Sandwichman wrote: > This is a useful observation, Jim, and your explanation is cogent. I > wonder if you could clarify how you determine trend employment growth, > especially for current periods where the future trend is unknown.
Trend employment growth is defined by a regression of the rate of growth of employment on a time variable during the period. That number says nothing at all about the future as far as I can tell. We can extrapolate, but inertia (the basis for extrapolation) is hardly a theory. > Also, how would your employment recessions compare with the variations > in total employment as a percent of working age population? Would the > latter tell the same story? I think they would tell the same story in general, since my exercise is aimed at capturing a similar phenomenon. (If I have time and interest, I'll look into it.) The slower growth of employment over the period may represent the using-up of the "reserve army" of female domestic labor by the commodity-producing part of the economy along with the declining labor force participation rate of men. Though it's hardly comfort for workers, over the long haul, the supply and demand for labor-power move together. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
