Thanks. If I remember correctly, there was an article in the BROOKINGS PAPERS ON ECONOMIC ACTIVITY on this subject.
Laurent GUERBY <[email protected]> wrote: > If you're thinking of this paper: > > http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/579 > > For reference it was the only paper cited in answer to my query about > the huge inactivity rate trend over 1948-2008 sent to more than > 20 economists blogger. Here is what I answered at the time: > > << > After a first reading and if I did not misinterpret, the paper looks at > 1978-1998 period with 1984 as reference of a change in legislation and > ends up with a numerically low effect: 0.5% on unemployment measure. > Other factors are cited (like on my blog) but not analyzed > quantitatively. > > If you look at the 1948-2008 data as I did you'll notice quickly that > 1960-1984 and 1984-2008 (to take an equal number of years on both side > while retaining the maximum data) see the exact same increase in the > inactive population, +3 points for the first period from 3% to 6% and > then again +3 points from 6% to 9%, both in 24 years. > > I of course don't have references on legislative changes related to > disabilities on the 1960-1984 period, but the data above confirm that > the 1984 change is very low impact, if not null on the big picture of > the inactive population evolution. > > If you know about other references on this topic, and/or if you could > give more visibility to this data piece I'd be very grateful (as I said > I'm not looking for a link to my blog so feel free to cite without link > or attribution). >>> > > Now if you look at the inactivity curve periods of increase in > inactivity rate seems to correlate with wars: 1965-1975 = Vietnam, > 1990-1993 = Gulf, but the latest increase starts in 1999 and Iraq is > 2003 and seems to mark a temporary halt in the increase so contrary to > other wars. Possible explanation: 25 year old Vietnam soldier became > inactive in 1975 after the war, 54-25=29 and 1975+29=2004 so this > population starts to drop out the 25-54 year old category, this might > explain part of why the rate stays flat in 2002-2008 (WWII veterans > dropping out might also explain some parts of the earlier curve). The > two wars increases are around 2.5% each, so around 1.5 millions people, > I don't know where to find the number of veterans from each war. > > But this does not explain why no peer-reviewed economics literature > exist about this story, and about the life of 10.9% the prime aged male > population :). -- 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
