The Atlanta Fed's macroblog provides commentary and analysis on economic topics including monetary policy, macroeconomic developments, inflation, labor economics, and financial issues.

Authors for macroblog are Dave Altig, John Robertson, and other Atlanta Fed economists and researchers.

« Goodwill to Man | Main | Money as Communication: A New Educational Video by the Atlanta Fed »

December 27, 2013

Is the Labor Force Participation Rate about to Fall Again?

A few posts back my Atlanta Fed colleagues Tim Dunne and Ellie Terry offered up our latest contribution to the ongoing head-scratching over the rather spectacular decline in U.S. labor force participation (LFP) since the onset of the Great Recession in December 2007. “Rather spectacular” in this case means a fall in the participation rate from 66 percent (of the working age population either working or actively seeking work) to the 63 percent level reported for November. In people terms, that 3 percentage point decline represents a reduction of about 1.4 million participants in the U.S. labor market.

Like many other analysts, Dunne and Terry find that the drop in labor force participation appears to come from a combination of demographic factors—mainly the aging of the population—and other causes not specifically identified but generally interpreted to be associated with the weak economy in one way or another.

Two developing stories suggest the LFP may not be leaving the spotlight just yet. The first is this one, from USA Today:

Some 1.3 million Americans are set to lose their unemployment benefits Saturday...

Federal emergency benefits will end when funds run out for a program created during the recession to supplement the benefits that states provide. The cutoff will initially affect 1.3 million people, but 1.9 million more will lose benefits by mid-2014 when their 26 weeks of state paychecks run out, according to the National Employment Law Project.

What will those 1.3 million Americans do when their benefits run dry? According to a recent study by Princeton University’s Henry Farber and the San Francisco Fed’s Robert Valletta—also presented at a conference hosted here at the Atlanta Fed in October—on balance, the affected individuals are likely to leave the labor force:

We examined the impact of the unprecedented extensions of UI [unemployment insurance] benefits in the United States over the past few years on unemployment dynamics and duration and compared their effects with the extension of UI benefits in the milder recession of the early 2000s. We found small but statistically significant reductions in unemployment exits and small increases in unemployment durations arising from both sets of UI extensions. The magnitude of these overall effects is similar across the two episodes...

We find that the effect on exit from unemployment occurs primarily through a reduction in labor force exits rather than through exit to employment (job finding). This is important because it implies that extended benefits do not delay the time to re-employment substantially and so do not have first-order efficiency effects. The major effect of extended benefits is redistributive, providing income to job losers who would have exited the labor force otherwise (consistent with Card et al. 2007). [link mine]

In other words, if a significant decline in unemployment benefits comes to pass, we may well see another bump downward in the labor force participation rate. Although a decline in LFP associated with the expiration of extended UI benefits would fall in Dunne and Terry’s nondemographic category, the Farber and Valletta results suggest that we should interpret any such decline as structural. And structural in this case means not directly amenable to correction by policies aimed at stimulating spending.

The other important piece of recent news, however, is this one, which you probably heard about:

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, real gross domestic product—output produced in the United States—actually grew at a rate of 4.1% in the third quarter, up from BEA’s previous estimate of a 3.6% growth rate. The final results are also a gain over the second quarter’s 2.5% GDP growth.

Furthermore, as noted at Calculated Risk, the good news doesn’t stop there:

A little Christmas cheer...

Via the WSJ:

Macroeconomic Advisers...[raised] its estimate for fourth-quarter growth. It now forecasts gross domestic product to expand at an annualized rate of 2.6% in the final three months of the year, up three-tenths of a percentage point from an earlier estimate.

And Goldman Sachs has increased their Q4 GDP tracking to 2.4% annualized growth.

That all adds up to pretty decent growth in the second half of the year. If it persists, and the long-awaited acceleration in the economic expansion finally arrives, better labor market conditions should follow. And if the six-year fall in LFP has in large measure been driven by weak economic conditions, we should at least see a pause in participation declines as economic activity picks up. Actually, we should probably see an outright increase.

The next several quarters, then, may well provide some clarity as to the persistent question of whether or not the large recent exodus of Americans from the labor force has been the result of a lackluster economy. In this period, we may get some clarity as to whether efforts to stem that exodus were justified by a correct diagnosis of the underlying cause.

Or not.

David Altig By Dave Altig, executive vice president and research director at the Atlanta Fed

December 27, 2013 in Employment , Labor Markets , Unemployment | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to blogs that reference Is the Labor Force Participation Rate about to Fall Again? :


The NY Times profile on this problem called out the example of a 68 year old IT guy who got laid off last summer. They guy is eligible for SS but not yet collecting it. Please, let this guy retire and get out of the way for some younger person.


Surely our resources are better spent on someone other than Mr. Davis.

“I’ve got a résumé that knocks your socks off. The reason for this long period of unemployment is that the work just isn’t there.”

I suppose, but I really doubt it.

Posted by: Neildsmith | December 28, 2013 at 02:33 PM

Sort of curious as to why you don't address the 3.2% fall in 15-64 employment from '00 to '07 and the dramatic increase in the 15-24 / 25-64 employment spreads. At the moment my pet hypothesis, built largely on the Canadian increase in minimum-wage / productivity ratios as the US ratio fell, both starting at roughly 15% in 2000, is that the American labour market is at the point where its minimum wage is definitely below a classical free market equilibrium. If this is the case, oligopsony is depressing wages, employment, and output below their optimum levels.

Posted by: Valerie Keefe | December 29, 2013 at 05:31 PM

shouldn't we expect the same demographic trends--they've been persistent since pre-Great Recession--to influence the smaller subset of would-be workers on the cusp of losing their unemployment benefits? that is, losing the marginal benefit of UI may encourage "retirement" rather than continued participation as unemployed. especially for those with retirement savings (likely bolstered by this year's stock market returns); especially for those whose longer-term unemployment may be attributed to unwillingness to accept "lesser" work or to retrain; especially for the contingent of unemployed who fit the demographic plainly.
anyway, that'd be my expectation, but i'd prefer to hear from a trained and practicing economist.

Posted by: Matt L | December 30, 2013 at 01:27 PM

Dave, nice article. A question about one of your final comments: "In this period, we may get some clarity as to whether efforts to stem that exodus were justified by a correct diagnosis of the underlying cause." By "efforts" do you mean monetary policy and specifically QE? Because our fiscal policy has been contractionary, if anything. And it can be argued that QE and zero interest rates have not been contractionary but have had little stimulative effect on the economy. Thanks for any insight.

Posted by: Scott Bailey | December 30, 2013 at 11:10 PM

I read this article at EconoMonitor and posted this comment:
The author gets the numbers wrong. He says the drop in labor force participation "represents a reduction of 1.4 million". Wrong. First look the LFPR at the bls page on historical civilian noninstitutional population: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.htm.
The workforce today is 155.294,000, the civilian non. pop is 246,567,000 -- divide = 63%. In 2007 and 2008 the LFPR was 66.0%, 3% of 246,567,000 is 7,397,010, not the author's 1.4 million participants. With the same LFPR as 2007 the unemployment rate would be 11.3%, not 7.0%. If we had the LFPR of 2000 then the unemployment rate would be 12.7%. It is a big deal, not just psychologically, but that too. Eliminating the EUI benefits has already been tried in North Carolina, see this article at the Economic Policy Institute: http://www.epi.org/blog/north-carolinas-failed-experiment-cutting/
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has also covered the issue: http://www.cbpp.org/
If 4.8 million workers lose their EUI benefits the LFPR may drop by that amount. That would drop the official and inaccurate official unemployment rate from 10.9 million unemployed to 6.1 million below 5%. That would be a joke of sorts. As an effect of eliminating EUI the jobless rate goes down? Yes, that's right. No new jobs are created, but the rate declines --- this has been the pattern for the past 4 years. Look at the employment to population rate number in the bls chart-- also go cpeg.org monthly report on unemployment. My blog: http://benL8.blogspot.com
-- Yet the GDP is increasing. Only it benefits fewer, and hardship is not mitigated.

Posted by: Ben Leet | December 31, 2013 at 05:35 PM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in