tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post5346244648169193695..comments2024-03-28T11:48:09.419-07:00Comments on Idiosyncratic Whisk: Predictable Variations in Economic GrowthKevin Erdmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-10924444422427819952013-08-20T22:32:16.251-07:002013-08-20T22:32:16.251-07:00PS. It looks like you'll have to adjust the t...PS. It looks like you'll have to adjust the time frames on the graphs to see the full history of the data back to 2000.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-15424825436845152692013-08-20T22:30:49.990-07:002013-08-20T22:30:49.990-07:00I'm not really sure how you would adjust it, b...I'm not really sure how you would adjust it, because there will be so many effects. There will be a transition from being at the peak earnings level of employment with some savings, to little or no employment earnings and a draw down of savings. There will be a lot of complicated things going on in terms of production & consumption.<br /><br />I think you're right about under 30, or at least under 25. The BLS has a great beta site that is full of information. I'm just getting comfortable with trying to extract things from it, but here are the earnings levels for a few age groups. These are averages for full time workers, so unemployment isn't factored in. The sticky wage problem is evident here, as the wage levels give little sign of the recession (except for the 16-24 group). The drop in income comes through unemployment. The other interesting thing is, and I'm not quite sure what to make of it, that the 16-24 earnings level flattens out coincident with the minimum wage increases. As much as I dislike minimum wages, I would have expected the remaining workers to see some increase. Most MW workers are part time, so I'm not sure if there is some sort of complicated substitution effect going on or what.<br /><br />16-24: http://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/LEU0252886300<br />25-34: http://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/LEU0252888500<br />35-44: http://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/LEU0252889100Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-1500781918955100812013-08-20T21:50:51.913-07:002013-08-20T21:50:51.913-07:00If you're segmenting GDP based on demographic ...If you're segmenting GDP based on demographic age group, I'd guess your GDP figure for the under 30 crowd looks pretty bad right now fwiw. Redeye Malonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08793906705757576578noreply@blogger.com