Latest news with #CurrentPopulationSurvey
Bloomberg
3 days ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
Bureau of Labor Statistics to Correct ‘Minor Errors' in April's US Jobs Data
The Bureau of Labor Statistics said it will correct 'minor errors' in April jobs data on Friday with the release of figures for May, adding the changes won't affect key measures such as the unemployment rate. 'Due to minor errors to weights associated with the introduction of a redesigned Current Population Survey (CPS) sample, some April 2025 estimates will be corrected on June 6, 2025,' the BLS said Tuesday in a statement.
San Francisco Chronicle
26-05-2025
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
Millennials are finally catching up with older generations in this important measure
Millennials are less likely to own a home than the previous two generations — especially in the Bay Area. But that may be starting to shift. Just 30% of millennials in the San Francisco metropolitan area owned a home in 2023, data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows. That put them far behind the 55% of Generation X and 62% of baby boomers who owned their home — an especially large gap compared with most other large metro areas. But older millennials are starting to catch up with their predecessors. Millennials born toward the earlier end of the generation's 1981-96 range — those in their early 40s — are achieving homeownership at nearly the same rate as Gen X did at the same age, at between 40% and 50%. Gen X is defined as people born from 1965 to 1980. That thinning gap is true for both the U.S. and California specifically, an analysis of census data by Apartment List shows. But both generations trail baby boomers, who were born from 1946 to 1964. And with home prices and interest rates still high, experts acknowledge that some millennials may feel left out of their peers' recent rise in homeownership. 'It's all going to be shifted later,' said Eric McGhee, a researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California. 'Your first home is going to be later in life than it did before, because it's going to take longer to save up for a down payment. (And) you're going to have a higher income to afford a mortgage.' The Census Bureau's Current Population Survey doesn't include people who live in institutions such as hospice facilities and nursing homes. That could make some baby boomers' homeownership rate seem somewhat higher than it truly is. But that generation was indeed much more likely to own a home than Gen X or millennials — especially in the most expensive parts of the country. In the San Francisco metro area, baby boomers are more than twice as likely as millennials to own their home. In the Minneapolis metro area, most millennials are homeowners, and boomers are just 1.4 times as likely as those younger neighbors to own their home. It takes people in California much longer than those in most other states to own a home, according to a 2023 report by the UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation. That wasn't the case before the 1970s, when a wave of restrictive zoning laws in California led to a major slowdown in housing construction — even as its population swelled — and prices began to rise rapidly. Millennials and Gen X were also hit hard by the 2007-09 recession, causing some members of Gen X to lose their homes and leading to a weaker overall economy for millennials entering the job market, said Rob Warnock, a researcher at Apartment List. In other words, millennials may be catching up, but they're catching up to a generation that had homeownership struggles of its own. The pandemic was another blow for many millennials, also known as Generation Y. Some were able to buy a home before prices and interest rates surged, leading to a wave of wealth for the generation overall. But many others were left out — and could continue to be. 'Both of those things are true,' Warnock said. 'We see the generation growing (in homeownership). We also see the generation kind of falling behind.'
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Perspective: Out of work and on the dole — is Uncle Sam contributing to young men's malaise?
American men are in trouble. From Richard Reeves' "Of Boys and Men" to Nicholas Eberstadt's "Men Without Work," we have learned that men are opting out of our most important institutions — work, education and family — in record numbers. But what or who is to blame for this male malaise? Uncle Sam. This was Allysia Finley's thesis, writing about men's growing disconnect from work in a recent Wall Street Journal article: 'Blame government, which showers benefits on able-bodied people who don't work,' Finley wrote. Finley is certainly right that we have a growing problem when it comes to young men's connection to work. In 1976, just 5% of young men ages 25 to 40 were not in the labor force. That number has more than doubled, rising to 11% in 2024. Over the same period, the share of men in this age range not working full-time rose by 46%, such that now more than 1 in 4 men in this age group are not working full-time. In 2024, 3.8 million men ages 25 to 40 were not in the labor force, and a total of 7.8 million were not working full-time. What's also apparent from these trends is that working-class men have been much more affected by the male flight from work than college educated men. The increase is only up 79% among college educated men, whereas it is up 165% among less-educated men. This is worrisome because such men are more likely to end up poor, unmarried, depressed and prone to succumbing to 'deaths of despair.' But is Finley right to blame the government for this male flight from work? Yes, in part, it would seem. A large minority of young men who are not working, or who are working less than full-time, are collecting food or cash from the government. The 2024 Current Population Survey indicates that 31% of men ages 25-40 who are not working full-time collected some form of cash or cash-equivalent benefit in the form of food stamps, Social Security for disability, Supplemental Security Income, or unemployment insurance in the prior year. Such benefits are particularly common among the nearly 4 million men in this age group who are not in the labor force, of whom 40% had received some cash or cash-equivalent government benefit. This doesn't include other non-cash government supports, like health insurance or reduced rent. We should note that national surveys, such as the Current Population Survey, tend to underreport the share of adults on such programs. To Finley's point, the share of young men receiving one or more of these benefits is likely higher than what the CPS indicates. But, as shown above, these benefits are largely going to those without college degrees. Furthermore, there is a large share of those who did not receive any such benefits and so are clearly not being enticed by Big Government. There is more to this story. So, what besides Uncle Sam is to blame? Our work at the Institute for Family Studies suggests broken families and big business also have a big hand in this male malaise. Regarding family, as Brad Wilcox wrote in his book 'Get Married,' young men are 'more likely to end up idle, to work less, and to earn less money if they came from a non-intact family.' He added, 'In fact, these young men are 36% less likely to hold down a full-time job by the time they hit their mid-twenties.' When it comes to big business, as Wilcox noted in The American Conservative: 'Many of the nation's biggest businesses — from Alphabet (YouTube) to TikTok to Microsoft (Xbox) — are selling products that serve teenage boys and young men one dopamine hit after another. The problem with these products is they make school and work relatively less appealing, inhibiting the ability of many young men to develop the skills, ambition, and work ethic that would enable them to thrive in the twenty-first century economy.' Work done by Princeton economist Mark Aguiar and his colleagues indicates that screentime — from gaming to porn — can account for nearly half of the drop in working hours for men in their twenties from 2004 to 2017. Of course, many parents of teenagers understand this problem starts before men hit their twenties. Throw in the well-documented failures of schools to cultivate the hearts, minds and talents of boys and young men, and what Eberstadt calls a 'normative sea change' that has made it a 'viable option' for 'sturdy men ... to sit on the economic sidelines, living off the toil or bounty of others' and you get a fuller picture of the familial, economic and cultural forces arrayed against our young men. The bottom line is that, yes, government handouts can, and do, sustain the growing male disconnect from work. But the story of young men and unemployment is about much more than the failures of Uncle Sam. There is plenty of blame to go around. Grant Bailey is a research associate at the Institute for Family Studies. Brad Wilcox is Distinguished University Professor and Director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and senior nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Perspective: Out of work and on the dole — is Uncle Sam contributing to young men's malaise?
American men are in trouble. From Richard Reeves' "Of Boys and Men" to Nicholas Eberstadt's "Men Without Work," we have learned that men are opting out of our most important institutions — work, education and family — in record numbers. But what or who is to blame for this male malaise? Uncle Sam. This was Allysia Finley's thesis, writing about men's growing disconnect from work in a recent Wall Street Journal article: 'Blame government, which showers benefits on able-bodied people who don't work,' Finley wrote. Finley is certainly right that we have a growing problem when it comes to young men's connection to work. In 1976, just 5% of young men ages 25 to 40 were not in the labor force. That number has more than doubled, rising to 11% in 2024. Over the same period, the share of men in this age range not working full-time rose by 46%, such that now more than 1 in 4 men in this age group are not working full-time. In 2024, 3.8 million men ages 25 to 40 were not in the labor force, and a total of 7.8 million were not working full-time. What's also apparent from these trends is that working-class men have been much more affected by the male flight from work than college educated men. The increase is only up 79% among college educated men, whereas it is up 165% among less-educated men. This is worrisome because such men are more likely to end up poor, unmarried, depressed and prone to succumbing to 'deaths of despair.' But is Finley right to blame the government for this male flight from work? Yes, in part, it would seem. A large minority of young men who are not working, or who are working less than full-time, are collecting food or cash from the government. The 2024 Current Population Survey indicates that 31% of men ages 25-40 who are not working full-time collected some form of cash or cash-equivalent benefit in the form of food stamps, Social Security for disability, Supplemental Security Income, or unemployment insurance in the prior year. Such benefits are particularly common among the nearly 4 million men in this age group who are not in the labor force, of whom 40% had received some cash or cash-equivalent government benefit. This doesn't include other non-cash government supports, like health insurance or reduced rent. We should note that national surveys, such as the Current Population Survey, tend to underreport the share of adults on such programs. To Finley's point, the share of young men receiving one or more of these benefits is likely higher than what the CPS indicates. But, as shown above, these benefits are largely going to those without college degrees. Furthermore, there is a large share of those who did not receive any such benefits and so are clearly not being enticed by Big Government. There is more to this story. So, what besides Uncle Sam is to blame? Our work at the Institute for Family Studies suggests broken families and big business also have a big hand in this male malaise. Regarding family, as Brad Wilcox wrote in his book 'Get Married,' young men are 'more likely to end up idle, to work less, and to earn less money if they came from a non-intact family.' He added, 'In fact, these young men are 36% less likely to hold down a full-time job by the time they hit their mid-twenties.' When it comes to big business, as Wilcox noted in The American Conservative: 'Many of the nation's biggest businesses — from Alphabet (YouTube) to TikTok to Microsoft (Xbox) — are selling products that serve teenage boys and young men one dopamine hit after another. The problem with these products is they make school and work relatively less appealing, inhibiting the ability of many young men to develop the skills, ambition, and work ethic that would enable them to thrive in the twenty-first century economy.' Work done by Princeton economist Mark Aguiar and his colleagues indicates that screentime — from gaming to porn — can account for nearly half of the drop in working hours for men in their twenties from 2004 to 2017. Of course, many parents of teenagers understand this problem starts before men hit their twenties. Throw in the well-documented failures of schools to cultivate the hearts, minds and talents of boys and young men, and what Eberstadt calls a 'normative sea change' that has made it a 'viable option' for 'sturdy men ... to sit on the economic sidelines, living off the toil or bounty of others' and you get a fuller picture of the familial, economic and cultural forces arrayed against our young men. The bottom line is that, yes, government handouts can, and do, sustain the growing male disconnect from work. But the story of young men and unemployment is about much more than the failures of Uncle Sam. There is plenty of blame to go around. Grant Bailey is a research associate at the Institute for Family Studies. Brad Wilcox is Distinguished University Professor and Director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and senior nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
The Sun
05-05-2025
- Business
- The Sun
Lazy statistics, loud opinions
WHEN Bill O'Reilly doubled down on his mockery of Malaysia – scoffing that Malaysians 'can't even buy a little hat' and citing a household income figure of US$5,731 (RM24,400) versus US$42,220 in the US – he was not just being flippant. He was showcasing the danger of lazy statistics. By cherry-picking figures without context, he painted a distorted picture of economic despair – and in doing so, revealed a worldview still steeped in colonialist condescension. Like many such soundbites, the truth lies in what he left out. A single number doesn't define prosperity The US$42,220 figure cited by O'Reilly comes from the US Census Bureau's annual household survey, the Current Population Survey (CPS). It refers to the median personal income of individuals aged 15 and above in 2023, adjusted for inflation (in what is called '2023 CPI-U-RS dollars'). The figure is widely referenced and republished by the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis under the series code MEPAINUSA672N. For Malaysia, the figure seems to have been quoted from the CEIC's 'Annual Household Income per Capita' dataset, which draws on official data from the Department of Statistics Malaysia (DOSM). The calculation starts with the mean monthly household income in 2022, recorded at RM8,479 (DOSM), which is then annualised, multiplied by the estimated number of households (about 8.662 million in 2022), divided by Malaysia's mid-year population, and finally converted into US dollars using the average 2022 exchange rate. Thus, O'Reilly's framing ignores several key contextual differences: Different units: He compares income earned by actual individuals in the US to household income per capita in Malaysia, which includes non-earners such as children and elderly dependents. This pulls the Malaysian figure down and inflates the gap. No purchasing power adjustment: A US dollar buys far more in Malaysia than it does in the US. Nominal comparisons ignore this, understating the true standard of living in Malaysia. Different timeframe and inflation adjustments: The US number is from 2023, inflation-adjusted to constant dollars. The Malaysian number is from 2022, in current prices. So, O'Reilly is comparing different years and price bases, which further muddies the waters. Even when we use CEIC's harmonised household income data series – applied equally to both Malaysia and the US – but adjust for purchasing power parity using the World Bank's official 2022 factor, Malaysia's household income per capita rises to US$16,857. On that basis, the US-Malaysia income gap is only 2.3 times, not seven. Similarly, GDP per capita (PPP) shows Malaysia at US$34,366 compared to the US at US$78,035 – a 2.3 times gap as well. Therefore, O'Reilly's claim did not just miss context – it overstated the disparity by a factor of three. These comparisons still ignore differences in cost of living and access to services. Declaring a nation poor without accounting for those factors is, at best, lazy arithmetic. No wonder Malaysians cheekily reminded O'Reilly, 'we have free healthcare, grandpa'. In the US, the top 20% controls over 50% of disposable income. Furthermore, Harvard data suggests 85% of American families now require some form of financial aid. High healthcare, housing and student loan costs heavily erode American incomes in ways Malaysians are largely protected from – thanks to public healthcare, fuel subsidies and affordable food. A nasi lemak in Kuala Lumpur still costs less than a coffee in New York. A region that matters O'Reilly's deeper implication – that Southeast Asia is irrelevant to the global economy – is just as inaccurate, as Emir Research previously elaborated in 'How Malaysia Keeps its Compass Steady amid Tariff Shocks – and Builds for What's Next'. Malaysia and its Asean neighbours are emerging economic powerhouses in their own right. The image of Southeast Asia as having 'no money' also ignores the region's massive market potential. With over 680 million people, rising middle classes and growth rates outpacing the West, Asean is a prize in global commerce. This is why trillions in South–South capital (from China, the Middle East and elsewhere) are actively seeking opportunities in these emerging powerhouses. Thus, when Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Malaysia in April, over 30 bilateral cooperation agreements were signed. These were not handouts. They were joint ventures – in AI, green tech and smart infrastructure. Signs not of desperation, but of ambition to climb the value chain. That strategic openness to both East and West has become far more pronounced under the Anwar Ibrahim administration. Similarly, Western tech giants like Google and Microsoft have recently invested significantly in Malaysia's digital economy. Malaysia's economic approach today is pragmatic: be a 'bridge, not battleground' between great powers while investing in connectivity, upskilling talent and maintaining macroeconomic stability. Colonial lens still lingers Perhaps most revealing was O'Reilly's flippant 'Ha-ha, I'm a colonialist' remark. That line, paired with his mockery of 'small' countries, betrays a mindset that still colours parts of Western commentary. This view assumes Western dominance as a given and frames non-Western nations as inherently lesser. In the view of the O'Reillies of the world, if a country does not match American standards of wealth, it is fair game for ridicule. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim rightly called such comments 'arrogant and ignorant', shaped by imperial assumptions that no longer hold. Malaysia is not a dependent economy. It is an upper-middle-income nation with a diversified export base, strong industrial capability and rising agency. In 2023, it exported approximately US$74 billion in integrated circuits – 23% of total exports – ranking among the world's top semiconductor exporters. It also contributes 13% of the global market for backend semiconductor services like testing and packaging. These are not signs of weakness but reflect systemic relevance and significant potential. The challenge now is to translate that structural position into broader socioeconomic gains – a goal central to the current administration's reform agenda. Unlike the West, which entrenches dominance through IMF conditions, petrodollar hegemony and the privilege of printing the world's reserve currency, Malaysia – like many real-economy nations – has had to build its sovereignty from the ground up. That has not come easy. Global history shows that leaders who defend sovereignty in word and deed are often undermined – not just rhetorically but through sustained economic and political pressure. The nexus between supranational and entrenched local colonialists runs deep. Malaysia is no exception. The current administration inherited a system long dominated by entrenched interests – what can rightfully be called internal colonialists, sustained in part by external colonialists who, in many ways, never truly left. Decades of divisive politics and absolute policy inertia have left deep structural challenges. Anwar's reform agenda marks a break from that legacy but the path forward remains an uphill climb. Still, Malaysia continues to push forward. It settles more trade in local currencies, strengthens South–South ties and plays an active role in shaping regional policy through platforms like Asean, RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) and CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership). Its strategy – resilience without retaliation – offers a potential model for others. So, when O'Reilly mocks Malaysia's outreach to China, he misses the point. Kuala Lumpur is not choosing sides, it is choosing independence. It welcomes both East and West on terms that serve mutual national interest. Next time someone chuckles about who 'has money', remember: context matters. Malaysia's story – of grit, growth and strategic savvy – is far more compelling than a drive-by income comparison. Dismissing a country based on a single, unadjusted figure is not just a bad analysis; it is a relic of a fading worldview. In a world of shifting power, it is not the loudest voices that lead but those with the clearest compass. Dr Rais Hussin is the founder of Emir Research, a think-tank focused on strategic policy recommendations based on rigorous research. Comments: letters@
