Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
  • “Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
  • “Unintended Consequences is full of substance, it is one of the must-read books of the year, and once I finish it I will be giving it a second read through right away.” - Tyler Cowen, Professor, George Mason University
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
  • “Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences

AI Summary. Younger men, especially those born after 1985, account for a disproportionate share of the decline in US labor force participation: they make up 22% of the 16–59 population but 43% of "missing" workers. Among women, those born after 1995 are 10% of the population but 18% of missing workers.

William Emmons Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database

Men born after 1985, 22% of 16-59 age group, account for 43% of “missing” workers, highlighting significant challenges in employment recovery for younger generations.

Are younger workers driving the decline in labor force participation?

Core argument: Men born after 1985 made up 22% of the U.S. population aged 16–59 in 2020 but accounted for 43% of "missing" workers.

The decline in Labor Force Participation [LFP] is notably driven by younger men, particularly those born after 1985. In 2020, the majority of "missing" workers under 60 were under 35, with 5.4m more men and 3.2m more women potentially employed if age- and gender-specific employment-to-population ratios had remained stable since 2000. Men born after 1985, comprising 22% of the 16-59 age group, accounted for a disproportionate 43% of missing workers. Among women, those born after 1995 were most affected, representing 10% of the population but 18% of missing workers. This demographic shift highlights significant challenges in employment recovery for younger generations, exacerbated by pandemic-induced labor market disruptions.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Men born after 1985 made up 22% of the U.S. population aged 16–59 in 2020 but accounted for 43% of "missing" workers.
  2. If age- and gender-specific employment-to-population ratios had held at their 2000 levels, 5.4m more men and 3.2m more women could potentially have been employed in 2020.
  3. Among women, those born after 1995 were the most affected cohort, representing 10% of the population but 18% of missing workers.

Good note from Bill at FRBSL. More evidence that labor force participation problem is being driven by younger men. The decline in LFP (relative to 2000) is being driven by male workers born after 1985.

, “…I show that the majority of the “missing” workers under 60 were, in fact, under 35 years old in 2020. Specifically, for those born after 1985, 5.4 million more men and 3.2 million more women would have been employed in 2020 if age- and gender-specific E-P ratios had not declined for those groups between 2000 and 2020. People between 35 and 59 years old in 2020, making up 55% of the 16-59 age group, represented only 33% of the missing workers. In fact, no workers were missing in the 55-59 group…. The most disproportionate effects were among men born after 1985. This group made up 22% of the population between 16 and 59 in 2020, but it accounted for 43% of the missing workers.Among women, the hardest hit by lower-than-predicted employment were those born after 1995; making up 10% of the population between 16 and 59, they accounted for 18% of these missing workers….”

William Emmons, "Americans Born after 1985 Bear the Brunt of Lower Employment," Federal Reserve Bank Of St. Louis, Of March 4, 2021, https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2021/march/americans-born-after-1985-bear-brunt-lower-employment

Pandemic helping force older workers out of labor force might help but have to assume hysteresis in terms of the employability of many of these workers has already set in.

Showing 780 database articles primarily about either Workforce, Demographics, Education, Family/Marriage, Gender Pay Gap, Immigration, Inequality, Minimum Wage, Poverty/Crime, Unemployment/Participation, or Wages/Income