Let the good times roll! -- 337,000 new jobs in October

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

You forgot that somehow Haliburton gets to pocket the $10K difference in some fashion or other.

[JohnT]

[DanS]

How'd I do guys?

An A for effort.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Face it guys, the economy sucks and your man is in charge. That means your man sucks.

[el freako]

Originally posted by DanS
Well, the US labor force participation rate is about at its historic highs and is still about 5 points higher than the Eurozone rate. I guess I don't see anything profound going on.

Really DanS, I expect better anaysis from you.

Just look at this:

Labour Force Participation rate, october of each year:

1964: 58.6%
1974: 61.3% (+2.7%)
1984: 64.4% (+3.1%)
1994: 66.7% (+2.3%)
2004: 65.9% (-0.8%)

(source: bureau of labour statistics )

That looks profound to me.

Agreed that the EuroZone's participation rate is lower, but then Canada, Australia and Britian have all caught up and passed the US in the last decade - they didn't stop at the level the US did so therefore something unusual is going on in the US labour market.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by JohnT
How'd I do guys? Che? Sava?

Yes, the Commie Pod Person Project snares another one.

[JohnT]

Nice thing about that argument is that the value you can assign to "potential income" is virtually limitless!

Why, had FDR cloned himself and blocked the 22nd amendment we would all have million dollar incomes and bread would cost a nickel!

Damn Bushies! If they only hadn't have blocked stem-cell cloning research and supported term limits!

[DanS]

Really DanS, I expect better anaysis from you.

I aim to please.

Really, I don't think it's profound. A change happened over a long period of time and now it's finished. There are only a couple of countries that are well above the US participation rate (Switzerland's rate sure is weird). Australia, Canada, and the UK participation are similar to the US participation rate as has been defined by OECD.

If you add up all the people in school (in anglophone countries and Korea) and women staying home with their kids, it's increasingly tough to push participation higher. I expect that there is a point where the participation rate tops out. At that point, the rate might even fall, because husbands are making enough money so that their wives can stay home with the kids, if they wish, for instance.

[Ned]

The real problem with America from the left's point of view is that it has too many wealthy people who do nothing. This, in their view and as express so recently by Al Gore, is cruel and demands action like increasing estate taxes and perhaps even direct action such as wealth reduction ala Robin Hood or, better, Stalin.

[el freako]

Originally posted by DanS
I expect that there is a point where the participation rate tops out.

Yes there does seem to be a level, it's around 80% of the working age population - so why did the US's level top out at 77% and has since fallen to 75%? (whilst Canada's has gone on to 80%)

Originally posted by DanS
At that point, the rate might even fall, because husbands are making enough money so that their wives can stay home with the kids, if they wish, for instance.

I fail to see how this follows DanS, if wages have risen substantially then this is possible (but still unusual) but wages have not risen that substantially in the US.

Thinking more about it I believe the difference is cultural - the US has a higher proportion of socially conservative people than the rest of the english-speaking world and they tend to frown upon working women.
This is an interesting example of Social Conservatism having an economic cost.


On current trends it will take around a decade for the US to fall below the EU in terms of labour force participation (in the last 8 years half the gap has been eliminated) - bringing us back to the state of affairs that endured from the when records began untill the early 1980's.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thinking more about it I believe the difference is cultural - the US has a higher proportion of socially conservative people than the rest of the english-speaking world and they tend to frown upon working women.

This is an interesting example of Social Conservatism having an economic cost.

Labour force participation may be lower, but the US has always been more efficient than Canada. If our dollar were at par, in most cases, we would struggle to compete.

So, in one way, you have a cost, but there are definite benefits to doing things this way.

How much of that second income gets eaten up in daycare and other costs?

[DanS]

Yes there does seem to be a level, it's around 80% of the working age population - so why did the US's level top out at 77% and has since fallen to 75%? (whilst Canada's has gone on to 80%)

There is no magic overall number, as the rest of your post shows.

I fail to see how this follows DanS, if wages have risen substantially then this is possible (but still unusual) but wages have not risen that substantially in the US.

Perhaps I should rephrase. The husband now has steady employment, so his wife can stay home with the kids, if she wishes. In the words of my sister, "he can always find another job if he gets laid off of this one."

Thinking more about it I believe the difference is cultural - the US has a higher proportion of socially conservative people than the rest of the english-speaking world and they tend to frown upon working women. This is an interesting example of Social Conservatism having an economic cost.

That doesn't make any sense. You're falling into a rather ham-handed Euro stereotype. If there is any frowning going on, I haven't heard about it, and I have family dispersed all over the red states. A lot of women would love to stay home with their kids, if given half a chance.

[Ned]

el freako, I find your phrase "frown on working women" to be the opposite of the truth. The left appears to frown on women who stay at home and raise the kids. They also undermine the very concept of family by consistently denigrating the role of a father. It is remarkable how hostile Europe and Canada appear to be to what we in the US call "family values."

We do not "frown" on women who work so that the family can afford to live. We do not frown on women who chose a "career." We, except for the socialists, do however frown on women who deliberately choose to have children outside marriage.

[el freako]

Originally posted by DanS
There is no magic overall number, as the rest of your post shows.

Very true, however the slowdown in the growth of the workforce has completely counteracted the improvement in productivity growth - so the economy is unlikely to have long-term growth faster than it used to (around 3% a year)

Originally posted by DanS
Perhaps I should rephrase. The husband now has steady employment, so his wife can stay home with the kids, if she wishes. In the words of my sister, "he can always find another job if he gets laid off of this one."

Aha, now I get you - however, anecdotes aside, it still applies that real wages have not risen substantially in order for US households to be able to afford their second earners to leave the workforce.
Indeed with spending by households continuing to outpace income growth the above scenario does not even seem to be bourne out by the economic statistics.

Originally posted by DanS
That doesn't make any sense. You're falling into a rather ham-handed Euro stereotype. If there is any frowning going on, I haven't heard about it, and I have family dispersed all over the red states. A lot of women would love to stay home with their kids, if given half a chance.

Again anecdotes, but then again I have no statistical evidence to dispute you so I hope you'll accept that that was my error as a foreigner (although I do wish you had statisical evidence to support your claim)

Originally posted by Ned
The left appears to frown on women who stay at home and raise the kids. They also undermine the very concept of family by consistently denigrating the role of a father. It is remarkable how hostile Europe and Canada appear to be to what we in the US call "family values."

Now here you've lost me Ned - from what you say the left in the US is far more 'left-wing' than it is over here in europe.

Please could you elaborate?
How is the role of the Father being denigrated?
What are the US 'family values' that Canada and Europe are hostile to?

[DanS]

Whoa, that's not a quote from DanS. Rather that's a Ned quote.

(although I do wish you had statisical evidence to support your claim)

I have a very large family. Almost a valid sample.

Very true, however the slowdown in the growth of the workforce has completely counteracted the improvement in productivity growth - so the economy is unlikely to have long-term growth faster than it used to (around 3% a year)

As stated in my PM of some time ago, we just don't know how productivity will shake out. We're still revising our productivity figures going 5 years back.