>Are you saying there was a net gain of 24.4 million jobs. If so, it
>was have to be offset by the new entries into the workforce...
D. Henwood wrote:
>At the 1991/92 trough, about 61% of the adult population (outside
bars) was working; at the peak in 2000, well over 64% were, an
all-time record...
Carrol Cox wrote:
> That 10% greater job market participation -- does
>it reflect the fact that so many households are now dependent on two
>incomes?
D. Henwood wrote:
<The short answer is women. The male employment/population ratio has fallen a bit over the decades, especially among older men (who can now retire instead of working themselves to death), but this has been massively offset by women's entry into paid labor (esp among white women).
Doug
Earlier post...
ANNUAL AVERAGE GROWTH RATES (U.S.)
>
> GDP labor real hourly
> per cap productivity wage
> 1900-10 2.5% 1.6% 1.3%
> 1910-20 0.0% 2.4% 2.7%
> 1920-30 1.4% 2.0% 1.4%
> 1930-40 2.0% 2.3% 1.7%
> 1940-50 4.1% 2.4% 2.5%
> 1950-60 1.6% 2.5% 2.7%
> 1960-70 2.9% 2.6% 1.7%
> 1970-80 2.1% 2.0% 0.2%
> 1980-90 2.3% 1.5% -0.8%
> 1990-2000 2.3% 1.9% 0.2%
>
According to the table, there were only 3 periods in which wage growth equaled or outstripped productivity and/or GDP growth (10-20s, 40-50s, 50-60s) - doesn't that mean that people dependent on wages are getting a declining proportion of total wealth produced?
Les