Thanks for that update, Warren.
Any way to calculate that ratio back to 1929 or before?
St. Louis Fed only goes back to 1948
lots of useful charts here
@roger erickson, a case of reversion to the mean ?
I agree, elite bankers and Control Frauds are mean, but it’s not clear that we’re reverting to their dominance. Rather, we’re entering uncharted territory.
I’m not much of a technical analyst, but it looks like a pretty big head & shoulders formation.
Which would you rather buy, EMRATIO or NAIRU?
I think I’d do the stupid and buy both.
@Ed Rombach, With bill and warren getting more exposure we should start looking for a bottom formation !
Women entering the labor force?
@WARREN MOSLER, and men exiting; the two charts for men/women on the St. Fed’s page are pretty much mirror images
Workforce participation increased as more women joined the workforce, partly because they were “liberated,” and partly because wage suppression meant that it took two incomes to maintain the standard of living that used to be achieved with only one income.
The sharp drop in workforce participation after the 2008 crash was obviously due to the economy, not to evolving social or demographic issues.
I like these participation charts because they don’t hide the discouraged workers like the headline unemployment number.
What’s the definition of participation here?
Usually it is engaged + ILO unemployed, which does exclude those who are classified as ‘inactive – wants a job’.
Amusingly it’s easier to find the definition of Civilian Employment-Population Ratio using the Google, than it is to find the definition of ILO unemployed.
And I don’t know why anyone would count engaged and not betrothed.
For more fun there’s also:
But the above graph really is employed people/population. Where you only count people 16 and older who are not institutionalized.