EMRATIO

This entry was posted in Employment. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to EMRATIO

  1. Neil Wilson says:

    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:

    @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

  2. roger erickson says:

    lots of useful charts here
    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/32445

    Reply

    Walid M Reply:

    @roger erickson, a case of reversion to the mean ?

    Reply

    roger erickson Reply:

    @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:

    @Walid M,

    I’m not much of a technical analyst, but it looks like a pretty big head & shoulders formation.

    Reply

    WARREN MOSLER Reply:

    :) !!!

    Djp Reply:

    @Ed Rombach,

    Which would you rather buy, EMRATIO or NAIRU?
    I think I’d do the stupid and buy both.

    Walid M Reply:

    @Ed Rombach, With bill and warren getting more exposure we should start looking for a bottom formation !

    WARREN MOSLER Reply:

    Women entering the labor force?

    Reply

    roger erickson Reply:

    @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:

    @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:

    me too

  3. roger erickson says:

    Thanks for that update, Warren.

    Any way to calculate that ratio back to 1929 or before?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>