![]() |
|
|
That number will always go up as long as the population is growing.
|
Can we see that as a % of population...
I am sure there were more people as a whole in 2016 than 1975, which is all your graph currently shows. |
Originally Posted by Guardiola
(Post 1385074)
Can we see that as a % of population...
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...7c6e7de37d.png |
Can we also go back farther than 1975? You know, like back to the 20's or even 50's. The participation rate was at a historic high in the 70's due to the recent injection of women into the workforce en mass. If you look back further you will see that we are merely regressing to the mean.
EDIT: Joe beat me to it. |
Senior ranking black Chicago officer referred to the kidnapping, terrorizing, and assault of special needs mentally disabled man as a "prank". Fuck him.
|
So numbers are down, but not record low.
Nice to see that big drop start in 2009... the year I completed graduate school. I still have fond memories of the job market conditions... |
Originally Posted by Ryan_G
(Post 1385076)
Can we also go back farther than 1975? You know, like back to the 20's or even 50's. The participation rate was at a historic high in the 70's due to the recent injection of women into the workforce en mass. If you look back further you will see that we are merely regressing to the mean.
EDIT: Joe beat me to it. |
Originally Posted by Guardiola
(Post 1385080)
So numbers are down, but not record low..
|
Also, why would we want to compare the rates to a time when women traditionally didn't work?
We aren't regressing to the mean if the earlier samples didn't include nearly half the population. |
Originally Posted by Monk
(Post 1385118)
Also, why would we want to compare the rates to a time when women traditionally didn't work?
We aren't regressing to the mean if the earlier samples didn't include nearly half the population. |
now, you mean 40 years later...
it looks like there were tons of jobs for them to fill considering the surge of people employed in the workforce just after 1976. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1385133)
now, you mean 40 years later...
it looks like there were tons of jobs for them to fill considering the surge of people employed in the workforce just after 1976. |
More and more women had to go to work because of the rising tax rates. And the desire for more consumer goods, and larger more expensive houses, and the rising cost of healthcare for no good reason other than Insurance and ridiculous malpractice awards are out of hand.
|
Haven't baby boomers been a significant and increasing number of retired people for the entire time that the original participation graph was going up?
I would suspect that is a trend that is behind the reduction in "reported unemployment" just as much as anything - as the boomers are retiring, they are not consuming fewer goods, but they are vacating jobs which still need to get done. |
I made a few charts of my own, based on data from CMS.gov
Here's total healthcare spending in the US as a % of GDP: https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...c263da9ece.png Interesting how it just keeps going up at a roughly linear pace. Fortunately, we still have several decades left before healthcare spending consumes 100% of GDP. Here's the overhead / administrative cost associated with health insurance: https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...490ac5cbde.png Aaaaand, overhead / admin costs as a percentage of total healthcare spending: https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...a1d9956af1.png Yup, it costs more and it's less efficient. |
Originally Posted by Ryan_G
(Post 1385152)
This shows that we are not at an all time low. We are merely within a normal range of workforce participation.
|
Originally Posted by sixshooter
(Post 1385163)
More and more women had to go to work because of the rising tax rates. And the desire for more consumer goods, and larger more expensive houses, and the rising cost of healthcare for no good reason other than Insurance and ridiculous malpractice awards are out of hand.
Workforce participation reflects individuals of working age, and those within that age that have stopped looking for work. It's at historic highs. Not since the "malaise" of Carter have we been this high. Luckily (/sarc) the government safety net has never been larger. |
Originally Posted by cordycord
(Post 1385334)
Workforce participation reflects individuals of working age, and those within that age that have stopped looking for work. It's at historic highs.
When deriving a correction factor for the unemployment rate relative to the workforce-participation rate, how does one differentiate between those who have "stopped looking for work" and those who elect not to work. Eg: assume a recently married heterosexual couple. Prior to marriage both members of the couple had jobs; one a highly paid career-type position, and the other an hourly-type mid level position. Shortly after becoming married, the female becomes pregnant. A few months prior to her giving birth, the male (who had the hourly-rate job), loses his job. The woman gives birth, and the couple decide that she will return to her highly-paid job, while the man becomes a stay-at-home dad. So, how do you count this? Is the man "unemployed?" Did he voluntarily leave the workforce? One could argue that had he not lost his job prior to the birth, that the couple would instead have elected to use childcare services, with both members continuing to work. This isn't a hypothetical that I pulled out of my ass, it's my step-sister and her husband. So, seriously, how do you count their situation? |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1385336)
Serious question:
When deriving a correction factor for the unemployment rate relative to the workforce-participation rate, how does one differentiate between those who have "stopped looking for work" and those who elect not to work. Eg: assume a recently married heterosexual couple. Prior to marriage both members of the couple had jobs; one a highly paid career-type position, and the other an hourly-type mid level position. Shortly after becoming married, the female becomes pregnant. A few months prior to her giving birth, the male (who had the hourly-rate job), loses his job. The woman gives birth, and the couple decide that she will return to her highly-paid job, while the man becomes a stay-at-home dad. So, how do you count this? Is the man "unemployed?" Did he voluntarily leave the workforce? One could argue that had he not lost his job prior to the birth, that the couple would instead have elected to use childcare services, with both members continuing to work. This isn't a hypothetical that I pulled out of my ass, it's my step-sister and her husband. So, seriously, how do you count their situation? Quick answer: If he's not looking for a job, he's not in the work force. First, a primer: Not Looking for Work, Labor Force Participation and Recovery Wiki's version of "Unemployment"...a long read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unempl...bor_statistics Under "Limitations of the unemployment definition" It is possible to be neither employed nor unemployed by ILO definitions, i.e., to be outside of the "labour force." [this is international law, but I add for the concept][29] These are people who have no job and are not looking for one. Many of these are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labour force. Still others have a physical or mental disability which prevents them from participating in labour force activities. And of course some people simply elect not to work, preferring to be dependent on others for sustenance. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:31 PM. |
|
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands