Display:
As usual, you have to be careful about using employment rate. Do you find optimal that 100% of the 15-24 population is working and not in school? What is the optimal retirement age for workers? Did the government insist in sending old workers to retirement?

The population less subject to these questions is the 25-54, hence I usually try to look for statistics on this population when I'm to evaluate some kind of "health" of the economy. And sometimes just male, since as shown below 25-54 female employment rate is rapidly changing.

Pink in France, blue is UK, data from eurostat online database.

Male 25-54 employment rate:

Female 25-54 employment rate:

Total 25-54 employment rate:

15-64 part time workers rate amongst workers:

(only stat available on part time on the OECD site, I'd liked to get the 25-54 rate as well)

The male situation was bad in the UK in 1992, so beware of article showing only progress on the last ten years while ignoring starting positions :).

25-54 male employment rate is more or less stable in France, moving in the 86-88 range. UK is above in recent years, I don't know if 88 is some kind of limit ("real" inactive people and transition from work to work).

25-64 female is going up 0.5/year, France is around 2 below UK (don't know how child bearing is counted). On a continued trend it would take more than 20 years to reach the male rate.

The part time rate difference is not negligible (10 points and stable), interpolating the stupid way (2 part time = one full time) it would make around 4-5 point difference in employment rates (unless all of it is concentrated in the 15-24 population).

Some detailed UK statistics here. I'd love to find something similar in France, especially number of public vs private creations and self-employed in France.

Your analysis?

by Laurent GUERBY on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 09:04:14 AM EST
France is around 2[%] below UK (don't know how child bearing is counted).
For what it's worth, I once calculated 5% of fertile-age women are pregnant at any given time...

Assume 2 children per woman [replacement rate].
Assume 9 months of pregnancy per child [mild assumption]
Assume 30 years of fertile life [15 to 45]

2 pregnancies/woman * 9 months/pregnancy / 30 years/woman = 5%

Coincidentally, 30 years is also the length of the 24-54 age period.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 09:12:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Statistics 101 :).

However my question was about wether a women on pregnancy vacation who had a job before is counted as employed or unemployed.

by Laurent GUERBY on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 01:27:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I would count them as inactive, but I don't know what the official statistics say.

However, the point is that each 15/16 weeks of maternity leave could account for 1% of the female population being inactive.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 02:25:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The inactivity report I cited has some statistics: 25-54 mother of young children (<7 years old) have inactivity rate of 34.7% instead of 22.1% for non mother of young children in the EU-25. In France it's about 28% vs 18%, in UK it's 38 vs 18%.
by Laurent GUERBY on Sat Jul 1st, 2006 at 02:55:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series