Now, I have just as much loathing of Gen-Y as does the average Gen-X loathing Gen-X'er, but even I don't have a good explanation. Is it really possible that teenagers are really this spoiled nowadays, or with so many illegal immigrants working low-end jobs is there some new "those jobs are for poor people" meme out there, or ... ?
Please speculate, or, even better, opine.
7 comments:
Depends on the socio-economic demographic, methinks. If middle-class, suburbanites, then a lot of those teens are in scheduled "college-bound, make you look well-rounded for college" activities, which their Baby Boomer parents have been planning for them since their conception.
Also, consider the definition of 'labor force'. Labor force is defined to exclude the institutional population, even if the institutional population is employed. Crosstab these data with college participation rates, especially community colleges, for the same sample and you'll probably find out where a lot of the 16-19 cohort has gone. Anecdotally I have seen a sharp rise in the number of traditional students and dual-credit students in my classes.
You might also crosstab again with enlistment rates within the sample to see where the older members of this cohort are going. In both cases--college enrollment and enlistment--they join the institutional population and are therefore not a part of the work force.
You should also see if this trend follows the population growth rate. I wouldn't be surprised if the lower numbers in the 2000s are equal to a lower number of 16-19 year olds in proportion to the rest of population...
and...
the number of layoffs increased in the 2000s, so those of older age desperate for any work, including those getting pushed off welfare, moved into the jobs that this age group would normally take.
Alex: a sensible theory, especially as regards the near linearity around Y2K. But way more work to investigate than I'm inclined to do in my "copious spare time".
Perhaps, but it looks like the graph in question only tracks workforce participation rates as a percentage of the age 16-19 cohort alone and not of the general population. In fact, the graph actually says nothing about raw populations. Because the data are limited to a distinct stratum over time, population growth effects would already be controlled for this graph. Had the graph described percentage of _total_ workforce, then the population growth data would be relevant. However, that is not the case.
What is the original source for this graph? I couldn't find the reference on "The Mess". BLS maybe?
BLS.
What...you mean you have a job, and like, things to do besides blog?!?
I suppose next you'll tell me you have a life and having any free time at all to think about these things is a luxury. :)
Post a Comment