People are making a big deal of this front page article:
e.g., see this diary:
The data on race, place & jobs confirms that Trump voters voted because of race & place.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics data are readily available to anyone with an internet connection, and the relevant data is easily findable using search engines.
Please look at table 3 from the BLS (PDF file), titled 3. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by age, sex, and race, with data from 2007.
In 2007, the white civilian non-institutional population aged 25-54 was 100.446 million. 84.096 million of these were in the labor force, and 81.294 million were employed.
Now take a look at the BLS data from 2015 (web page):
In 2015, the white civilian non-institutional population aged 25-54 was 95.856 million. 78.300 million of these were in the labor force, and 75.276 million were employed.
So, yes, by these figures, the white civilian non-institutional employed population in the 25-54 age group came down by 6.018 million (81.294 minus 75.276). But the white civilian non-institutional population in the 25-54 age group decreased by 4.59 million (100.446 minus 95.856)!
If the situation in 2015 had remained the same as in 2007 relative to the white population segment 25-54 non-institutional civilian workforce, then 77.579 million would be employed instead of the actual 75.276 million.
Number in 2007 in 25-54 age group = 100.446M
Number employed in 2007 = 81.294M
Number in 2015 in 25-54 age group = 95.856M
Number who would be employed in 2015, if 2007 ratio between population segment and employment remained the same: = 95.856 * 81.294 / 100.446 = 77.579M
The loss of jobs among the white civilian non-institutional population aged 25-54 that might account for the race & place vote for Trump = 77.579M— 75.276M = 2.3 million.
This is a quote from the original article, emphasis added:
The data is even more striking when we take age into account. Looking only at those of prime working age—25 to 54 years old—whites suffered a net job loss of 6.5 million.
This was the most striking claim in the original article that prompted me to check it.
It is worth noting that of the white civilian non-institutional population aged 25-54 that choose to participate in the labor force, their success rate is pretty much unchanged in 2015 compared to 2007: 96.67% in 2007, and 96.14% in 2015. What bears further examination is that the labor force participation rate has come down by 2.03%. Is it, e.g., because fewer men are choosing to work? or is it women? And why? Will it turn around if the success rate of people seeking work in 2015 is pretty much the same as in 2007?
The BLS data is there, linked above. I do not have the time and energy to try to answer these questions or to fact-check further the original article, though it would seem necessary, if you’re going to base your understanding of the world upon it. As a general remedy, I recommend to all those who want to members of the reality-based community Daniel Levitin’s “A Field Guide to Lies — Critical Thinking in the Information Age”. (I have no connection to the author or publisher, except some dozen tweets.)
Update 1: The November 2016 estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is available (web page).
Abbreviating “November 2016" as "2016”, the statement is:
In 2016, the white civilian non-institutional population aged 25-54 was 95.744 million. 78.699 million of these were in the labor force, and 76.068 million were employed.
Number in 2007 in 25-54 age group = 100.446M
Number employed in 2007 = 81.294M
Number in 2016 in 25-54 age group = 95.744 M
Number who would be employed in 2016, if 2007 ratio between population segment and employment remained the same: = 95.744 * 81.294 / 100.446 = 77.489M
The loss of jobs among the white civilian non-institutional population aged 25-54 that might account for the race & place vote for Trump = 77.489M— 76.068 M = 1.421 million.
Update 2: This fascinating article from September 2016 about some (not-yet-at-the-time-peer-reviewed) research suggests that a lot of the drop-off in labor force participation of young men aged 21-30 is because of video games.
….The researchers are not merely saying that young men, out of work, are turning to video games. They're saying that increasingly sophisticated video games are luring young men away from the workforce…..
The paper attributes one-third to one-fifth of the decline in work hours by less-educated young men to the rising use of technology for entertainment — mainly video games. The new study has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and the researchers say they are continuing to refine the precise figures. But other prominent economists who reviewed it for this story said it raises important questions about why so many young men have abandoned the workforce.
Moreover, they appeared to be happier (so if unhappiness caused people to vote Trump, this segment of declining labor force participation is not it):
That situation does not appear to be weighing on their happiness. Data from the General Social Survey, a national survey of several thousand people, shows that young noncollege men actually report being happier than in the early 2000s, with the percentage of men saying they are very or pretty happy rising from 81 percent to 88 percent. In the same period, the reported happiness of other groups remained constant or fell.
The November 2016 figures are that men (of all races, civilian non-institutional population) by age group are:
20-24 : 10.840 million
25-29 : 11.156 million
30-34 : 10.548 million
25-54 : 61.953 million
So the 25-34 age group is about 1/3rd of the 25-54 age group, and a 1% decline in labor force participation of 25-34 year olds would translate into a 0.35% decline in participation of the 25-54 cohort.
Update 3: More of the quote from the original article (italics added):
The data is even more striking when we take age into account. Looking only at those of prime working age—25 to 54 years old—whites suffered a net job loss of 6.5 million. For Latinos, Asians, and blacks in the same age cohort, the net job gains were 3 million, 1.5 million, and 1 million respectively.
I have dealt with above the italicized portion of the quote. Let me pick one of the other claims: for blacks in the same age cohort (25-54) the net job gains were 1 million.
Using the same BLS sources referred to above:
In 2007, the black civilian non-institutional population aged 25-54 was 15.590 million. 12.478 million of these were in the labor force, and 11.666 million were employed.
In (November) 2016, the black civilian non-institutional population aged 25-54 was 16.883 million. 13.441 million of these were in the labor force, and 12.570 million were employed.
Yes, the net black job gain is almost a million (904,000). But the net population gain in the 25-54 cohort, civilian, non-institutionalized is 1.293 million!
Number in 2007 in 25-54 age group = 15.590M
Number employed in 2007 = 11.666M
Number in 2016 in 25-54 age group = 16.883M
Number who would be employed in 2016, if 2007 ratio between population segment and employment remained the same: = 16.883 * 11.666 / 15.590 = 12.634 M
Actual employment in 2016: 12.570 M
This corresponds to a worsening of blacks’ situation by 64,000 jobs. The net job gain is due to a population increase.
To be very clear, in the civilian non-institutionalized world, the 2016 white employed to total white population in the 25-54 age group is 79.45%; the 2016 black employed to total black population in 25-54 age group is 74.43%.
Read More
