Category: Economics

  • A labor force without context

    A labor force without context

    What are we laboring for?

    When we talk about people “working,” what does it all mean?

    Work seems such a central part of life, when it could be seen as more of a phase.

    Because in terms of any given day, “working” is only a condition for a portion of the population.

    In fact, the first point to make here is, on any given day, most people are not working.

    Why does it matter? Well, for one, we call it the workweek. Five days of reality out of every seven are, in general terms, dedicated to work. So when you see a traffic jam, it is easy to mistake it for the whole world trying to get to work at the same time, but the reality is that the working world is just part of the story and that school only covers part of that remainder.

    Not everyone is participating in a five day a week grind.

    It is more important to note than it would seem too, because in general, working people can be judged and treated quite harshly despite the active and critical role they play in our society.

    Most easily seen in the case of single parents, society does not account for the way the economic load lands on many people’s shoulders.

    People working are actively trying to make a living, where “making a living” is shorthand for having the money to maintain a livelihood, where we are literally talking about roofs over heads and food on tables.

    It lies in stark contrast to “living,” and in fact lies in opposition to life, because the truth is many people are not successfully making a living within our economy.

    No one wants to talk about that however, so we act like the unemployment numbers are telling us something when the real situation is far more wide-spread and nuanced.

    To illustrate this better, let’s get some numbers on the board:

    Employment stats are usually only presented within the bounds of the Civilian Noninstitutional Population, but by including the entire population in our view, we can clearly see that the Employed are slightly outnumbered by the “Non-employed.”

    But let’s make that even clearer with the percent shares:

    Now the concept of “making a living” becomes a little more complex.

    Who are all these people not working and how are they getting away with it?

    Kids and the retired are in that number, but to what degree?

    Put another way, how many people not working are depending on someone Employed to make their living for them?

    Those answers await us when we get to household data, where reality really begins to take shape.

    For now, let’s focus on this Employed lot:

    So in thinking about the difference between now and the 1960s, the proportion has gone from roughly ~35% Employed, ~35% Kids, ~30% Other to ~50% Employed, ~20% Kids, ~30% Other.

    Oh how our demographics have churned.

    We are creating fewer participants for the future while more of our present stock is stuck working.

    It doesn’t feel like a brighter future.

    My general thesis is that our civilization is operating without a point and therefore our lives become afterthoughts in the wake of those driven to “win.”

    We aren’t trying to make great lives possible, we just pass on the outlandish notion that everyone can do it on their own despite conditions making it increasingly difficult for both individuals and families to make ends meet.

    Things aren’t what they seem at all, and yet we call it the news and then call it a day, setting up nothing but more of the same for tomorrow.

    For the moment though, let’s let those proportion sink in. That’s the world we live in now.

    The next step will be dissecting the wild variations among the “Employed,” for it is a range of opportunities being presented and a wider range of outcomes, which is where so many of us fall through the cracks.

  • The Civilian Noninstitutional Population

    The Civilian Noninstitutional Population

    This is one of my favorite concepts in United States’ economic data.

    It cuts right to the inhumanity of it all.

    Who is part of the Civilian Noninstitutional Population (CNP)?

    Well, if you are at least sixteen years of age, not in the military, and not living in an institutional facility, … you are!

    Why do we split it up as such?

    It always feels like a dodge to me. When navigating this type of data, there are always these little exceptions that muddy the water, technically true and relevant, but with some dampening effect to the clarity and impact of the associated concepts.

    In that regard, CNP represents one of many obstacles to a basic understanding of the U.S. economy.

    Take for instance recent headlines about drops in the labor force. It doesn’t sound good, but the media perpetually throws out numbers without the context needed to understand them.

    This is the beginning of a series of posts attempting to establish that context.

    First we will consider the finite set of the U.S. population.

    To find our labor force and understand its drop, this first cut divides our resident population by availability to join the labor force, which is basically what the Civilian Noninstitutional Population represents.

    And yes, “Everyone Else” is overwhelmingly children (~94%), plus those in the military and institutions.

    Notice anything funny about Everyone Else?

    It has not been growing. Look at that timeline. In 1970 there were 67.9 million in the Everyone Else bucket versus a projected 68.2M in 2025, which is 0.4% growth for the period.

    Over the same time, the Civilian Noninstitutional Population has roughly doubled from 137.2M to 273.8M, or 99.6% change overall.

    What happened? Or what didn’t happen?

    It would seem the widely publicized “baby boom” has been followed by a long, slow baby bust.

    The baby boom’s impact peaked in this regard back in 1962.

    Was the youth culture of the 1960s literally driven by the power of numbers?

    It would seem then that the 1970s was not just a coming of age story for that lot, but one for the country as a whole as it began shifting to a heavier mix of adults, which has continued into the present.

    Projected at 80% as of 2025, the CNP now outnumbers Everyone Else by 4 to 1, up from the 3 to 1 ratio breached in the 1980s.

    If it feels less fun around here, you now know one more reason why.

    And since the rest of this journey mainly focuses on breaking down CNP, let’s answer the question begging to be answered and quantify the kids in this story while we are here.

    Line chart of the U.S. resident population under age 16, in millions, 1948–2025. It rises from 40.1 million in 1948 to a baby-boom peak of 62.9 million in 1966, falls to 55.0 million in 1982, recovers to a second peak of 65.4 million in 2010, and drifts down to 63.2 million by 2025.

    There’s your baby boom. From 40M kids to 60M in a little over a decade. It has basically been flat since, with a dip in the 1970-80s making it a little less unnerving to see that number sliding again now.

    2025 America had basically the same number of kids as in 1966, except kids today have to deal with twice as many adults.

    So it has gone.

    Later we will get to the household data that might connect those kids with the adults dropping out of the labor force.

    Next however we will break down the Civilian Noninstitutional Population into parts.

    What percentage of those available to work are working? Who needs work and doesn’t have it? And how do those populations fit into the whole?