Friday, February 08, 2013

The Real Employment Picture

In the earlier days of this blog I'd go into length about various economic statistics and why they're more relevant than some of the headline statistics.  I realized people were falling asleep, so I just do a quick and dirty version instead.  SO here it is.

Employment to population ratio.



Specifically, this measures the percent of the population that is working.  Today about 58% of the people work.

Translated into English this means there's very roughly 1 parasite for 1 worker.

In short if you are working, you are not just paying for yourself, but paying for another person.

There is one way, however, to make sure you are not supporting a parasite.  You just have to Enjoy the Decline!

17 comments:

Ryan Fuller said...

A mother who stays home and actually raises her own children instead of paying someone else to do it for her isn't part of the 58%, but I wouldn't call her a parasite.

Bob Wallace said...

The economy went bad for in me 2009. It just completely collapsed in about two weeks.

I have not seen it pick back up. Well, except in D.C. My ex there is doing just fine.

Anonymous said...

While valuable this chart does seem to have a limiting flaw. A man working hard while his wife stays at home with the kids would counts as 50% employment, the same as one man working hard while his neighbor absorbs government checks for a living.

Are there any charts that group data by families rather than individuals, where a family is considered to be any independent single, married pair or pair with children? I would love to see a ratio of “families” with at least one working member compared to “families” without. I imagine an economy with 50% unemployment due to a large number of homemakers would be much stronger than an economy with 50% unemployment due to a large number of welfare recipients.

Actaully, this report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics kind of has the data I was looking for. Provides another interesting way to look at labor trends.

Anonymous said...

So, economically speaking, the US has been dragged through a backwater swamp and we're covered in leeches.

Yecch

I'm going to make only enough money to survive so I can starve the parasite I've got clinging to me! MGTOW!

Captain Capitalism said...

Comments about a stay at home wife/husband rearing children and taking care of the home duly noted. However, as economics often is, you need to mentally account for this sociological development and know that while that was the case back in the 60's, today you are shamed if you desire to be a stay at home parent.

Anonymous said...

The 1950s and 60s sure had a lot more parasites than today.

Anonymous said...

Normally those numbers only include the total number pf people employed as a percentage of the labor force. Since SAHMs are not part of the labor pool, they are not counted in either the numerator or the denominator. If this graphic were a percent of total population, then it would also count retirees and children and be somewhere near 30%.

But i can't tell if it includes illegal workers who are citizens of other countries in the numerator, but not in the denominator, thus inflating this number higher than it should be.

--Hale

Dave said...

You should show the chart that plots men and women separately. It looks like a big "X"; 95% of men had jobs in the 1950s!

Gotta thank feminism; without it the Captain would be working 60+ hours at a desk job to support a housewife and four kids. And liking it.

Anonymous said...

True enough Cappy,

A stay at home mommy is considered backwards and subject to wrath by her fellow women. While a stay at home daddy has it even worse. As far as Western society is concerned a stay at home daddy isn't seen as a real man to either women or other men.

Anonymous said...

You know, they told me that if I voted for a Republican that they'd just turn the clock back to the 1950s...

(heh)

Anonymous said...

I Think It would be interesting to see Male employment to male population ratio since they are the ones who do probably 95% of the productive work and it would take out that huge gap in the 50's for fewer women not being in the workforce.

‘Reality’ Doug said...

1950s: 58%- Taxed workers, Women useful as wives at home.

2010s: 58+ Taxed workers, Women deployed as drone weapons at work and home, and their victory is assured.

The 1:1 worker to parasite ratio is just a crude approximation of a maximally productive limit, the value of which should be readily and precisely apparent. A 1950s worker is not equal to a 2010s worker. Same with 'parasites'. Nevertheless, it is valid math describing the situation ECONOMICALLY. No need for hints of moral defensiveness.

Add in the destructive economic activity counted as GDP today and we know GDP is really negative when the official results are slightly positive. Feminization of the workplace. You either have a shrinking middle class or you have a growing economy. Hard to believe both are possible because of ‘quality immigration’ or population growth. Enjoy the decline.

Anonymous said...

All those stay-at-home moms you commenters say are mistakenly included among the parasites are cancelled out by all the government employees who, while listed as "employed," are still parasites.

Ryan Fuller said...

"You should show the chart that plots men and women separately. It looks like a big "X"; 95% of men had jobs in the 1950s!"

For those who are curious, here are the relevant graphs for men and women:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS12300001

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS12300002?cid=32445

"Normally those numbers only include the total number of people employed as a percentage of the labor force. Since SAHMs are not part of the labor pool, they are not counted in either the numerator or the denominator. If this graphic were a percent of total population, then it would also count retirees and children and be somewhere near 30%."

The employment to population ratio does not work that way. It is calculated as the number of employed as a percentage of the working age population, whether they are labor force participants or not. A stay at home mom between the ages of 16 and (I'm pretty sure) 65 would be counted as part of the working age population, but not part of the labor force. You're right that it doesn't count the "total population" but that's because it's excluding children and old people, not because it only counts people who are labor force participants.

‘Reality’ Doug said...

@Ryan Fuller Kudos. Great comment post. The 'X' is scary, just seeing it like that. Can't wait to see what initiatives get the female participation rate up to and above the male participation rate. But then how do men live if not worth employment or welfare? Suicide and integrity afflict which sex more?

Employed / Civil. Pop.(Incl. Illegals!), 20+

M: 71,892 / 108,087 -> 66.5%
F: 64,062 / 117,082 -> 54.7%

Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

Note: Illegals included in 'civilian' population, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_United_States#Residual_method

In absolute numbers, it has been the case temporarily that there were more women than men in the labor force. If women get equal employment, will men get equal welfare? Not if they are true civilians.

What's the over/under on this economy collapsing? Can we average our guesses? There is some scientific basis for that. If the economy is kept from collapsing, if the elites hold it together, I would expect the ratio of women to men to improve in terms of sexual market value. I'm going to start asking post-wall chicks to buy me a drink. lutz

foo said...

Oh Cappy, my Cappy,

As a proud owner of all tour kindle works, and an employed Engineer and businessmen enjoying the decline, I would love, love, LOVE a post from you that contained "the cappy's statistical graph reciepe" for this particular graph - a reciepe by which i can start at 1 and end at 1+n (where n = number of steps) and be able to reproduce your graph.

I would even be willing to discuss being a part of the funding of a Cappy's Happy Statistics Cookbook - steaming hot pie charts to enjoy the decline with friends. I would so enjoy being able to fondle the numbers and drink deep from them.

suyts said...

Cap'n, some of your readers are missing the point by focusing on the SAHMs. That drop at the right of the graph isn't because some parents decided to become responsible. They were forced out because of the crappy economy.

Here's the bottom line, since Jan 2009 the US pop (16 y/o and up) has increased by 9.9 million, while the people employed has gone up by 1.1 million. And this doesn't include children. SAHMs or not, this isn't sustainable. (data from the BLS historical A-1 tables) McJobs were pretty strong but even that's falling now.