Just a reminder to people, over in the user guide is the code to put up a link to EP on cross posts. We are starting to hop in terms of readers but people need to find us.
It is a joke, free trade and deregulation is more like a taxpayer subsidized pass for corporations and when it comes back and bites them, once again the taxpayer is stuck with the bill for the latest debacle.
What is the percentage of foreclosures which occurred simply because of deceptive or predatory mortgages and refinancing?
This is somewhat relevant. A little over the top, but it's basically accurate (let's go liquor up some big star Prof to get him to explain these labor participation graphs! heh, heh, heh!)
I just thought to keep thing clear, the Employment to population ratio (EPR) and the Labor Force Participation Rates (LFPR) are similar, but they are two different statistics.
The EPR is taken from the civilian noninstitutional population which is currently 233,627,000
The LFPR is taken from the Labor Force which is currently
154,390,000
manfrommiddletown is absolutely correct, the numbers are astounding when you choose a date in time and extrapolate the number of jobs required to re-attain prior participation rates/ratios in the current population levels.
Included are persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces
Taken as a whole, the employment to population ratio's don't look that alarming until recently.
I believe that one percentage point would be 23.6 million jobs. (I think the BLS graph can be pasted directly -- we'll see)
Series Id: LNS12300000 Seasonal Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio Labor force status: Employment-population ratio Type of data: Percent Age: 16 years and over
I think that would be one hell of a post. Not just one school (which please let's remain nameless for a moment), but on an aggregate. So many of them are opening up campuses in Dubai, China, India, changing the acceptance requirements for graduate school extensively and undergrad as well. Getting a statistical aggregate of graduate stipends/funding based on resident/non/international could be quite damning and very telling for public state and federally funded higher education institutions chartered with providing high quality education first and foremost to the residents of the locale where they exist.
Anonymous bits in cyberspace do get picked up, believe me, on here they are.
I just went looking through my Labor Economics text (Borjas), and found labor force participation rates for males in 2002 at 87.1% and women at 72.7%. So something is askew here. He quotes BLS, current Population survey 2002.
But that said, I went looking for the decline in male labor participation rate. (He has this also). Now he goes on about a strong correlation to increased retirement benefits and early retirement as a cause. Then he goes on further about claiming social security disability benefits as an incentive and such an incentive the government had to make harsh requirements. uh, huh. What is Social security disability? I think that gives people enough money for bus fare to go beg on the streets during the day as I recall.
uh, I need another labor economics text after reading that. Who here believes that men are retiring earlier because of the benefits? Now haven't we read report after report (two new GAO reports right in the right hand side!) about how the United States retirement system is in deep dodo, as well as all trying or who have retired? So, I don't think so! I think age discrimination probably has a much stronger correlation on that one.
So....good question and now I need another reference for while Borjas 2002 graph doesn't match at all, his other one for does match exactly to Weavers!
I'll bet manufacturing decline does have something to do with the decrease. (although I'm not so sure for women made a lot of inroads into manufacturing, but I think women's participation slope (increase) in the labor participate rates does overlap (correlate) to the decline of US manufacturing possibly). i.e. while they are coming in, them jobs were shipping out!
I dug around the BLS query interface. The marital status "married, spouse present" is not available in all age groups. Age group 25 and over has "married, spouse present", but the employment to population ratio is not available.
I guess that, a proxy could be created w marital status percentage pushed accross available EPR data. Sounds like a giant spreadsheet.
I bet that our mutual alma mater will be shitting bricks when they see this. Remember I have that database with the info about the resident/non-resident/foreign national breakdown for graduate funding.
Remember that earning a masters degree here sets a foreign national up for one of those 20,000 H1Bs not linked to a specific job.
A correlation I noticed, and left out of the blog (on purpose), is the men's the long-term linear (declining) employment trend has not really changed. The long-term trend for women, shows a departure, from a historical inclining trend, in year 2000 and hasn't recovered.
Men's employment growth is continuing to decline, while Women's employment growth is now flat or possibly declining.
Possible conclusion:
If men aren't taking women's jobs and vice-versa, the other variables are employment growth/loss and population growth/loss.
There is a similar trend in the College degreed employment. Employment Growth to NCES Bachelors degree production graph.
Check this out, CNET reports that the Programmer's Guild is going to connect guest worker Visas, H-1Bs behind women's decline in STEM.
They are issuing a report this week sometime linking the two. We'll have to wait to see what they come up with but it wouldn't surprise me at all there is a strong correlation. Most guest worker Visa holders in Professional areas, especially STEM are young and male.
Here comes the fireworks! Where the values of equality and diversity hit head on with the propaganda of the corporate cheap labor lobby. It's like watching a firecracker lit at both ends, I can't wait!
I don't have it off hand, but I know analysis of women participating it the labor market never was a displacement issue for the economy grew, women were working extensively as industrialization took off (the idea they were at home baking cookies isn't statistically accurate) and then the native population was rolling down on top of it.
and how about the number of households in the United States where there are two adults in them?
The percentage of married households is about 51%, so assuming that households have two adults to make it I'm not so sure that's a valid statistic. I mean how many people do you know who have stayed married more than 3 years? ;) I think married couples are a minority in the United States. We could up those numbers with live togethers and gay couples, long term financially joined, but still it's a huge percentage of households where it is implied there is only one adult bringing home the bacon so to speak.
But, this is a very good topic. I know the John Williams (shadowstats.com) says the unemployment rate should be 2x to 3x higher than reported and I certainly agree with that. The underemployment rate I would love for someone to expand upon further.
This comes a report by the Cleveland Fed about labor participation rates in the US and Ohio.
The story that you get about unemployment depends a great deal on the way you calculate the labor pool. The decline in labor force participation is particularly striking when you look at men. In the 50's it was 86%, but now it's down to something like 74%.
What's driven the increasing participation rate has been increasing participation by women in the workplace. Which is positive if it reflects increased freedom for women to enter the workforce, but just might be negative if instead it indicates that families are dealing with decreasing wages by having both parents work instead of one.
I'd like to be able to go through, and run unemployment numbers state by state using the participation rate for males in 1970 (79.7% nationally) as compared to today (75.9% in 2005). If you use employment-population numbers, you get prisoners and others in the mix. There's a good argument they should be included in the unemployment numbers, but that's another discussion.
We find that in June 2008 the male unemployment rate (over 20) was 5.8% with a 75.9% participation. This generates a male labor force of 79.291 million. If we increase the participation rate to 1970 levels, then the male labor force grows to 83.183 million. And there are 75.402 million employed in this group. Which means that using 1970 male participation rates, there are 7.781 million unemployed out of a labor force of 83.183 million.
Put another way the male unemployment rate would rise to 9.4% if the male participation rate were the same as it was in 1970. Again, 9.4% unemployment.
What I see happening is the housing bill is passed and Freddie/Fannie are bailed out, which will affect US deficit, economy, but later, and banks are just setting up to gobble up all of the failed banks in some major acquisition pig fest similar to private equity firms. I just don't see this being economic Armageddon, more of another financials stock drop but in a rigged game.
They also might be pumping up the stock price, due to those equity deals.
But, I think foreign sovereign wealth funds, someone will come down and swoop this up in some insider trade to keep the ponzi scheme going.
Hey, you can say the Democratic party stabbed us in the back on EP, ain't it nice to call 'em when you see 'em?
it's not jiving with the stats on wage decline on "native" (I didn't make up that term, it's a labor economics term to mean citizens vs. immigrants) income and the impact from immigration on their wages.
Another element here is outsourcing. We now have global sourcing of jobs which assuredly (although the stats are few and far between) have affected US employment numbers.
Anyway, I don't think one can make any correlations or conclusions from just these raw numbers, although it is interesting.
These are some wild numbers! I have to think about this, but one thing is you obviously did a lot of number crunching, which is good. First pass I don't see any holes, in your stats, but let me mull, this is making my head explode.
because of the soft sided aspects of this report. I think women, especially need an objective statistical report on just how many did have their careers wiped out for that's what I suspect. Because it is a discriminatory field in the first place they were on the front lines of global labor arbitrage. I couldn't get the stats out of the report and had to go second source on this one because they want $$$$ to even read it. Supposedly it will be published in the Harvard Business review at which point maybe I can see some raw statistics and extrapolate or maybe there needs to be a much more thorough study.
But, your story, I believe you and sorry to hear it.
nevermind, found it!
thanks for letting me post and your comment. Um...ok maybe I'm stupid, but where is that link thing for the cross post??
Just a reminder to people, over in the user guide is the code to put up a link to EP on cross posts. We are starting to hop in terms of readers but people need to find us.
It is a joke, free trade and deregulation is more like a taxpayer subsidized pass for corporations and when it comes back and bites them, once again the taxpayer is stuck with the bill for the latest debacle.
What is the percentage of foreclosures which occurred simply because of deceptive or predatory mortgages and refinancing?
This is somewhat relevant. A little over the top, but it's basically accurate (let's go liquor up some big star Prof to get him to explain these labor participation graphs! heh, heh, heh!)
Included are persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 States and the District of Columbia who are not inmates of institutions (for example, penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces
http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm#C
http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm#E
The labor force includes all persons classified as employed or unemployed in accordance with the definitions contained in this glossary.
The labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.
http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm#L
Taken as a whole, the employment to population ratio's don't look that alarming until recently.
I believe that one percentage point would be 23.6 million jobs. (I think the BLS graph can be pasted directly -- we'll see)
I think that would be one hell of a post. Not just one school (which please let's remain nameless for a moment), but on an aggregate. So many of them are opening up campuses in Dubai, China, India, changing the acceptance requirements for graduate school extensively and undergrad as well. Getting a statistical aggregate of graduate stipends/funding based on resident/non/international could be quite damning and very telling for public state and federally funded higher education institutions chartered with providing high quality education first and foremost to the residents of the locale where they exist.
Anonymous bits in cyberspace do get picked up, believe me, on here they are.
I just went looking through my Labor Economics text (Borjas), and found labor force participation rates for males in 2002 at 87.1% and women at 72.7%. So something is askew here. He quotes BLS, current Population survey 2002.
But that said, I went looking for the decline in male labor participation rate. (He has this also). Now he goes on about a strong correlation to increased retirement benefits and early retirement as a cause. Then he goes on further about claiming social security disability benefits as an incentive and such an incentive the government had to make harsh requirements. uh, huh. What is Social security disability? I think that gives people enough money for bus fare to go beg on the streets during the day as I recall.
uh, I need another labor economics text after reading that. Who here believes that men are retiring earlier because of the benefits? Now haven't we read report after report (two new GAO reports right in the right hand side!) about how the United States retirement system is in deep dodo, as well as all trying or who have retired? So, I don't think so! I think age discrimination probably has a much stronger correlation on that one.
So....good question and now I need another reference for while Borjas 2002 graph doesn't match at all, his other one for does match exactly to Weavers!
I'll bet manufacturing decline does have something to do with the decrease. (although I'm not so sure for women made a lot of inroads into manufacturing, but I think women's participation slope (increase) in the labor participate rates does overlap (correlate) to the decline of US manufacturing possibly). i.e. while they are coming in, them jobs were shipping out!
I dug around the BLS query interface. The marital status "married, spouse present" is not available in all age groups. Age group 25 and over has "married, spouse present", but the employment to population ratio is not available.
I guess that, a proxy could be created w marital status percentage pushed accross available EPR data. Sounds like a giant spreadsheet.
I bet that our mutual alma mater will be shitting bricks when they see this. Remember I have that database with the info about the resident/non-resident/foreign national breakdown for graduate funding.
Remember that earning a masters degree here sets a foreign national up for one of those 20,000 H1Bs not linked to a specific job.
is why have male labor participation rates declined?
And what's the correlation between this and the decline of manufacturing?
A correlation I noticed, and left out of the blog (on purpose), is the men's the long-term linear (declining) employment trend has not really changed. The long-term trend for women, shows a departure, from a historical inclining trend, in year 2000 and hasn't recovered.
Men's employment growth is continuing to decline, while Women's employment growth is now flat or possibly declining.
Possible conclusion:
If men aren't taking women's jobs and vice-versa, the other variables are employment growth/loss and population growth/loss.
There is a similar trend in the College degreed employment. Employment Growth to NCES Bachelors degree production graph.
<Here>
The graph shows employment ratio declines starting in 2000, after seven years of very comensurate growth.
Check this out, CNET reports that the Programmer's Guild is going to connect guest worker Visas, H-1Bs behind women's decline in STEM.
They are issuing a report this week sometime linking the two. We'll have to wait to see what they come up with but it wouldn't surprise me at all there is a strong correlation. Most guest worker Visa holders in Professional areas, especially STEM are young and male.
Here comes the fireworks! Where the values of equality and diversity hit head on with the propaganda of the corporate cheap labor lobby. It's like watching a firecracker lit at both ends, I can't wait!
Way to go PG!
I don't have it off hand, but I know analysis of women participating it the labor market never was a displacement issue for the economy grew, women were working extensively as industrialization took off (the idea they were at home baking cookies isn't statistically accurate) and then the native population was rolling down on top of it.
and how about the number of households in the United States where there are two adults in them?
The percentage of married households is about 51%, so assuming that households have two adults to make it I'm not so sure that's a valid statistic. I mean how many people do you know who have stayed married more than 3 years? ;) I think married couples are a minority in the United States. We could up those numbers with live togethers and gay couples, long term financially joined, but still it's a huge percentage of households where it is implied there is only one adult bringing home the bacon so to speak.
But, this is a very good topic. I know the John Williams (shadowstats.com) says the unemployment rate should be 2x to 3x higher than reported and I certainly agree with that. The underemployment rate I would love for someone to expand upon further.
From here:
http://yellowroad.wallstreetexaminer.com/blogs/2008/07/23/china-may-dump...
This tells much of the story:
This comes a report by the Cleveland Fed about labor participation rates in the US and Ohio.
The story that you get about unemployment depends a great deal on the way you calculate the labor pool. The decline in labor force participation is particularly striking when you look at men. In the 50's it was 86%, but now it's down to something like 74%.
What's driven the increasing participation rate has been increasing participation by women in the workplace. Which is positive if it reflects increased freedom for women to enter the workforce, but just might be negative if instead it indicates that families are dealing with decreasing wages by having both parents work instead of one.
I'd like to be able to go through, and run unemployment numbers state by state using the participation rate for males in 1970 (79.7% nationally) as compared to today (75.9% in 2005). If you use employment-population numbers, you get prisoners and others in the mix. There's a good argument they should be included in the unemployment numbers, but that's another discussion.
Using this release
We find that in June 2008 the male unemployment rate (over 20) was 5.8% with a 75.9% participation. This generates a male labor force of 79.291 million. If we increase the participation rate to 1970 levels, then the male labor force grows to 83.183 million. And there are 75.402 million employed in this group. Which means that using 1970 male participation rates, there are 7.781 million unemployed out of a labor force of 83.183 million.
Put another way the male unemployment rate would rise to 9.4% if the male participation rate were the same as it was in 1970. Again, 9.4% unemployment.
What I see happening is the housing bill is passed and Freddie/Fannie are bailed out, which will affect US deficit, economy, but later, and banks are just setting up to gobble up all of the failed banks in some major acquisition pig fest similar to private equity firms. I just don't see this being economic Armageddon, more of another financials stock drop but in a rigged game.
They also might be pumping up the stock price, due to those equity deals.
But, I think foreign sovereign wealth funds, someone will come down and swoop this up in some insider trade to keep the ponzi scheme going.
Hey, you can say the Democratic party stabbed us in the back on EP, ain't it nice to call 'em when you see 'em?
it's not jiving with the stats on wage decline on "native" (I didn't make up that term, it's a labor economics term to mean citizens vs. immigrants) income and the impact from immigration on their wages.
Another element here is outsourcing. We now have global sourcing of jobs which assuredly (although the stats are few and far between) have affected US employment numbers.
Anyway, I don't think one can make any correlations or conclusions from just these raw numbers, although it is interesting.
Actually, the Employment to population ratios charts are a simple query against the BLS database, I simply copied and uploaded the BLS charts.
I looked up and pasted the current population and employment numbers. (added the 000's to convert from "numbers in thousands" to true numbers)
The "Growth in age 65 attained" is simply current year minus prior year.
Kind of trashes the Unemployment statistic?
These are some wild numbers! I have to think about this, but one thing is you obviously did a lot of number crunching, which is good. First pass I don't see any holes, in your stats, but let me mull, this is making my head explode.
because of the soft sided aspects of this report. I think women, especially need an objective statistical report on just how many did have their careers wiped out for that's what I suspect. Because it is a discriminatory field in the first place they were on the front lines of global labor arbitrage. I couldn't get the stats out of the report and had to go second source on this one because they want $$$$ to even read it. Supposedly it will be published in the Harvard Business review at which point maybe I can see some raw statistics and extrapolate or maybe there needs to be a much more thorough study.
But, your story, I believe you and sorry to hear it.
Pages