29.12.2016 Views

ECONOMIC REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT

2hzAyD3

2hzAyD3

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Figure 2-vii<br />

Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) – Actual vs. Aging<br />

Trend, 2007–2016<br />

Percent of Civilian Noninstitutional Population<br />

67<br />

66<br />

65<br />

Aging Trend<br />

64<br />

63<br />

Actual<br />

Nov-2016<br />

62<br />

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016<br />

Note: The demographic trend estimates LFPR by fixing the participation rates for different age groups<br />

at their 2007 annual average and updates the LFPR solely based on changes in the distribution of the<br />

population across those age groups.<br />

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; CEA calculations<br />

grow as a share of the population over the next 10 years is the 65+ age<br />

group.<br />

Much of the recent decline in the labor force participation rate<br />

can be explained by the aging of the population. Of the 3.3 percentage<br />

points drop in the labor force participation rate between its 2007 average<br />

and November 2016, 2.3 percentage points can be explained by a simple<br />

demographic trend that only accounts for the aging of the population<br />

over this period (Figure 2-vii). Because older workers are less likely to<br />

work, the LFPR should decline as the population ages. The remaining 1.0<br />

percentage point gap reflects other long-term trends, such as a declining<br />

participation rate among prime-age men (Box 2-3), as well as possibly a<br />

cyclical effect from the extraordinarily long duration of unemployment<br />

in the aftermath of the recession.<br />

Real GDP has grown more slowly in the current economic recovery<br />

than in other cycles, but after taking into account demographic and<br />

workforce changes the current recovery looks more typical. Peak to peak,<br />

real GDP growth averaged 3.1 percent at an annual rate in prior cycles<br />

compared with just 1.2 percent so far this cycle, but comparing across<br />

business cycles can be misleading unless one considers demographics.<br />

The working-age population (ages 16-64) grew 1.4 percent at an annual<br />

rate in the 1960s through the 1980s, but just 0.6 percent during this<br />

recovery. In addition, previous recoveries had faster underlying trend<br />

92 | Chapter 2

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!