The Employment to Population Ratio

The official "unemployment" rate is problematic, because it does not really count all the people who are unemployed, and is based on a fairly complex calculations.

People have often wondered if the job market today is worse than the job market was, say, 50 years ago.

The best comparative measure of how the job market is doing is the employment to population ratio—the percent of the population who is actually employed.

One problem with this, however, is that it does not address the issue of women working in the home. The employment to population ratio used to be substantially lower than it was today because many more women were homemakers, taking care of domestic duties and the upbringing of the children. The work of these women should not be discounted, and had a very real economic effect. With meals being cooked and the children being taken care of, the family did not need to eat at restaurants or pay for expensive childcare. Even going to the grocery store, pre-prepared food is much more expensive than the raw ingredients. The same can be said of cleaning services. Women were working, though it simply was not reflected in the economic statistics. So when we look back at the employment to population ratio in the 1950's, keep in mind that it was lower because many women were working in the home.

 

I think this graphic gives you a fuller idea:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-mystery-where-did-all-the-workers-go/274786/


As to your graph, the LFPR peaked at about 84% for this age group in the 90s, was relatively stable at 83% in the 2000s, and now it is at about 81%. I don't see anything surprising or unusual about that. We are talking about a 3 percentage point difference here, and even among this age group education has a lot to do with that. The number of Americans attending higher education from 2000-2011 actually increased at a higher rate among those older than 25 than younger students--by 41% actually.

The U6 unemployment rate, which measures unemployment plus workers who have given up looking for work and those working part time but wanting full time jobs has declined from a high of 17.1% in April of 2010 to the current level of 10.8%. The standard U3 measure of employment was at 9.9% in April of 2010 (it peaked at 10% in October of the previous year) and is now at 5.4%. So both measures have gotten better since the height of the recession.

 

Private sector jobs go up, gov't. jobs go down...

1,788,000 More People Employed Since December 2016; 148,000 Jobs Added Last Month
January 5, 2018 - On November 20, President Trump tweeted: "Under President Trump unemployment rate will drop below 4%. Analysts predict economic boom for 2018!"

See also:

Federal Government Cut 16,000 Jobs in 2017
January 5, 2018 | The federal government employed 16,000 fewer people in December 2017 than it did in December 2016, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 

Here you can see the labor force participation rate for white men over the age of 20, from 1954 to 2014. As you can see, the percent of this demographic segment working has pretty steadily been declining over this time period, from 88% in 1954 down to 72% by 2014.


Here you can see the labor force participation rate for all men, from 1948 to 2012. That has also been declining. Superimposed on the graph is the number of men not counted in the labor force, which went from 60 million in 1975 to 87 million by 2012.



The overall trend of course is that the male labor force participation rate has been on the gradual decline over the last 6 decades, with less men working.

This of course has had several different causes over different periods of time. For example starting in the 70s more households in which the woman was working while the man was the one who stayed at home, even though that's still relatively uncommon.

 

Here's another useful graph that can help you understand the connection between the labor force participation rate and the unemployment rate and the Employment to Population Ratio:



That steep drop you see was the Recession.

 

not really important U6 is the key measure it went way up in recession and now is back down to 50 year average.

 

An unemployed person is someone who lacks the means of providing their basic needs and is performing no income producing labour.
Only those who are incapable of performing any income producing labour should be exempt from being counted.

 

the rates clearly show that the Trump admin is failing in providing employment for everyone who wants to work

 

Easy to increase that measure: e.g. make it harder to receive welfare payments. Of course that doesn't mean the job market is performing better. You might just combine greater death rates (as the sick are forced into work) with greater levels of labour market exploitation.

Why not just refer to wage or working poverty rates?

 

why best when the ratio may be a function of a change in population age, interest in working, women entering the work force, minimum wage making it illegal to hire many, illegal workers, change in retirement age etc.etc.

 

What's your reasoning here please?

For me they still aren't employed. So it makes sense to describe them as unemployed.

In the UK the stats are hashed and rehashed to the point of being quite meaningless with each government using a different system of counting to make it sound better.
Currently "unemployed" is used to describe people claiming "Jobseekers Benefit".
While NEET describes all those not in employment or education or training.

For myself, I am often unemployed but have claimed no welfare payments ever.
So I get maximum rate taxation when I am unemployed because according to the government unemployed does not mean, "not having a job".
You can probably have a job and still claim Jobseekers and hence be unemployed with a job. Can't wait for that little statistic.

 

A fib! The main redefinitions occurred under Thatcher's recession in the 1980s. Britain has the same variation of definition as used elsewhere, with analysis easily embedded within the ILO statistical definitions

 

The employment ratio also reflects the fact that more folks (boomers) are retiring.

 

Subpar compared to the last several years.

 

Why, for example, should a trust fund baby who is happy living off of daddy's inheritance and has no interest in working be count as unemployed?

 

I'm not sure what uses that definition.

The official BLS stats count unemployed basically as folks who want a job (and searched for one over the past 4 (I think it is) weeks. It has nothing to do with whether someone "lacks the means of providing their basic needs" or not.

 

Is it statistically relevant? Unemployment was an important measure in the 70s, where we bought the Phillips Curve relationship and how a government could naturally choose full employment outcomes. The analysis has changed since. We know know that full employment isn't necessarily a positive outcome. Creating crap jobs is, after all, easy in neoliberalism. It twins short term profits with long term economic structural problem

 

That's an interesting question. I don't know how many people who could be working choose not to because they are independently wealthy.

But that was just an example of several categories of folks who choose not to work for reasons other than "lack[ing]s the means of providing their basic needs" and would include students and homekeepers as well.

Are you saying unemployment data is not relevant or important? I agree that it only provides some information (as you note, it does not necessarily tell us much about the quality of jobs) but its still relevant information.

 

It still has relevance. But things have changed. In the 60s/70s there was more economic policy sense. We could take unemployment data for what is was: improvement in the economy. Its changed since. An improvement in employment/unemployment doesn't necessarily reflect an improvement in the economy. Zero hour contracts, for example, have been used to encourage further means to inflame underpayment (and underpayment is effectively a hidden form of unemployment)

 

why on earth would you call it underpayment when its payment both parties agree to? If it was underpayment the worker would not accept the job but rather accept employment from those who over paid.

 

"Unemployment is a phenomenon that occurs when a person who is actively searching for employment is unable to find work".no need to feel bad! This is typical of liberalism.

 

Did you have something relevant you wanted to say about my post? Or did you just want to rant irrelevantly? This is typical of conservatives.

 

I didn't say they should. As long as daddy's money lasts they have no need of employment OR government assistance.

 

Those who are BOTH physically AND mentally incapable of performing any form of income producing labours, while are unemployed should if anything be counted separately as unemployable. Anyone who is capable of performing some form of labour, physical or mental, and lacks the means of providing for their basic needs should be counted as unemployed and be diligently seeking a job.

 

Income, as a result of ones labour is the primary means by which ones basic needs SHOULD be acquired. If one lacks the means of providing their basic needs, they NEED a job whether or not they WANT one.
Government benefits should only be provided as a result of some labours provided beneficial to society, and payment not based upon an hourly rate but piece rate instead. The objective should be to reduce ones dependency on government assistance as quickly as possible.