After adjusting for inflation, wages are higher than at any point in U.S. history, and after adjusting for age and sex, the percentage of the population that is employed is around its peak in U.S. history.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    While there are multiple ways to measure employment, the best single measure is the percentage of the adult population with a job, known as the employment-to-population ratio (EPOP). However, with a growing portion of the adult population becoming retirees, this measure is confounded by demographic trends over longer time periods. Many economists therefore focus on “prime-age EPOP,” or the percentage of people ages 25–54 with a job, as a way to account for the aging of the population. A more sophisticated method is to adjust for both age and sex. Adjusting for age accounts not only for the increase in retirees but also the aging within the 25–54 bracket. Adjusting for sex is necessary to analyze previous decades, when a much smaller percentage of working-age women were in the workforce. After adjusting for age and sex, the percentage of the population that is working is roughly at its peak height in U.S. history. This is also true if one looks directly at prime-age EPOP.

    If we stop using the metric we always used, and invent a new one that says things are great, then things are great!

    What else do you need expect from a Podesta organization that claims to be progressive?

    The whole point of it is to convince people neoliberals are just as effective as progressives could be.

    That’s why it’s funded by billionaires and opposed healthcare reform and other things billionaires don’t want.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress

    Just like with rightwing “think tanks” don’t just pay attention to the name or blindly believe what someone has chosen for a label.

    • Tyrangle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      I do find it interesting that the “actual” employment rate was 7% higher in 2000 than it is now. I get that we have an older population now, and proportionally more retirees as a result, but isn’t that relevant to our economic health? Rather than patting ourselves on the back for doing a good job despite an aging population, shouldn’t we be talking about how to turn this trend around? Italy, Japan, and China are about a generation ahead of us on this issue, and they’re totally freaking out - maybe we should too.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah, the truth is it’s not that hard to find the right boxes to check as metrics that you can find any result you want.

        Which is obviously what they did, they couldn’t even stop it with a 54 age cap (who the fuck retires at 55?) they had to raise the minimum to 25, well after normal college grad age.

        Even without getting into the organization and funding, anyone that actually learned about stats in a real stats class can you tell you it’s being done to generate the results the funders want.

        We really need to start teaching statistical analysis in highschool. I can’t remember the last time I needed something past algebra, but stats comes up all the fucking time, and almost no one really knows the basics.

        It’s not even that complicated, but admittedly I had an amazing professor and took a couple courses.

        • Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          A more educated populace is the last thing anyone at the top of the ladder wants.

          We’re backsliding to Company Stores, chits, and union workers facing violence for their workplace rights. “Corporate interests” have undone the social contract.