Which Age Group Has Been Most Screwed By the Labor Market?

This morning’s post about automation got me curious about the labor participation rate by age group. Here it is for the past couple of decades:

Labor participation for prime-age workers has changed only slightly, declining from 84 percent to 82 percent. The big change has been among young and old. Older workers have increased their labor participation rate by nearly 8 percentage points while young workers have reduced their labor participation by about 7 points. Labor participation among teenagers has plummeted by 17 points.

Most of this change happened between 2000 and 2010. Participation rates have been nearly dead flat for all age groups since then.

I’m not quite sure what to make of this, though the 2000-10 period coincides with the greatest impact of Chinese imports on American labor. I’m skeptical that these two things are related, however, since Chinese imports should mainly have affected American manufacturing, which employs mostly prime-age workers. And yet prime-age workers saw virtually no change in labor participation during that period. The drop was all among young workers.

For what it’s worth, there’s a similar pattern in wages. For both young and prime-age workers, wages have been about flat since 2000. Among workers age 55-64, wages are up 8 percent.

Anyway, the answer to the question in the headline is: young workers between the age of 16-24 have been screwed the worst. Conversely, prime-age workers have been doing OK, while older workers have been doing great.

Thank you!

We didn't know what to expect when we told you we needed to raise $400,000 before our fiscal year closed on June 30, and we're thrilled to report that our incredible community of readers contributed some $415,000 to help us keep charging as hard as we can during this crazy year.

You just sent an incredible message: that quality journalism doesn't have to answer to advertisers, billionaires, or hedge funds; that newsrooms can eke out an existence thanks primarily to the generosity of its readers. That's so powerful. Especially during what's been called a "media extinction event" when those looking to make a profit from the news pull back, the Mother Jones community steps in.

The months and years ahead won't be easy. Far from it. But there's no one we'd rather face the big challenges with than you, our committed and passionate readers, and our team of fearless reporters who show up every day.

Thank you!

We didn't know what to expect when we told you we needed to raise $400,000 before our fiscal year closed on June 30, and we're thrilled to report that our incredible community of readers contributed some $415,000 to help us keep charging as hard as we can during this crazy year.

You just sent an incredible message: that quality journalism doesn't have to answer to advertisers, billionaires, or hedge funds; that newsrooms can eke out an existence thanks primarily to the generosity of its readers. That's so powerful. Especially during what's been called a "media extinction event" when those looking to make a profit from the news pull back, the Mother Jones community steps in.

The months and years ahead won't be easy. Far from it. But there's no one we'd rather face the big challenges with than you, our committed and passionate readers, and our team of fearless reporters who show up every day.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

We have a new comment system! We are now using Coral, from Vox Media, for comments on all new articles. We'd love your feedback.