4 ms·

I posted separately, but your graph is for everyone while the article is about idle men, which is on clear downward trend over decades. https://fred.stlouisfed

by dahdum 10y ago

I posted separately, but your graph is for everyone while the article is about idle men, which is on clear downward trend over decades. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001 (Men) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300002 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300002 (Women) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300025 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300025 (Men, 20+) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300026 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300026 (Women, 20+)

brchr 10y ago
Oh I stand corrected that the BLS doesn’t break that out! Here’s a comparison of men (in black) vs. women (in blue). Very interesting. https://www.numer.al/us_bls_data/figures/labor-force-participation-rate-men-20-years-and-over?y_scale=from_zero https://www.numer.al/us_bls_data/figures/labor-force-partici...
- roymurdock 10y ago
  Is there any special function your website can do that FRED can't? I'm pretty sure all BLS data ends up in FRED.
  - brchr 10y ago
    If you’re trying to make a point about a change over a specific period, you can select a range and the selection gets appended by JS to the URL, such that if you send someone else the link they’ll see exactly the selection you made. It’s also possible to follow figures and be updated when they change. But also interesting things become possible across datasets. For instance, it becomes possible to mash up absolute job numbers from the BLS with population estimates from the Census and get accurate per-capita figures, that stay current when either the BLS or the Census publish new numbers.
vmarsy 10y ago
very interesting data! It would be even better if we could see the "Active population"(18 to 65) Looking at the 20+ charts: Back in the 50s, only ~30% of women used to work. Since 1950 it now went up by 27 points. (31% -> 58%). In the meantime men employment went down of 17 points (88% -> 71%). So overall for the population, we went to 59.5% ((88+31)/2) of the population working (Assuming as many men as women) to 64.5%((71+58)/2) of the population working. Where is the 'quiet catastrophe'? Compared to 1950, 5% more of the current population is now working. Shouldn't the author feel happy about the gain of "meaning, self-esteem and masculinity" of those 5%?

by dahdum 10y ago

brchr 10y ago

Oh I stand corrected that the BLS doesn’t break that out! Here’s a comparison of men (in black) vs. women (in blue). Very interesting. https://www.numer.al/us_bls_data/figures/labor-force-participation-rate-men-20-years-and-over?y_scale=from_zero https://www.numer.al/us_bls_data/figures/labor-force-partici...

roymurdock 10y ago
Is there any special function your website can do that FRED can't? I'm pretty sure all BLS data ends up in FRED.
- brchr 10y ago
  If you’re trying to make a point about a change over a specific period, you can select a range and the selection gets appended by JS to the URL, such that if you send someone else the link they’ll see exactly the selection you made. It’s also possible to follow figures and be updated when they change. But also interesting things become possible across datasets. For instance, it becomes possible to mash up absolute job numbers from the BLS with population estimates from the Census and get accurate per-capita figures, that stay current when either the BLS or the Census publish new numbers.

vmarsy 10y ago

very interesting data! It would be even better if we could see the "Active population"(18 to 65) Looking at the 20+ charts: Back in the 50s, only ~30% of women used to work. Since 1950 it now went up by 27 points. (31% -> 58%). In the meantime men employment went down of 17 points (88% -> 71%). So overall for the population, we went to 59.5% ((88+31)/2) of the population working (Assuming as many men as women) to 64.5%((71+58)/2) of the population working. Where is the 'quiet catastrophe'? Compared to 1950, 5% more of the current population is now working. Shouldn't the author feel happy about the gain of "meaning, self-esteem and masculinity" of those 5%?