EMRATIO
Posted by WARREN MOSLER on September 5th, 2012
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 5th, 2012 at 8:09 am and is filed under Employment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 5th, 2012 at 8:17 am
Thanks for that update, Warren.
Any way to calculate that ratio back to 1929 or before?
Reply
September 5th, 2012 at 8:19 am
St. Louis Fed only goes back to 1948
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EMRATIO
Reply
September 5th, 2012 at 8:21 am
lots of useful charts here
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/32445
Reply
Walid M Reply:
September 5th, 2012 at 8:29 am
@roger erickson, a case of reversion to the mean ?
Reply
roger erickson Reply:
September 5th, 2012 at 9:34 am
@Walid M,
I agree, elite bankers and Control Frauds are mean, but it’s not clear that we’re reverting to their dominance. Rather, we’re entering uncharted territory.
:)
Reply
Ed Rombach Reply:
September 5th, 2012 at 10:23 am
@Walid M,
I’m not much of a technical analyst, but it looks like a pretty big head & shoulders formation.
Reply
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
September 5th, 2012 at 10:45 am
:) !!!
Djp Reply:
September 5th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
@Ed Rombach,
Which would you rather buy, EMRATIO or NAIRU?
I think I’d do the stupid and buy both.
Walid M Reply:
September 6th, 2012 at 3:52 am
@Ed Rombach, With bill and warren getting more exposure we should start looking for a bottom formation !
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
September 5th, 2012 at 10:44 am
Women entering the labor force?
Reply
roger erickson Reply:
September 5th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
@WARREN MOSLER, and men exiting; the two charts for men/women on the St. Fed’s page are pretty much mirror images
Dan Lynch Reply:
September 5th, 2012 at 10:53 am
@Walid M,
Workforce participation increased as more women joined the workforce, partly because they were “liberated,” and partly because wage suppression meant that it took two incomes to maintain the standard of living that used to be achieved with only one income.
The sharp drop in workforce participation after the 2008 crash was obviously due to the economy, not to evolving social or demographic issues.
I like these participation charts because they don’t hide the discouraged workers like the headline unemployment number.
Reply
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
September 5th, 2012 at 9:32 pm
me too
September 5th, 2012 at 11:31 am
What’s the definition of participation here?
Usually it is engaged + ILO unemployed, which does exclude those who are classified as ‘inactive – wants a job’.
Reply
Djp Reply:
September 5th, 2012 at 10:09 pm
@Neil Wilson,
Amusingly it’s easier to find the definition of Civilian Employment-Population Ratio using the Google, than it is to find the definition of ILO unemployed.
And I don’t know why anyone would count engaged and not betrothed.
For more fun there’s also:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000/
But the above graph really is employed people/population. Where you only count people 16 and older who are not institutionalized.
Reply
September 5th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Big fall…..
Reply