3 ms·

I agree that the most-commonly reported 'head-line' numbers can be misleading, but more detailed statistics are available. One of my favorites is the labor part

by nickff 8mo ago

I agree that the most-commonly reported 'head-line' numbers can be misleading, but more detailed statistics are available. One of my favorites is the labor participation rate: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART You might want to look at the 'not in labor force' numbers: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU05026642 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU05026642

gruez 8mo ago
>One of my favorites is the labor participation rate: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART and also labor participation rate, but for 25-54 Yrs, so you exclude the effect of demographic changes https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060
- jeffbee 8mo ago
  Yes, moreover the whole-population participation rate is basically useless and nobody should look at it.
  - nickff 8mo ago
    I find the overall population participation rate as being very informative with respect to the tax base, and more general changes over time.