JESSE POWELL writes:

In January 2013, the most recent month for which U.S. Census data is available, the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) of all women in the United States from 25 to 54 years old stood at 74.0 percent.  This is the lowest rate since July 1991 when it stood at 73.9 percent.  The LFPR for women first hit 74.0 percent in September 1989. The peak in women’s LFPR was in April 2000 when it touched 77.3 percent.

For men in the same age group their LFPR was 91.7 percent in April 2000 and 88.6 percent in January 2013.  This means from April 2000 to January 2013 men’s LFPR dropped by 3.1 percentage points and women’s LFPR dropped by 3.3 percentage points; about the same amount.  So it cannot be said that there is a return to traditional sex roles going on with men increasing their participation in the workforce to match the level of earlier years and women leaving the workforce because now their men are taking care of them; only the women leaving the workforce part is happening.  Still women leaving the workforce on a sustained basis as appears to be happening is totally new.

From 1870 to 2000 women’s participation in the workforce continually increased; a trend of at least 130 years ever since record keeping on the subject began.  Now since 2000 women’s participation in the workforce has declined to where it was in 1991.  This kind of regression is totally unprecedented since 1870.  From 1870 to 2000, every single decade saw an increase in women working; usually of a substantial ratio.  The growth in women working was slow from 1990 to 2000, but was rapid for all the decades preceding 1990, even during the recession of the 1970s.  

From 1930 to 1940, the proportion of white married women in the workforce went from 9.8 percent to 12.5 percent.  The decade of the 1930s covers most of the Great Depression and during this time women’s participation in the workforce at least among white married women increased greatly.

Looking at economic conditions more closely, April 2000 represented a low in the unemployment rate of 3.8 percent so it makes sense that this was the month that saw the highest female LFPR.  Nine and a half years later, October 2009 represented the peak in unemployment from the recent recession; unemployment stood at 10.0 percent.  From April 2000 to October 2009, women’s LFPR went from 77.3 percent to 75.3 percent.  This might make sense; a period of increasing unemployment led to women’s LFPR going down.  However, the period from June 1973 to December 1982, nine and a half years, was also a period of increasing unemployment, which went from 4.9 percent in June 1973 to 10.8 percent in December 1982.  Women’s LFPR stood at 52.5 percent in June 1973 and 67.0 percent in December 1982; an increase of 14.5 percentage points.  Of course from October 2009 to January 2013 the unemployment rate went from 10.0 percent to 7.9 percent and women’s LFPR went from 75.3 percent to 74.0 percent.  I do not think the decline of women in the labor force since April 2000 can be blamed on the bad economy; something new, radically new, is going on.

Men’s decline in the labor force is part of a long trend.  Men’s LFPR has been declining steadily and continuously since 1967.  Truly good news will be here when men’s LFPR starts to rise while women’s LFPR continues to decline; that is not happening yet.  Only the first part, women’s LFPR declining, has started.  Still it is a good start, a very good start; it is not something that has ever been seen before in the lifetime of anybody alive today.

For background on the history of men’s and women’s labor force participation in the United States I recommend these two previous articles at this website: “Has the Percentage of Employed Women Peaked for Good?” and “The History of Married Women in the Workforce.”

— Comments —-

Doug writes:

I think this study may have left out an important factor. How many women are now having out of wedlock births and simply going on government subsistence? I would like to see that in comparison. It has never been easier for single mothers to go on welfare.

Laura writes:

Good point.

Mr. Powell writes:

I have put together some tables to try to illustrate better what is behind the drop in women’s participation in the workforce since 2000.  I don’t see any particular evidence that increased government welfare is behind it.  On the particular issue of women having children out-of-wedlock and then going on government assistance that is not likely to explain a drop in women’s participation in the workforce because single mothers have a higher participation in the workforce than married mothers.

The tables below look particularly at married couples; what the labor participation rate is for the husband and wife when they have a child under 18 years old and what the labor participation of the wife is according to the age of the head of household (who is usually the husband).  My comparison years are 2000, the peak of women’s labor force participation, and 2012.  The source is America’s Families and Living Arrangements based on the Current Population Survey.

Definitions: “Mar. M/child” means Married Man with child; “Mar. W/child” means Married Woman with child; “Under 30” means the head of household is under 30 years old; “30 to 44” means the head of household is 30 to 44 years old; “Over 44” means the head of household is 45 years old or older.  A “child” means an own child under 18 years old.  The “head of household” is more formally the person who owns or rents the family living quarters; usually the man.  “White” refers to non-Hispanic whites.  The percentages given are the percentage of women in the labor force in each marital situation.  All numbers given refer to women except for the specific category of Married Man with child.  For instance 68.8% of women in the year 2000 were in the labor force in marriages where the head of household within the marriage was Under 30 years old.  The “Change in Labor Force Participation from 2000 to 2012” table gives the percentage point change from 2000 to 2012 in each category.

Labor Force Participation in 2000 of Married Women and Married Men with Children

Labor Force Participation in 2012 of Married Women and Married Men with Children

Change in Labor Force Participation from 2000 to 2012

From 2000 to 2012, the labor force participation of married women with children went from 70.7% to 68.6%; among single mothers, this ratio went from 78.7% to 76.9%; among the female partners in cohabiting couples with children it went from 76.3% to 68.3%.  Mother’s participation in the workforce fell across the board whether they were married or single or in cohabiting relationships.  The drop in women working in cohabiting relationships with children was particularly extreme.  I suspect this is because the women in cohabiting relationships with children are young and perhaps younger in 2012 on average than was the case in 2000.  Younger women in general saw steeper declines in their labor force participation.

This is the most striking finding in the above tables.  Among all women labor force participation fell 5.1 percentage points in those marriages headed by someone under 30; when the head of household was 30 to 44 years old the wife’s labor force participation fell 2.3 percentage points.  In marriages where the head of household was 45 or over the women’s labor force participation actually rose slightly.  To me this is the key finding; women’s decline in labor force participation is being driven by the younger age cohort.  Cohabiting couples are where young people are concentrated; this is why the labor force participation drop among mothers in cohabiting relationships was so steep.  Black women also showed a particularly strong drop in labor force participation moving closer to the average for women overall.  Hispanic women showed a small increase in labor force participation; this is probably due to Hispanics “Americanizing” and moving closer to the cultural norm of America overall where more women work than is the case in the Hispanic population.

The tables looking in more detail at women’s labor force participation just reinforce the good news.  Women’s labor force participation is falling across the board (except among Hispanics) and is falling particularly quickly among younger women.

Laura writes:

You have shown a significant increase in the percentage of unmarried mothers who are not in the labor force. It seems to me that could indeed be an indication of higher rates of public assistance. A mother in a cohabiting relationship would qualify as a single mother and be eligible for more benefits than a woman married to a man who is employed.

Mr. Powell replies:

You are correct; my findings are consistent with greater government welfare playing a significant role in which populations of women decline in their workforce participation the most.

Also, unemployment and withdrawal from the workforce in general is particularly high for young people because of the bad economy.

From 2000 to 2012 the labor force participation of married fathers went from 95.3% to 94.0%; for single fathers it went from 90.1% to 86.7%; for the male partners in cohabiting relationships with children it went from 91.0% to 88.6%.  Among women there was a particularly sharp drop in workforce participation among the cohabiting mothers; there was no corresponding particularly sharp fall in workforce participation among cohabiting fathers.  The steepest drop among fathers occurred among single fathers.  Men however did show the same pattern as women where the younger men declined in their labor force participation at the fastest rate.  This supports the hypothesis that the overall economy is worse for younger people in general; not that there is an emerging cultural rejection of work for women that is stronger among the young.  There may well be such a positive cultural trend among the young but it is not the dominant explanation for labor force participation rates as a whole.  A bad economy that strikes the young particularly hard is a more likely explanation for both young men and women who are already married declining particularly sharply in their labor force participation rates.

Welfare use has certainly gone up by a large amount from 2000 to 2012.  Access to welfare however has been widespread since the 1960s and severe recessions have happened before as well.  Actual decline in women’s labor force participation over an extended period of time however is happening for the first time since 1870. [LAURA WRITES: BUT COHABITATION WAS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR AS ACCEPTABLE IN THE PAST AS IT IS NOW.  SO THE CONDITIONS ARE ESPECIALLY CONDUCIVE TO WELFARE USE.] I suspect factors like the economy and the availability of welfare are what is determining which particular groups of women are withdrawing from the workforce the fastest.  Women withdrawing from the workforce overall however is more likely to have a cultural explanation.  In the past the never ending push of more and more women entering the workforce would have overwhelmed all the other cyclical issues such as how the economy is doing.  Now with the absence of a background increase in women’s participation in the workforce the weaker influences such as the economic cycle and welfare availability are playing the leading role in deciding which particular groups of women are leaving the workforce the fastest.

Please follow and like us: