4 ms·
> The male employment rate fell below 80 percent and stayed there. so there is 14% decline in a group of people from 16-64. It's missing: - Universities, trai
by lukasm 10y ago
> The male employment rate fell below 80 percent and stayed there.
so there is 14% decline in a group of people from 16-64. It's missing:
- Universities, training, gap years etc.
- People that have retired early
- Permtractors (some portion of them have a company in a different location, like Isle of Man and do work in, say, London)
- Disability benefits and eligibility
- toyg 10y agoAll those factors existed before.
- _delirium 10y agoNot all the factors are the same. It used to be legal in all states to leave school at age 16, which is part of why the traditional workforce participation statistic is for ages 16-64. But that only remains true in 16 states; 34 states have raised the minimum school-leaving age, yet the workforce-participation statistics are still calculated for age 16-64. Naturally you would expect lower workforce participation among people aged 16-18 when it's illegal for them to drop out of school and get a job instead. It's also now more de-facto expected than it used to be that you attend at least some university (2 years of community college if not a 4-year university), so workforce participation rates for people aged 18-20 are declining for non-mysterious reasons. Although that's at least something you can legally choose not to do.
- lukasm 10y agoYes, but with a totally different scale. - 15% more Millennials went to the uni comparing to Baby Boomers - In my friend's production company that works for BBC almost everybody is a contractor - 20 years ago very few were. (Similar pattern exists in big banks) There are so many variables.