tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5698599151422542939.post3203663646310257931..comments2023-09-21T05:14:00.254-04:00Comments on Euvoluntary Exchange: Labor is not Euvoluntary: LFP EditionMungowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02340064320347875601noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5698599151422542939.post-9463122631473174282013-09-08T16:51:39.122-04:002013-09-08T16:51:39.122-04:00I came into this expecting to find a lot of the co...I came into this expecting to find a lot of the conclusions you mention. But the data turned me back from them. If you start with core LFP of working age males, they have a very linear trend going back 50 years, with a decline of about 1.4% a decade. There is very small cyclical variation around this trend. In addition, there is a variation of about 2%, due to aging cycles, and then there is a permanent, one-time hike of about 8% from the addition of women in the work force.<br /><br />Here is another post I did that pulls out the gender effect, and makes the long term normal trend even more obvious:<br />http://idiosyncraticwhisk.blogspot.com/2013/09/1970s-vs-2000s-gender-effect.html<br /><br />So you can basically construct the whole LFP curve if all you know are (1) the shape of the population pyramid, (2) the amount of new labor from the change in women's work habits, and (3) the long term male working trends. We have had this information for 20 to 50 years.<br /><br />I just don't see how we can pin this to public policy.<br /><br />There has been a rise in LFP among the very old, but, as with the other changes, the LFP for 65+ workers has followed very smooth long term trends, which suggests cultural and economic changes over policy changes.<br /><br />There have been anomalous changes in the 24 & under group, also, and I do think policy has some effect there, but LFP changes in this group have very little effect on the long term aggregated LFP.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.com