We have unambiguously seen an improvement since the trough in 2009/2010.

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

skip to main |
skip to sidebar
## Monday, February 3, 2014

###
Employment/Working Age Pop

## Labels

## Counter

An Economic Re-Examination of Current News Articles

Below, Corrections depicts total employment/population aged 16-64 (click to enlarge).

We have unambiguously seen an improvement since the trough in 2009/2010.

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

Please e-mail us at CorrectionsPageOne@gmail.com.

Corrections are welcome.

Corrections are welcome.

- Efficiency (77)
- Political Economy (76)
- Growth Theory (59)
- Poor Partial Equilibrium Analysis (56)
- Cost/Benefit (53)
- Housing Crisis (42)
- Competitive Markets (39)
- Social Planner (34)
- Maximization (29)
- Unintended Consequences (27)
- Identification (25)
- Crime and Punishment (24)
- Taxation (21)
- Sample Selection (19)
- Heterogeneity (18)
- Inflation (18)
- Wages (18)
- Discrimination (16)
- Externalities (16)
- Quality/Quantity (16)
- Stock/Flow (15)
- Monopoly (14)
- Shadow Prices (14)
- Moral Hazard (13)
- Human Capital (12)
- Risk-Taking (12)
- Matching (11)
- Bayesian Updating (10)
- Innovation (10)
- Profit Maximization (10)
- Rational Expectations (10)
- Coase Theorem (9)
- Dynamic Problem (9)
- Implicit Tax (9)
- Law of Demand (9)
- Statistics Abuse/Data Mining (9)
- Altruism (8)
- Falsifiability (8)
- Ramsey Tax (8)
- Signaling (8)
- Ex Post/Ex Ante (7)
- Quality (7)
- Ricardian Equivalence (7)
- Signal and Noise (7)
- Endogeneity (6)
- No Arbitrage (6)
- Free Trade (5)
- Household Production (5)
- Making Up Data (5)
- Market Segmentation (5)
- Principal Agent (5)
- Rational Addiction (5)
- Tax Incidence (5)
- Durable Goods (4)
- Game Theory (4)
- Collusion (3)
- Law of One Price (3)
- Monopsony (3)
- Tiebout Sorting (3)
- Lemons Market/Incomplete Information (2)
- Lucas Critique (2)
- Local Average Treatment Effect (1)
- Natural Monopoly (1)

Your graph shows an upward trajectory since around mid to late 2010 while the BLS graph of employment-population ratio shows a fairly static trajectory over that same time period (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000 ) it seems they use age greater than 16 years while you use 16-64 years. Is this what produces the difference?

ReplyDeleteYup! While BLS's E/P is a useful ratio to look at the proportion of the population working, it has the flaw of not excluding people who you wouldn't expect to be working. As we get secular shifts in that mass (the baby boom) we would naturally expect the BLS's E/P to decline. As we recover from the financial crisis, we would naturally expect E/P to rise. Those two offset in the BLS statistics, while this purely shows the recovery aspect, taking away from the fact that we would expect E/P to decline between 2007 and 2014 anyway.

ReplyDeleteAlso note our preferred measure is *hours* worked over population between 16-64, which also gets the intensive margin of work, hours/person, as well as the extensive margin of work, number of people working. This has shown an even larger recovery, as average working hours per person have increased slightly (even as average working hours per working person may have declined).

ReplyDelete