Talk:Employment-to-population ratio

Comment
Should this article use full-time equivalent or just % of population with a job ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcbastiani (talk • contribs) 08:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for permission
Please do not delete this article, I have requested permission to the ILO to be able to reproduce the following:. Thank you very much.--Jorditxei 11:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Bearian 19:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is this within the law project~? I see no direct relation with law. Andries (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

what is the difference between and employment-to-population ratio? Andries (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody update the statistics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.119.162 (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC) I guess there's something messed up here, the employment-to-population ratio must be a kind of, not only to the population stastics, but the rate of employment can also be calculated based on any population, such as the employment rate of the graduates of Tsinghua University. So it is the employment-to-population ratio could be merged into employment rate, instead of merging in the way presently suggested.--WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 14:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Something VERY wrong with the data on America. Does not match the US government's own data AT ALL. See US Dept of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics Data 76.119.69.205 (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC) => This is not wrong OECD stat is 16 to 64 population, US government report the ratio with population 16 and over. => There is no good source for the post 2005 data. The data after that is suspect, as it doesn't mach trends show in the government data. The US government's data shows as 4 point drop from 2005 to 2012 and has 2010 about equal to 2012, but thee table looks like it increased.

I suggest linking this article as a sub-heading to "Employment Rate" but keeping it as a separate topic for detailed analysis. As an economist I find the discussion of employment-to-population ratio an important topic in its own right. 199.8.26.10 (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Unsupported/incorrect 2012 data
The data for the United States in 2012 does not appear to be supported by the provided sources; the data itself appears highly suspect. 173.160.38.222 (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC) Josh

More general: source data from OECD (in table) and Worldbank (linked as "correction") does not agree for unknown reasons. This does not automatically make either incorrect since there may be differences in methodology. As long as all data is from the same source, relative comparisons are still valid. StephenTX (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, one would expect them to be different. The Worldbank "correction" (which has a typo in the word "worldbank" btw) is using a different measure. The worldbank site says "Ages 15 and older are generally considered the working-age population." by contrast the Wikipedia article is using OECD data which defines it as "Working age is generally defined as persons in the 15 to 64 age bracket although in some countries working age is defined as 16 to 64."

Assuming the Worldbank site is in fact using the definition mentioned, that probably explains why for example France has an employment rate of 51% on the Worldbank vs 63.8% on the Wikipedia OECD sourced page (large elderly population, early and consistent retirement). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.78.21 (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree the table section sorely needs an explanation of the differences in counting methods. I have updated the table with current OECD numbers and noticed they are in many cases wildly different than the world bank table.  For example, New Zealand's World bank numbers are far lower.  If someone could look up the difference in methodology, that would be a much needed improvement to this section.  Readers need to understand what exactly OECD is counting (which appears much more liberal with the definition of "employment") versus what World Bank is counting.  J JMesserly (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute
This page reads like an editorial arguing for the use of the E:P ratio instead of other measures one might use to measure the health of a country's labor force. For example: "The employment-population ratio is many American economists' favorite gauge of the American jobs picture" is completely unsubstantiated and fails to capture a worldwide point of view. The next sentence then cites a corporate economist who apparently is not famous enough to merit his own Wikipedia page. The article continues with this same tone. Phil Bastian (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could add a controversy section and list representatives of those who favor EMRatio versus those who favor others? It however is not fair to suggest that EMRatio is favored only by unknown economists.  Krugman for example has written many articles in favor of EMRatio.  As I recall in the US case, he favors EMratio for a particular age of workers in order to avoid a statistical aberration caused by the boomer generation retiring.  J JMesserly (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This primarily pertains to the United States and should specify such. In addition this source provides a better description of concept. http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mi/wiki/1-5-Employment-to-population-ratio.ashx Admice900. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Admice900 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This article still has a POV tag. Is the article still biased toward economists who favor this ratio? Jarble (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Wrong title
The title is "Employment-to-population ration" but the rticle is really about the portion of the working-eligible population that is employed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That is because "Employment-to-population ratio" (not "ration") is a standardized term. If we had to fully define every stat in the name of the stat we'd be using very long strings and tbe net result would be almost as incomprehensible as German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

PEPR
A commonly referenced statistic today is prime-age EPR, often taken to be ages 25–54. The article should discuss this and explain why (whether?) this is thought to be informative over and above the "standard" EPR. 207.180.169.36 (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"EPOP" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EPOP&redirect=no EPOP] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)