3 ms·
The recession certainly did a number on the participation rate, but the current rate is more or less organic (as evidenced by recent gains in wages once unemplo
by rqebmm 10y ago
The recession certainly did a number on the participation rate, but the current rate is more or less organic (as evidenced by recent gains in wages once unemployment stabilized at ~5%).
A lot of baby-boomers aged out around during the recession, and will continue to do so (people born between 1943-1951 all turned 65 during the recession), and a lot of people went back into school to "hide" from it.
_Under_employment is still a serious issue, but that's only reflected in labor statistics by median wages. On the bright side those have been going up too, but aggregates only tell us so much.
- pessimizer 10y agoI don't know what "more or less organic" means here. Using the prime age (25-54) employment rate filters out that noise, and it shows that we've retraced about halfway from the worst of the housing crash. https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300060 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300060 edit: ...which is really terrible if you look at it in the longer term: http://www.epi.org/blog/prime-age-employment-to-population-ratio-remains-terribly-depressed/ http://www.epi.org/blog/prime-age-employment-to-population-r...