"the financial ability to make work–life balance choices"

My view is that the economy is going downhill and has been since maybe 1966. That colors everything I write.

So I have to respond when I see this, from Mary C. Daly of the San Fransisco Fed:

U.S. labor participation diverging from international trends

Source: OECD: rates for ages 25–54.

This chart compares the percentage of prime-age workers in the labor force in Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In these other advanced economies, labor force participation of prime-age workers has increased overall and now stands far—several percentage points—above the rates observed in the United States.

Which raises the question—why aren’t American workers working?

The answer is not simple, and numerous factors have been offered to explain the decline in labor force participation. Research by a colleague from the San Francisco Fed and others suggests that some of the drop owes to wealthier families choosing to have only one person engaging in the paid labor market (Hall and Petrosky-Nadeau 2016). And I emphasize paid here, since the other adult is often staying at home to care for house or children, invest in the community, or pursue education. Whatever the alternative activity, some of the lost labor market participation seems related to having the financial ability to make work–life balance choices.

"Whatever the alternative activity, some of the lost labor market participation seems related to having the financial ability to make work–life balance choices." When I see that, I want to puke. Because it says people are opting out of the labor force because they can afford to opt out of the labor force. This economy is just so damn good that people don't need the work. Puke, puke, puke.

This economy is so good that people don't need the work? I don't see it. But I dunno, I could be wrong: I'm retired. I opted out of the workforce. I can't deny it. I didn't have to retire. I could have stayed at work till I got fired for falling asleep at my desk. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Maybe. Maybe the economy is so good that people don't need the work, and that's why US Labor Force Participation is down. But I don't think so.

But this is definitely an interesting idea, the idea that labor force participation responds to economic conditions. The idea that the participation rate comes down when people can afford not to work, and goes up when people can't afford not to work. This idea can be used to explain a lot of the increase in the participation rate between 1965 and 1990, say.

Graph #2: US Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate, 1948-2018

Labor force participation went up, we're often told, because women entered the workforce. But nobody ever says that many of those women entered the workforce because hubby was no longer bringing home enough bacon. Or that they split up over money.

That part's always left out. Just like the years before 1990 on Mary C. Daly's graph.