Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘U.S. Employment-to-Population Ratio’ Category


McKinsey experts on COVID-19: Implications for business

 

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/risk/our-insights/covid-19-implications-for-business?cid=other-eml-alt-mip-mck

Reporter on Highlights: Joel T. Shertok, PhD

JTS – 11/17/20

 

  • COVID-19-vaccine trial: a leading candidate has an efficacy rate of about 90 percent.
  • The gap between incoming and outgoing Treasury funds may reach $30 trillion soon.
  • Our latest research shows a particularly effective bridge for governments to consider: real estate.
  • Many businesses will embrace sustainability; voluntary carbon markets can help them reach their goals.
  • China, the world’s growth engine for the past 25 years, has come back
  • Consumer behavior has changed, pockets of growth are shifting, and leadership and management practices are in flux
  • Likely Pandemic scenarios:
  • A muted recovery
  • A prolonged and insufficient recovery
  • As the unrelenting COVID-19 pandemic rolls on, the future isn’t what it used to be: what used to be a simple idea now comes freighted with caveats, assumptions, and speculations.
  • The auto industry is one of the world’s largest and has been devastated by the pandemic: sales may drop by 20 to 30 percent in 2020, and we estimate that profits will fall by $100 billion.
  • The US restaurant industry has given many iconic brands to the rest of the world. But today, the sector is in trouble.
  • People don’t order sides, appetizers, and desserts as frequently when they’re ordering for delivery—but as leaders know, those items are often the difference between profit and loss.
  • For banks, the pandemic has changed everything. Risk-management teams are running hard to catch up with cascades of credit risk, among other challenges.
  • Ethnic minority groups have made progress. But the COVID-19 crisis threatens that progress;
  • All ethnic-minority groups have higher age-adjusted COVID-19-related death rates than white people do.
  • In the middle of the deepest recession in memory, stock markets are reaching new highs. Why the disconnect?
  • Many investors still take a long-term perspective; they are looking ahead to the end of the pandemic.
  • Another factor: five big-tech companies now make up 21 percent of the S&P 500,
  • The overall stock market can do relatively well even when employment and GDP are severely depressed.
  • Companies can expect a disruption to their production lines of one to two months—a very long time.
  • The effects of the COVID-19 crisis have exacerbated gender disparities and their implications for women at work, especially for mothers, female senior leaders, and Black women across America.
  • The exodus might include as many as two million women. That would raise a significant barrier to achieving gender parity in leadership roles in years to come.
  • The global economic contractions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have far exceeded those of the Great Recession that ended in 2009 and have occurred at a much faster rate, hitting all sectors and many of the world’s largest employers.
  • Two important issues facing healthcare providers. First, similarities in flu and COVID-19 symptoms could lead to a threefold spike in demand for COVID-19 testing as flu season in the Northern Hemisphere approaches.
  • Second, the crisis has also led to a surgical backlog for elective procedures because of lack of hospital capacity, workforce shortages, and new safety protocols.

SOURCE

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/risk/our-insights/covid-19-implications-for-business?cid=other-eml-alt-mip-mck

 

Read Full Post »


The Global Economic Outlook During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Changed World

Reporter: Joel Shertok, PhD

 

By the World Bank — June 8, 2020

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2020/06/08/the-global-economic-outlook-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-a-changed-world

This is THE definitive assessment of the economic effects of COVID-19, from the World Bank. Obviously, bad and likely getting worse with the coming of the Second Lockdown……

Empty highway in Dubai because on coronavirus. Sign advertising the Stay Home Stay Safe campaign.

An empty highway in Dubai during the coronavirus pandemic. Above the highway, a sign reads “Stay Safe, Stay Home.” © Mo Azizi/Shutterstock


As the health and human toll grows, the economic damage is already evident and represents the largest economic shock the world has experienced in decades.

The June 2020 Global Economic Prospects describes both the immediate and near-term outlook for the impact of the pandemic and the long-term damage it has dealt to prospects for growth. The baseline forecast envisions a 5.2 percent contraction in global GDP in 2020, using market exchange rate weights—the deepest global recession in decades, despite the extraordinary efforts of governments to counter the downturn with fiscal and monetary policy support. Over the longer horizon, the deep recessions triggered by the pandemic are expected to leave lasting scars through lower investment, an erosion of human capital through lost work and schooling, and fragmentation of global trade and supply linkages.

For emerging market and developing countries, many of which face daunting vulnerabilities, it is critical to strengthen public health systems, address the challenges posed by informality, and implement reforms that will support strong and sustainable growth once the health crisis abates.

Historic contraction of per capita income

Advanced economies are projected to shrink 7 percent. That weakness will spill over to the outlook for emerging market and developing economies, who are forecast to contract by 2.5 percent as they cope with their own domestic outbreaks of the virus. This would represent the weakest showing by this group of economies in at least sixty years.


“The crisis highlights the need for urgent action to cushion the pandemic’s health and economic consequences, protect vulnerable populations, and set the stage for a lasting recovery.”


Every region is subject to substantial growth downgrades. East Asia and the Pacific will grow by a scant 0.5%. South Asia will contract by 2.7%, Sub-Saharan Africa by 2.8%, Middle East and North Africa by 4.2%, Europe and Central Asia by 4.7%, and Latin America by 7.2%.  These downturns are expected to reverse years of progress toward development goals and tip tens of millions of people back into extreme poverty.

Emerging market and developing economies will be buffeted by economic headwinds from multiple quarters: pressure on weak health care systems, loss of trade and tourism, dwindling remittances, subdued capital flows, and tight financial conditions amid mounting debt. Exporters of energy or industrial commodities will be particularly hard hit. Demand for metals and transport-related commodities such as rubber and platinum used for vehicle parts has also tumbled. While agriculture markets are well supplied globally, trade restrictions and supply chain disruptions could yet raise food security issues in some places.

A Worker in Sub-Saharan Africa standing near a truck is seen wearing a mask

A worker wears a mask in Sub-Saharan Africa. © Lucian Coman/Shutterstock

A possibility of even worse outcomes

Even this bleak outlook is subject to great uncertainty and significant downside risks. The forecast assumes that the pandemic recedes in such a way that domestic mitigation measures can be lifted by mid-year in advanced economies and later in developing countries, that adverse global spillovers ease during the second half of 2020, and that widespread financial crises are avoided. This scenario would envision global growth reviving, albeit modestly, to 4.2% in 2021.

However, this view may be optimistic. Businesses might find it hard to service debt, heightened risk aversion could lead to climbing borrowing costs, and bankruptcies and defaults could result in financial crises in many countries. Under this downside scenario, global growth could shrink by almost 8% in 2020.

Looking at the speed with which the crisis has overtaken the global economy may provide a clue to how deep the recession will be. The sharp pace of global growth forecast downgrades points to the possibility of yet further downward revisions and the need for additional action by policymakers in coming months to support economic activity.

A particularly concerning aspect of the outlook is the humanitarian and economic toll the global recession will take on economies with extensive informal sectors that make up an estimated one-third of the GDP and about 70% of total employment in emerging market and developing economies. Policymakers must consider innovative measures to deliver income support to these workers and credit support to these businesses.

Long-term damage to potential output, productivity growth

The June 2020 Global Economic Prospects looks beyond the near-term outlook to what may be lingering repercussions of the deep global recession: setbacks to potential output⁠—the level of output an economy can achieve at full capacity and full employment⁠—and labor productivity.  Efforts to contain COVID-19 in emerging and developing economies, including low-income economies with limited health care capacity, could precipitate deeper and longer recessions⁠—exacerbating a multi-decade trend of slowing potential growth and productivity growth.

Image

Another important feature of the current landscape is the historic collapse in oil demand and oil prices. Low oil prices are likely to provide, at best, temporary initial support to growth once restrictions to economic activity are lifted. However, even after demand recovers, adverse impacts on energy exporters may outweigh any benefits to activity in energy importers. In addition, the recent oil price plunge may provide further momentum to undertake energy subsidy reforms and deepen them once the immediate health crisis subsides.

In the face of this disquieting outlook, the immediate priority for policymakers is to address the health crisis and contain the short-term economic damage. Over the longer term, authorities need to undertake comprehensive reform programs to improve the fundamental drivers of economic growth once the crisis lifts.

, including support for the private sector and getting money directly to people. During the mitigation period, countries should focus on sustaining economic activity with support for households, firms and essential services.

Global coordination and cooperation—of the measures needed to slow the spread of the pandemic, and of the economic actions needed to alleviate the economic damage, including international support—provide the greatest chance of achieving public health goals and enabling a robust global recovery.

SOURCE

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2020/06/08/the-global-economic-outlook-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-a-changed-world

Read Full Post »


Reported by Joel Shertok, PhD,

From the New York Times, May 31, 2020

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/business/coronavirus-economic-forecast-shiller.html

By 

The Great Depression of the 1930s was an economic downturn that became a prolonged malaise. A Nobel laureate asks whether that pattern might be repeated.

Yogi Berra supposedly said, “It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.” Yet, in spite of this warning, a cottage industry has arisen trying to anticipate the long term economics effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Robert Schiller, Professor of Economics at Yale, in the NY Times, sounds a call for caution:

Longer-term analyses of the coronavirus pandemic emphasize that there is a good chance that it will fade within a year or two, especially if a vaccine or effective treatment appears.

I hope that’s true. But even if it is, I’m worried that the economy may not return to normal within that time frame.

Big events like a pandemic have the potential to leave behind a trail of disruption. They can create social discord, reduce people’s willingness to spend and take risks, destroy business momentum and shake confidence in the value of investments.

But episodes as far-reaching as this one are scarce, widely spaced in time, and so different in circumstances that statisticians cannot easily compare them systematically. The best we can do is examine some case studies.

The so-called Spanish flu, the influenza epidemic that started in 1918, which ultimately cost 675,000 American lives and millions around the world, is a reasonable place to start. While we know a great deal about that era, we don’t know enough to shed much light on current circumstances.

There was a recession in the United States from August 1918 to March 1919, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, but not a deep one. Searching the newspapers of the time, one finds surprisingly little concern about the possible ill effects of the influenza on the economy, perhaps because the more-dominant narrative concerned the impact of World War I, which ended on November 11, 1918.

Yet a recent study by Robert Barro of Harvard University and his associates suggests that the epidemic along with the decline in production associated with the war led to a protracted decline in G.D.P. growth in affected countries from 1918 through 1920. In short, that period provides little comfort.

Perhaps more relevant to the current crisis is the Great Depression of 1929 to 1940, the biggest economic slowdown of modern history. From 1931 to 1940, the annual unemployment rate in the United States never fell below 12 percent. (In April this year, unemployment shot up to 14.7 percent.)

The conventional story is that the 1929 crash was the result of a stock market bubble in the 1920s. The Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings Ratio, a stock valuation measure that I helped develop, reached 32.6 in 1929 (compared with 31.0 in January 2020). The Depression started in 1929 after a 23 percent crash in the Dow Jones industrial average over two days, Oct. 28 and 29. It created global social unrest around the world and the downturn only ended with World War II.

In 1929 many people expected the stock market to bounce right back and that decline was short-lived, in one sense: The market rose almost half the way back to its 1929 peak by April 1930. But it fell sharply again, and the crash set in motion a train of powerful narratives that resemble some of the popular notions that are circulating today.

Much as President Trump dismissed the seriousness of the Covid-19 pandemic in its early days, President Herbert Hoover made optimistic forecasts that proved to be wrong.

Much as people fret these days about extreme polarization between Democrats and Republicans, so too were people of that era concerned about extreme political divisiveness. After losing the 1932 election to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for example, President Hoover, by then a lame duck, called F.D.R.’s plans a “march to Moscow.”

Much as people today have experienced long lines and empty shelves at supermarkets, in the Great Depression people fretted about long lines and empty cash registers at banks.

There are other troubling parallels: Fear of long-term unemployment and a never-ending depression was rampant back then, leading people to restrain spending, thus prolonging the downturn. This may not happen now, but it is a danger.

Much as now, in the Great Depression people were very focused on maintaining a “fair wage” in the face of economic distress. But this led to nationwide resistance to nominal wage cuts for anyone, even when retail prices were falling rapidly.

This appears to have had the unintended result of inducing employers, who could not afford to keep everyone working at their former wages, to lay off many people. The economists Harold L. Cole of the University of Pennsylvania and Lee E. Ohanian, of U.C.L.A., have shown that this may explain some of the extreme duration of Great Depression unemployment.

Another development back then may have resonance today. Faced with widespread poverty, even people with money voluntarily embraced austerity, saying they no longer needed to “keep up with the Joneses.” Their reduction in consumption helps to explain the severity and duration of the Depression. If contemporary culture shifts in a similar way, it could limit the economy’s ability to bounce back.

A series of concerns like these — some with echoes of the Great Depression, some newly forming and associated directly with worries about disease and infection — will be on millions of people’s minds long after the economy reopens. Such social narratives will affect their thinking on how to spend and invest, whether to go out to eat or attend sporting events, on whom to vote for, and whether to travel: multitudes of decisions, big and small, that determine the course of the economy.

It is too early to tell which narratives will prevail and what path the economy will take after this pandemic subsides. Limited case studies will take us only so far. But we shouldn’t be surprised if we see post-pandemic economic weakness over the next decade.

SOURCE

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/business/coronavirus-economic-forecast-shiller.html

Read Full Post »


The Complexity of Estimation of the Economic Impact of an Outbreak | Panel Discussion | BC Woods College

Reporter: Ofer Markman, PhD

Economic Impact of an Outbreak | Panel Discussion | BC Woods College

197 views

May 21, 2020

Prominent economists, all faculty of the Boston College M.S. in Applied Economics degree program in the Woods College of Advancing Studies, presented a virtual panel discussion on the impact of the coronavirus outbreak on the health care system and the global economy. For more information about the M.S. program, visit https://on.bc.edu/MSAppliedEcon

Read Full Post »


The COVID-19 Recovery will be digital: A plan for the First 90 Days

Report: Joel T. Shertok, PhD

 

“McKinsey Digital” – 5/14/20

By Aamer Baig, Bryce Hall, Paul JenkinsEric Lamarre, and Brian McCarthy

 

1 – Most C-suite executives have led their companies to digitize some part of their business to protect employees and serve customers facing mobility restrictions.

2 – We have vaulted five years forward in consumer and business digital adoption in a matter of around eight weeks. 

3 – WE need to confront three structural changes that are playing out: a – customer behaviors and preferred interactions have changed significantly; b -as the economy lurches back, demand recovery will be unpredictable; c – many organizations have shifted to remote-working models almost overnight.

4 – Customers have already migrated to digital. Employees are already working fully remotely and are agile to some degree. Companies have already launched analytics and artificial-intelligence (AI) initiatives in their operations.

5 – Companies must adapt: they must reimagine customer journeys to reduce friction, accelerate the shift to digital channels, and provide for new safety requirements.

6 – CEOs should ask their business leaders to assess how the needs and behaviors of their most important customers have changed and benchmark their digital channels against those of their competition.

7 – Modern businesses have several forecasting and planning models to guide such operational decisions. Organizations will need to validate these models.

8- As companies construct these models, analytics teams will likely need to bring together new data sets and use enhanced modeling techniques to forecast demand and manage assets successfully.

9 – The chief analytics officer should mobilize an effort to inventory core models and work with business leaders to prioritize them based on key operations and their efficacy drift.

10 – Two features of a modern technology environment are particularly important and can be rapidly implemented: a cloud-based data platform and an automated software-delivery pipeline.

11 – Companies that have led the way in adopting flatter, fully agile organizational models have shown substantial improvements in both execution pace and productivity. 

12 – Leaders who want to succeed in the digital-led recovery must quickly reset their digital agendas to meet new customer needs, shore up their decision-support systems, and tune their organizational models.

SOURCE

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/the-COVID-19-recovery-will-be-digital-a-plan-for-the-first-90-days?cid=other-eml-alt-mbl-mck&hlkid=ffa7f7dace64429f82c354ddf40accb6&hctky=2071733&hdpid=dfb4c609-2604-4df3-aa42-ae7ed2aff045

Read Full Post »


From @Harvardmed Center for Bioethics: The Medical Ethics of the Corona Virus Crisis

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

From Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics

source: https://bioethics.hms.harvard.edu/news/medical-ethics-corona-virus-crisis

The Medical Ethics of the Corona Virus Crisis

Executive Director Christine Mitchell discusses the importance of institutions talking through the implications of their decisions with the New Yorker.

Center Executive Director Christine Mitchell spoke with the New Yorker’s Isaac Chotiner about the decisions that may need to be made on limiting movement and, potentially, rationing supplies and hospital space.

“So, in the debate about allocating resources in a pandemic, we have to work with our colleagues around what kind of space is going to be made available—which means that other people and other services have to be dislocated—what kind of supplies we’re going to have, whether we’re going to reuse them, how we will reallocate staff, whether we can have staff who are not specialists take care of patients because we have way more patients than the number of specialized staff,” says Mitchell.

Read the full Q&A in the New Yorker.

 

Note: The following is taken from the Interview in the New Yorker.

As the novel coronaviruscovid-19, spreads across the globe, governments have been taking increasingly severe measures to limit the virus’s infection rate. China, where it originated, has instituted quarantines in areas with a large number of cases, and Italy—which is now facing perhaps the most serious threat outside of China—is entirely under quarantine. In the United States, the National Guard has been deployed to manage a “containment area” in New Rochelle, New York, where one of the country’s largest clusters has emerged. As the number of cases rises, we will soon face decisions on limiting movement and, potentially, rationing supplies and hospital space. These issues will be decided at the highest level by politicians, but they are often influenced by medical ethicists, who advise governments and other institutions about the way to handle medical emergencies.

One of those ethicists, with whom I recently spoke by phone, is Christine Mitchell, the executive director at the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School. Mitchell, who has master’s degrees in nursing and philosophical and religious ethics, has been a clinical ethicist for thirty years. She founded the ethics program at Boston Children’s Hospital, and has served on national and international medical-ethics commissions. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed what ethicists tend to focus on during a health crisis, how existing health-care access affects crisis response, and the importance of institutions talking through the ethical implications of their decisions.

What coronavirus-related issue has most occupied your mental space over the past weeks?

One of the things I think about but that we don’t often have an opportunity to talk about, when we are mostly focussing on what clinicians are doing and trying to prepare for, is the more general ways this affects our society. People get sick out there in the real world, and then they come to our hospitals, but, when they are sick, a whole bunch of them don’t have health insurance, or are afraid to come to a hospital, or they don’t have coverage for sick time or taking a day off when their child is sick, so they send their child to school. So these all have very significant influences on our ability to manage population health and community transmission that aren’t things that nurses and physicians and people who work in acute-care hospitals and clinics can really affect. They are elements of the way our society is structured and has failed to meet the needs of our general population, and they influence our ability to manage a crisis like this.

Is there anything specifically about a pandemic or something like coronavirus that makes these issues especially acute?

If a person doesn’t have health insurance and doesn’t come to be tested or treated, and if they don’t have sick-time coverage and can’t leave work, so they teach at a school, or they work at a restaurant, or do events that have large numbers of people, these are all ways in which the spread of a virus like this has to be managed—and yet can’t be managed effectively because of our social-welfare policies, not just our health-care resources.

Just to take a step back, and I want to get back to coronavirus stuff, but what got you interested in medical ethics?

What got me interested were the actual kinds of problems that came up when I was taking care of patients, starting as early as when I was in nursing school and was taking care of a patient who, as a teen-ager, had a terminal kind of cancer that his parents didn’t want him to know about, and which the health-care team had decided to defer to the parents. And yet I was spending every day taking care of him, and he was really puzzled about why he was so sick and whether he was going to get better, and so forth. And so of course I was faced with this question of, What do I do if he asks me? Which, of course, he did.

And this question about what you should tell an adolescent and whether the deference should be to his parents’ judgment about what’s best for him, which we would ordinarily respect, and the moral demands of the relationship that you have with a patient, was one of the cases that reminded me that there’s a lot more to being a nurse or a health-care provider than just knowing how to give cancer chemotherapy and change a bed, or change a dressing, or whatever. That a lot of it is in the relationship you have with a patient and the kinds of ethical choices they and their families are facing. They need your information, but also your help as they think things through. That’s the kind of thing that got me interested in it. There are a whole host of those kinds of cases, but they’re more individual cases.

As I began to work in a hospital as an ethicist, I began to worry about the broader organizational issues, like emergency preparedness. Some years ago, here in Boston, I had a joint appointment running the ethics program at Children’s Hospital and doing clinical ethics at Harvard Medical School. We pulled together a group, with the Department of Public Health and the emergency-preparedness clinicians in the Harvard-affiliated hospitals, to look at what the response within the state of Massachusetts should be to big, major disasters or rolling pandemics, and worked on some guidelines together.

When you looked at the response of our government, in a place like Washington State or in New York City, what things, from a medical-ethics perspective, are you noticing that are either good or maybe not so good?

To be candid and, probably, to use language that’s too sharp for publication, I’m appalled. We didn’t get ourselves ready. We’ve had outbreaks—sars in 2003, H1N1 in 2009, Ebola in 2013, Zika in 2016. We’ve known, and the general population in some ways has known. They even have movies like “Contagion” that did a great job of sharing publicly what this is like, although it is fictional, and that we were going to have these kinds of infectious diseases in a global community that we have to be prepared to handle. And we didn’t get ourselves as ready, in most cases, as we should have. There have been all these cuts to the C.D.C. budget, and the person who was the Ebola czar no longer exists in the new Administration.

And it’s not just this Administration. But the thing about this Administration that perhaps worries me the most is a fundamental lack of respect for science and the facts. Managing the crisis from a public-relations perspective and an economic, Dow Jones perspective are important, but they shouldn’t be fudging the facts. And that’s the piece that makes me feel most concerned—and not just as an ethicist. And then, of course, I want to see public education and information that’s forthright and helps people get the treatment that they need. But the disrespect for the public, and not providing honest information, is . . . yeah, that’s pretty disconcerting.

SOURCE

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-medical-ethics-of-the-coronavirus-crisis

See more on this and #COVID19 on this Online Open Access Journal at our Coronavirus Portal at

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/coronavirus-portal/

Read Full Post »


Explaining the Decline in the U.S. Employment-to-Population Ratio: A Review of the Evidence, 1999 and 2016

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Young, educated men are suffering from an employment gap

A paper just released by the National Bureau of Economic Research looks at how millions of missing American jobs is affecting people.

Young man, look at your life: Declines in workforce participation were similar among men and women aged 34 to 54. For younger workers, the story was very different: there was a 5.6 percent drop for men aged 25 to 34—more than twice as large as the drop for women.

What’s a degree worth?: Workers with a lower level of education left the workforce in the period studied, from 1999 to 2016. But the gender gap is far more pronounced among people with college degrees: Men with a college education were twice as likely as women to stop working.

Why?: There are several possible reasons, according to a report from Brookings: a mismatch between credentials and open jobs, more stay at home dads, and the tendency for young men to live at home could all be to blame.

SOURCE

From: Clocking In from MIT Tech Review <newsletters@technologyreview.com>

Reply-To: Clocking In from MIT Tech Review <newsletters@technologyreview.com>

Date: Monday, February 26, 2018 at 2:10 PM

To: Aviva Lev-Ari <AvivaLev-Ari@alum.berkeley.edu>

Subject: 🕐 The gender gap that’s hurting men 

Explaining the Decline in the U.S. Employment-to-Population Ratio: A Review of the Evidence

Katharine G. Abraham and Melissa S. Kearney

NBER Working Paper No. 24333 February 2018 JEL No. J01,J21

ABSTRACT

This paper first documents trends in employment rates and then reviews what is known about the various factors that have been proposed to explain the decline in the overall employment-to population ratio between 1999 and 2016. Population aging has had a notable effect on the overall employment rate over this period, but within-age-group declines in employment among young and prime age adults have been at least as important. Our review of the evidence leads us to conclude that labor demand factors, in particular trade and the penetration of robots into the labor market, are the most important drivers of observed within-group declines in employment. Labor supply factors, most notably increased participation in disability insurance programs, have played a less important but not inconsequential role. Increases in the real value of the minimum wage and in the share of individuals with prison records also have contributed modestly to the decline in the aggregate employment rate. In addition to these factors, whose effects we roughly quantify, we also identify a set of potentially important factors about which the evidence is too preliminary to draw any clear conclusion. These include improvements in leisure technology, changing social norms, increased drug use, growth in occupational licensing, and the costs and challenges associated with child care. Our evidence-driven ranking of factors should be useful for guiding future discussions about the sources of decline in the aggregate employment-to-population ratio and consequently the likely efficacy of alternative policy approaches to increasing employment rates.

Katharine G. Abraham Department of Economics and Joint Program in Survey Methodology University of Maryland 1218 LeFrak Hall College Park, MD 20742 and NBER kabraham@umd.edu

Melissa S. Kearney Department of Economics University of Maryland 3105 Tydings Hall College Park, MD 20742 and NBER kearney@econ.umd.edu

SOURCE

Click to access w24333.pdf

 

Other related article published in this Open Online Scientific Journal include the following:

Decline in Sperm Count – Epigenetics, Well-being and the Significance for Population Evolution and Demography

 

Dr. Marc Feldman, Expert Opinion on the significance of Sperm Count Decline on the Future of Population Evolution and Demography

Dr. Sudipta Saha, Effects of Sperm Quality and Quantity on Human Reproduction

Dr. Aviva Lev-Ari, Psycho-Social Effects of Poverty, Unemployment and Epigenetics on Male Well-being, Physiological Conditions affecting Sperm Quality and Quantity

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2017/08/24/decline-in-sperm-count-epigenetics-well-being-and-the-significance-for-population-evolution-and-demography/

Read Full Post »