Economic Quarterly—Volume 97, Number 4—Fourth Quarter 2011—Pages 359–387 Accounting for the Non-Employment of U.S. Men, 1968–2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Men in their prime working age, defined as men between the ages of 25 and 64, constitute 33 percent of the civilian non-institutionalized population in the United States. At the trough of the 1969–1970 recession, 6.5 percent of this group (henceforth, “population”) were out of the labor force (OLF), 90.8 percent were employed, and 2.7 percent were unemployed. Since then, the employment-to-population ratio has trended persistently downward, while the OLF-to-population ratio has increased substantially. 1 In 2010, the aftermath of the 2007–2009 recession, the employmentto-population ratio of this same group declined to an all-time low of 76.3 percent, while the OLF-to-population ratio increased to an all-time high of 14.7 percent (see Figure 1, Panels A–C). In this article, we investigate the extent to which the change in the sociodemographic composition of the population (by age, educational attainment, marital status, and race) has contributed to the changes in the aggregate labor market outcomes. Our emphasis on the compositional changes in the sociodemographic characteristics of the population is motivated by a literature rife with correlations between sociodemographic factors and labor market outcomes. In particular, older workers typically experience lower rates of labor force participation and, conditional on participating, older workers are We would like to thank Huberto Ennis, Arantxa Jarque, Nadezhda Malysheva, and Alexander Wolman for their invaluable comments. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond or the Federal Reserve System. E-mail:
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.125 | 0.087 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".