Yea you are right. They seem to have used the following logic "Lost Labor-Force Participation Means Lost Economic Activity" Chart 1 . " women’s participation

Yea you are right. They seem to have used the following logic "Lost Labor-Force Participation Means Lost Economic Activity" Chart 1 . " women’s participation has also declined, to just 57% this year from roughly 60% in 2000." Chart 2. They seem to have correlated those two charts to come up with that figure. " Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, gave women greater freedom to work outside the home" is their explanation for higher rates in the past. Interestingly though men's participation rate seems to have fallen more dramatically and seem to mirror women's trend exactly from 2000. > Hey only mention US and norway which used to employ women in the work force at the same rate, and now they don't and had different growths in the GPD. While we’ve singled out Norway, many other countries provide meaningful contrast to the U.S.If we were to look closer to home, Canada offers an example where women’s participation picked up dramatically a few decades ago. I looked at canadian participation rate for women[2], I don't see "picked up dramatically" , perhaps I am looking at it wrong. 1. https://media.spglobal.com/documents/Women_at_Work2.pdf https://media.spglobal.com/documents/Women_at_Work2.pdf 2. https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm