Since today is jobs day, it's worth pointing out that we've reached a milestone. The prime-age labor force participation rate for both men and women has now caught up to its pre-pandemic peak:
This is unusual. In the past two recessions (2000 and 2008), the LFPR declined and never caught back up to its past level. It's yet another indication that the pandemic recession was entirely artificial. Here's another:
In the past two recessions, older workers increased their participation rate both during and after the turndown. This time, participation dropped sharply and has stayed low for the past three years.
"This time, participation dropped sharply and has stayed low for the past three years."
Well TFG did kill off a lot of older workers. Hard for them to reenter the workforce.
No surprise that older folks have probably been less enthusiastic about returning to work, especially in crowded, public-facing positions. And of course a lot of workers in their late 50's/early 60's decided to just retire at the outset of the pandemic as well.
I read this today:
Maybe somebody can ask Republicans if that's good or if that's bad, and how they plan to use that in next year's election campaign.
Jeez, Kevin, take the day off already.
"In the past two recessions, older workers increased their participation rate both during and after the turndown. This time, participation dropped sharply and has stayed low for the past three years."
Yeah. Shocking that after a worldwide pandemic that spread through the air and killed mainly older people, one in which this country responded essentially by saying "staying home when sick, wearing a mask and/or getting vaxxed is too difficult to do," a bunch of older people decided to retire early or otherwise not return to jobs that require exposure to other people (i.e. most jobs). Almost as if most older people don't realize that they are just cogs in the capitalist machine, and actually don't want to volunteer to die early so that the rest of us can still have cheap goods and services. So weird!
What's next? A study on how, if you ban abortions, eventually both maternal mortality and birth defects go up?
What is your deal? Kevin isn't scratching his head about this--he's pointing out that the labor force participation data is an "indication that the pandemic recession was entirely artificial," both because prime age labor force participation rebounded (unlike after earlier recessions) and because older workforce participation decreased when in normal recessions it increases.
From context, it's obvious that Kevin doesn't find this "[s]hocking"--it's data that supports his contention that the pandemic recession was more pandemic than recession, in part because "a bunch of older people decided to retire early or otherwise not return to jobs that require exposure to other people."
Maybe _you_ should just take the day off already.
I am guessing here, but i bet the demographic and health changes in that Over 55 group explains much or all of the change.
Following the most recent recession, this age group was likely older and had a higher likelihood of disability than the 55+ age groups did following prior recessions.
The pandemic recession was very brief - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP - so workers aged very little during it. So demographics had little to do with return-to-work rate. On the other hand, the risk of adverse health events likely was a larger factor than actual health changes (long Covid?).
Kevin
Take a look at this:
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/birth-rate#:~:text=The%20birth%20rate%20for%20U.S.,a%200.09%25%20increase%20from%202019.
Think about this for a moment
The birthrate peaked in 1950. Add 70 years to 1950 and you come to 2020
So people who were approaching retirement (give or take a few more years of work) were gonna retire around this time. They weren't gonna do that after the 2000, and 2008 recessions.
Not only that but the birthrate today here in the U.S. is about 60% lower than in 1950.
But that only tell PART of the story. Who is entering the work force now? 20 year olds, on average. So the birthrate in 2003 was 14.033 births per 10,000 people. Today its 12.023 births per 10,000 people a difference of about 10% just in the last 20 years.
How hard is this to understand? There are far fewer people coming of age and many MANY more retiring. Until these boomers die off this trend will continue. We may be entering a recession that is missing the high unemployment of previous recessions.
There's just far fewer workers today than there were in the 1970s when the boomers entered the work force. Now THEY are leaving the work force and are being replaced by far FEWER workers.
Old metrics do not apply to today's situation. There's 10% fewer people entering the workforce than just 20 years ago.
It's why France had to up it's retirement age
Its why China is pushing for more kids
It's why our military recruiting goals are not being met.
And so on
This also might explain why many here are questioning your figure of 90,000 net new jobs just to "maintain" employment levels. I think that number is now far lower. (We really need a complete census every 5 years instead of 10).
****10% fewer being born now than 20 years ago.********
Sorry. but the overall trend is still fewer workers
To show everyone just how bad it is--- read this:
https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2023/04/08/kids-at-work-states-try-to-ease-child-labor-laws-at-behest-of-industry/
11 states are changing their child labor laws. Extending work hours on school nights, number of hours they can work, and one state is allowing children to be paid LESS than that states minimum wage
It's amazing to me that "we" have stooped this low.?