Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

jobless recoveries apparently due to low women participation rate and declining population

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • jobless recoveries apparently due to low women participation rate and declining population

    From a Bloomberg article today:

    quote
    Deeper recessions and more gradual recoveries will be the norm rather than the exception as the U.S. workforce grows at a slower pace, according to economists on the panel that determines when slumps begin and end.
    The typical contraction “will have steeper declines and slower recoveries in output and employment,” according to a paper by Harvard University’s James Stock and Princeton University’s Mark Watson presented today at the Brookings Panel on Economic Activity inWashington. “We can expect recoveries from future recessions to be ‘jobless’ as well,” they said, similar to the two most recent rebounds.
    The economists, who are members of the National Bureau of Economic Research’s business cycle dating committee, found the severity, length and aftermath of the 18-month slump that ended in June 2009 were predictable based on comparisons with past downturns.

    Employment Gains Smaller

    In the first eight quarters of the rebound that began in June 2009, the world’s largest economy grew 5 percent, compared with an average 9.2 percent gain for the seven recessions from 1960 to 2001, they said. Employment increased 0.6 percent, short of the 4 percent increase seen in the prior recoveries.
    Changes in the so-called long-run trend, or fundamental structure, of the economy, rather than the harm caused by the collapse in growth, account for almost all the shortfall in gross domestic product and more than half the slowdown in employment, according to Stock and Watson, based on comparisons with the pre-1984 averages. The authors made comparisons to earlier recessions in this case to isolate the influence of the structural changes.
    The decrease in the trend, in turn, is almost entirely explained by declining population and employment growth rates, they said. One reason is a slowdown in the number of women entering the workforce, they said.
    “Barring a new increase in female labor force participation or a significant increase in the growth rate of the population, these demographic factors point towards a further decline in trend growth for employment and hours in the coming decades,” Stock and Watson said. That is why future recoveries will continue to be “jobless,” they said.
    end of quote

    What kind of smoke and mirrors are these in light of the fact that the number of permanently discouraged workers has probably increased and the fact that many people would like to work longer or exchange their part time job for a full time job?

    Puzzled,
    EasternBelle

  • #2
    Re: jobless recoveries apparently due to low women participation rate and declining population

    If I understand the above article correctly, in the past a recession would bring lots of otherwise stay-at-home moms into the workforce. It isn't happening this time, maybe because there are already a relatively large number of women working.

    According to the below graph, female participation rates are already fairly close to male (men's is 64% or so right now).

    http://www.freeby50.com/2010/10/hist...icipation.html


    Also in the past, large demographic numbers of new workers (presumably more than olders workers retiring/dying off) would also accelerate a recovery. This could be an artifact of the boomer bulge, though one might think such a phenomenon would be explicitly called out.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: jobless recoveries apparently due to low women participation rate and declining population

      2 things that seem to override the sitch that makes this not a 'normal' recovery and why its called the 'mancession'
      (and since i'm in that category, tho i'm a novice in these discussions, i'm asking questions not so much making statements)
      in the past, the US could count on resurgent construction and pent up consumer demand to stimulate manufacturing to drag up more jobs/employment, is the way it used to work...

      but now?
      we've got millions of houses both unoccupied and not generating cashflow = glut of inventory thats not even close to being absorbed (and wont be without the jobs)
      and since most (?, lots anyway) consumer goods are now produced out of the country, we get no benefit from any uptick in (pentup from the crash) consumer demand

      and just like what occurred with the cash fer klunkers program, anything they do to artificially stimulate demand simply drags future sales forward and typically by those who wouldve bought anyway, just instead of maybe 'next year' they buy now (and then dont buy next year) - and with the boomers coming up the end of their demand cycle, with the gen-y group still aways out (and getting more discouraged by the month) - where's demand and jobs, going to come from?

      why bernanke pushing on the string for so long has screwed us and until the beltway gets their act together (and gets serious with some program to stimulate infrastructure demand), its likely to get worse?

      one things certain, NOTHING thats come out of DC in the past 3-4 years is having any/much effect.

      Comment

      Working...
      X