This summer marked the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Education Amendments of 1972, which protect people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. The well-known Title IX in this legislation made equal access to athletic programs mandatory, which resulted in more women playing sports while enrolled in school. But does a more-even playing field in high school and college athletics result  in comparable employment in the sports industry?

The FRED graph above shows the number of men and women working as athletes, coaches, umpires, and related occupations. Since 2000, when the data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics became available, for every two women employed in sports, there are on average slightly more than seven men. At the time of this writing, gender parity in sports employment is no closer than it was 20 years ago.

Research has shown that expanding females’ participation in sports increases their labor force participation, and some data available in FRED reflect that trend in particular industries. Because we don’t have data in FRED about women in the sports industry before the passage of the Education Amendments of 1972, we can’t tell if the gender gap we described above is smaller than, equal to, or perhaps even larger than it used to be.

How this graph was created: In FRED, search for and select “Employed full time: Wage and salary workers: Athletes, coaches, umpires, and related workers occupations: 16 years and over: Women.” From the “Edit Graph” panel at the top right corner, use the “Add Line” tab to search for and select “Employed full time: Wage and salary workers: Athletes, coaches, umpires, and related workers occupations: 16 years and over: Men.” Game on!

Suggested by Cameron Tucker and Diego Mendez-Carbajo.

Part of the “My favorite FRED graph” guest post series.

It’s July 14th, Bastille Day! So the FRED Blog focuses on France, where the retirement age was a central issue in their recent elections.

France’s legal retirement age is 62, conditional on time worked. President Emmanuel Macron, who was re-elected in April, prefers raising it to 65. Jean-Luc Mélenchon campaigned on lowering it to 60 as part of the leftist coalition policy proposal. That political debate didn’t include a great deal of data, so we provide some here, including international comparisons.

The FRED graph above uses OECD data to display employment rates—that is, the employed as a fraction of the relevant population. In this case, the population is men 55 to 64 years old in France, Spain, Italy, the U.S., Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Why only men? The differences in women’s employment rates are driven more by cultural factors, and working women aren’t the norm everywhere and in every generation.

Although France’s employment rate for men 55 to 64 is increasing, it is the lowest in this group. Some may see this as a lost opportunity to contribute to economic activity; others may see opportunities for spending free time on non-market activities that improve well-being. Opinions diverge on why many in this age category don’t manage to find work. Previous reforms postponing the retirement age have contributed to increasing employment in this age category, but could also have pushed the least-qualified workers further into poverty.

A compromise could be found in improving working conditions for seniors to extend their labor force participation while also maintaining good health for all. Sweden has consistently had an employment rate at the top of the field, so maybe they can show us that older workers and quality of life aren’t incompatible.

How this graph was created: Search FRED for “Employment Rate Aged 55-64 Males for France.” From the “Edit Graph” panel, use the “Add Line” tab to successively search for and add the other series. Use the “Format” tab to thicken the French line.

Suggested by Guillaume Gaulier.

When we talk about the labor market we often focus on the unemployment rate. But an equally important measure of labor market conditions is the labor force participation rate (LFPR).

The LFPR is equal to the employed plus the unemployed, divided by a measure of U.S. population. Think of it as those who want to work (i.e., have a job or want one) relative to those who could work (the entire population over age 16 that isn’t incarcerated or on active military duty).

The above FRED graph plots the monthly U.S. LFPR starting in 1948. One striking feature is its hump shape, which is related to demographic factors. LFPR fluctuates around 59% until the late 1960s, when it starts rising. This rise is attributed to the Baby Boomer generation joining the labor force, as well as to the widespread entry of women into the labor force. The LFPR plateaus at around 67% in the late 1990s and starts to decline in the 2000s.

This decline wasn’t just a result of the Financial Crisis of 2007-08. The year 2008 is also when the oldest Baby Boomers started turning 62, the earliest age they could claim Social Security benefits.

LFPR has declined since then, which can be explained by the Baby Boomers retiring and slower U.S. population growth: Subsequent generations have been smaller than the Baby Boomer generation, so their entry into the labor force hasn’t made up for the retiring Boomers.

The recent COVID-19 crisis led to the largest drop in LFPR on record: from 63.4% in February 2020 to 60.2% in April 2020. (See this Economic Synopses essay for more on retirement during COVID-19.) While the LFPR has partly recovered, it is still below its pre-COVID levels. However, the trend line in the graph shows that the post-pandemic LFPR is not far from what we would expect, given its downward trend.

How this graph was created: Search for and select “Labor force participation rate.” From the “Edit Graph” panel, use the “Add Line” tab to select “Create user-defined line.” Set the start and end dates to January 2000 and January 2022, respectively, and the start and end values to the predicted labor force participation rates for each date based on the regression—here, 67.38711 and 61.56833, respectively. A note about the trend line: FRED has no built-in trend line functionality, so we had to download the data (Excel, Stata, or other statistical packages work), regress date on labor force participation rate values from January 2000 to January 2022, and then calculate the predicted labor force participation rates for those dates.

Suggested by Miguel Faria e Castro and Devin Werner.