3 ms·
Most of these labor articles are about participation - which is a percentage. Unless it killed laborers disproportionately, and spared non-laborers - absolute d
by onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
Most of these labor articles are about participation - which is a percentage. Unless it killed laborers disproportionately, and spared non-laborers - absolute deaths is a non-issue for participation.
It's obviously an issue for the total labor force.
That said, >75% of deaths occured in 65+ [1].
~200k*.61 = ~122k people in a workforce of 165M is a rounding error.
.61 = labor force participation rate [2]
Additionally, almost 85% of deaths occured in 55+, and participation for 55-65 is already pretty low (~38%). Articles would've stated the obvious (that people died) if it was a major cause. Almost 3M dropped out of the labor force. Deaths probably account for less 4% of that.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...
[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART
- danaris 5y ago> Unless it killed laborers disproportionately, and spared non-laborers This is actually highly likely, given the facts we know. 1) It is highly transmissible when people are in close quarters for longer than a few minutes 2) Many businesses forced their employees to continue working with no PPE, no adequate ventilation, and no paid sick time Combine these things, and you get a very high likelihood of increased transmission among the most vulnerable of laborers—which thus increases their likelihood of death in proportion.
- rhexs 5y agoAh, yes, I’m sure the obese geriatric day laborers were hit extraordinarily hard by this.