Is David Leonhart right that changing demographics explain the weak economy?
The share of Americans who are working age — old enough to be out of school but young enough not to be retired — is no longer growing. Only about 53 percent of the population was between the ages of 25 and 64 last year, unchanged from 2007 and up only slightly from 52 percent in 1997. Between 1967 and 1997, by contrast, the share grew 8 percentage points, to 52 percent from 44 percent. As more baby boomers retire, the share will begin to fall. . . .And aging isn’t the only demographic weight holding back the economy. For most of the 20th century, the share of women in the labor force was rising. It reached 60 percent in 1997, up from just 32 percent in 1948. . . .I think that a simple graph easily shows that it that demographics can't explain the slow growth. The drop in labor force participation started in the middle of 2008, but accelerated in June 2009, ironically when the recovery supposedly started. There are simply no demographics that suddenly started changing so much right in the middle of 2009. Leonhart raises the issue of an aging population, but that is the reason that I show a graph of the participation rate among the working age population, so large group of people suddenly reaching the normal retirement age can't explain it. During the recovery, a lot of people have retired early, but that is not the same as a change in demographics.
@JohnRLottJr @DLeonhardt especially declines within age/gender group. Age 55+ only grp w increasing participation-may be delayed retirement.
Labels: book3, unemployment
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home