I'm not sure you can say there was a structural shift in the LFPR during COVID-19. The downward trend started for both men and women following the financial crises of 2007-2009. If you take out the 'shock' of COVID-19 and extended the alreayd present declines, we would be where we currently are.
Can you expand on this structural shift and provide evidence of it? I'd be happy to read about it.
I would feel comfortable assuming you are correct for men. However, using the ""extend the line out" method, that doesnt hold for women. Combining this data, and what we are experiencing in the labor market with hiring and peoples' relationship to work, there is a change. Something worth considering and researching in more detail. What work means, has changed. It might be time preferences, might be self-employment opportunities (which you know personally), might be flexibility, or other changes like access to child care and household changes. There is something to look into here, I do not think its just an extention of a previous trend.
At it's peak prior to the COVID-19 recession, the LFPR for women overall was 58.0%. It is now at 57.8, almost completely recovering from the COVID-19 recession, and continues to trend upwards. I'm not seeing this "structural change" with regards to the LFPR.
This same thing is shown no matter how you break fown women in the labor force.
Labor Force Participation Rate - 20 Yrs. & over, Women 59.4% vs 59%
Labor Force Participation Rate - 20 Yrs. & over, White Women 58.4% vs 57.9%
Labor Force Participation Rate - 20 Yrs. & over, Black or African American Women 63.9% vs 63.2%
So I challenge the idea that there was a structural shift during COVID. There was a structural shift during the financial crises when it comes to the LFPR, sure. But not during COVID. There were other structural shifts which include preferences to work from home, more creator economy and "side hustles," but no structural change in LFPR, especially in the downward tregectory.
Another thing you should look at is the LFPR for prime-age workers (25-64: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060). These data show us we've completely recovered from the COVID-19 recession.
"There was a structural shift during the financial crises when it comes to the LFPR, sure. But not during COVID. There were other structural shifts which include preferences to work from home, more creator economy and "side hustles," but no structural change in LFPR, especially in the downward tregectory."
I would disagree here. Are suggesting that the financial crisis impact on labor was more severe than the COVID? Maybe the dust just hasn't settled enough for us to clearly see the change in what work means. Take a look at LFPR of white me https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300028
I agree with a lot of the post. It’s mainly just informational.
My question remains about what structural change happened specifically in LFPR?
You keep saying “change in work” which I agree with. But the changes Covid brought about aren’t heavily impacting LFPR.
Are they affecting WFH? Yes. Are they affecting entrepreneurial activities? Maybe. But the overall percentage of the working age population participating in the labor force? I don’t see it.
If I student read this and asked you the following questions, how would you respond?
1. What exactly do you mean by a structural change in the LFPR?
2. Can you show me in the data where if we removed the affects of COVID 19 on the LFPR we would see significant differences?
Perhaps I am just out of the game for too long when it comes to teaching intro to macro and you have these answers.
I'm not sure you can say there was a structural shift in the LFPR during COVID-19. The downward trend started for both men and women following the financial crises of 2007-2009. If you take out the 'shock' of COVID-19 and extended the alreayd present declines, we would be where we currently are.
Can you expand on this structural shift and provide evidence of it? I'd be happy to read about it.
I would feel comfortable assuming you are correct for men. However, using the ""extend the line out" method, that doesnt hold for women. Combining this data, and what we are experiencing in the labor market with hiring and peoples' relationship to work, there is a change. Something worth considering and researching in more detail. What work means, has changed. It might be time preferences, might be self-employment opportunities (which you know personally), might be flexibility, or other changes like access to child care and household changes. There is something to look into here, I do not think its just an extention of a previous trend.
At it's peak prior to the COVID-19 recession, the LFPR for women overall was 58.0%. It is now at 57.8, almost completely recovering from the COVID-19 recession, and continues to trend upwards. I'm not seeing this "structural change" with regards to the LFPR.
This same thing is shown no matter how you break fown women in the labor force.
Labor Force Participation Rate - 20 Yrs. & over, Women 59.4% vs 59%
Labor Force Participation Rate - 20 Yrs. & over, White Women 58.4% vs 57.9%
Labor Force Participation Rate - 20 Yrs. & over, Black or African American Women 63.9% vs 63.2%
So I challenge the idea that there was a structural shift during COVID. There was a structural shift during the financial crises when it comes to the LFPR, sure. But not during COVID. There were other structural shifts which include preferences to work from home, more creator economy and "side hustles," but no structural change in LFPR, especially in the downward tregectory.
Another thing you should look at is the LFPR for prime-age workers (25-64: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060). These data show us we've completely recovered from the COVID-19 recession.
"There was a structural shift during the financial crises when it comes to the LFPR, sure. But not during COVID. There were other structural shifts which include preferences to work from home, more creator economy and "side hustles," but no structural change in LFPR, especially in the downward tregectory."
I would disagree here. Are suggesting that the financial crisis impact on labor was more severe than the COVID? Maybe the dust just hasn't settled enough for us to clearly see the change in what work means. Take a look at LFPR of white me https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300028
Or bacholar degree holders https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11327662. This is exactly why it is important for us to look at segments of the economy and local analysis.
I appreciate your disagreement. I know I can count on you to read my posts, its good to know someone is reading. Is there anything you agreed with?
I agree with a lot of the post. It’s mainly just informational.
My question remains about what structural change happened specifically in LFPR?
You keep saying “change in work” which I agree with. But the changes Covid brought about aren’t heavily impacting LFPR.
Are they affecting WFH? Yes. Are they affecting entrepreneurial activities? Maybe. But the overall percentage of the working age population participating in the labor force? I don’t see it.
If I student read this and asked you the following questions, how would you respond?
1. What exactly do you mean by a structural change in the LFPR?
2. Can you show me in the data where if we removed the affects of COVID 19 on the LFPR we would see significant differences?
Perhaps I am just out of the game for too long when it comes to teaching intro to macro and you have these answers.