US: Male workforce participation declines 9+% over 56 years

Submitted by Mastodon on Sun, 2013-06-23 22:25

Article here. Excerpt:

'In the 1950s, nearly every man in his prime working years was in the labor force, a category that includes both those who are employed and those actively applying for jobs. The "participation rate" for men ages 25 to 54 stood at 97.7% in early 1956, but drifted downward to a post-war record low of 88.4% at the end of 2012. (It ticked up very slightly at the start of this year to 88.6%.)

So where have all the men workers gone?

Some went into prison. Others are on disability. And still others can't find jobs and have simply given up looking.

The trend is particularly pronounced among the less educated. As the job market shifted away from blue-collar positions that required only a high-school degree to more skilled labor, many men were left behind, labor analysts say. It's harder these days to find well-paying jobs in manufacturing, production and other fields traditionally dominated by men without college diplomas.

But college men are leaving, too. The participation rate of those older than 25 and holding at least bachelor's degree fell to 80.2% in May, down from 87.2% in May 1992.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

How'd I get 9+%? Remember cross-multiplication? :)

2012 - 1956 = 56 yrs.

1956: 97.7%
2012: 88.4%

Using 97.7 as the base participation rate for figuring the relative change from 100%:


88.4         x
------  =  -----
97.7        100


97.7x       8840
------  =  -----
97.7        97.7

x = (8840 / 97.7) = 90.48

100 - 90.48 = 9.52

So it's 9.52%.

Anyway, this decline is bad and not to be ignored. But in fairness, it could be a lot worse and in some other western countries, it very much is. There's no reason to be blasé about this trend and it needs to be corrected. But just remember, it could be worse-- like, Greece-like worse, and not just for men, too.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Mon, 2013-06-24 03:29

Percentages are slippery - 9% of what? Here, it's 9% of the participating workforce, not 9% of the total, which is how the rest of the figures are presented.

Let's try this: in 1956, there was a 2.3% nonparticipation rate. In 2012, a 11.6% nonparticipation rate. So a man is five times as likely, now, to be a non participant as in 1956.

But the converse isn't true for the participants. If we use the same method, then a man is 80% as likely to me a participant now as he was back then.

One method that *is* symmetrical is to compare p/(1-p).

In 1956, the ratio of participants to nonparticipants was 97.7:2.3 = 42.47. For every 42½ men in the [potential] workforce, one wasn't. In 2012, it was 88.4:11.6 = 7.62. For every 7½ men in the workforce, one isn't.

The change IN THIS RATIO is a factor of 5.6. I prefer this method of comparing percentages, because it's symmetrical - the change in the nonparticipant ratio is 5.6, the change in the participant ratio is 1/5.6. (you can plot it on a log graph, if you want, with 100% at positive infinity and 0% at negative infinity).

It's a lot.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by MrWombat on Mon, 2013-06-24 07:10