- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 9,594
- Reaction score
- 2,072
- Location
- France
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Any of the definitions is fine, if it fits the question one has. The participation rate can easily be what you need. What is important is that it is always the same one you follow, as you otherwise cannot interpret the number. This is especially important in international comparisons.
Frankly, what I think is far more important and indicative of a nation's economic situation is the "Ratio of Employment-to-population".
Which, with an historical perspective, gives one an interpretation of what a country can do, or should be doing, if all was going well. Here is the that ratio historically (going back a decade) for the US, and it is not that comforting:
Given an unemployment rate that's almost half what it was in 2010, some would see the bright-side; but given the above Employment-to-population Ratio chart, another might say, "We can do better, much better". Personally, I'm with the latter interpretation - and the upward trend looks highly promising.
Caveat: Once again, I insist on the long-term fact that we "changing ages", which will have a profound effect on the types of jobs that the market will have in the future. Those jobs lost in 2006 are not coming back, they're gone forever. The challenge therefore is getting people up to a standard of education that is required for the new job-requirements of today - and that mans higher educational degrees*.
*Which is why it is imperative that the Federal government defunds the DoD and spends the money on state-run institutions offering tertiary-level degrees at a low annual tuition cost. (As the EU does, btw.)
Last edited: