your explanation of that. Care to expound?

12/05/2011 9:41 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)