Talk:Employment-to-population ratio

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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)
replies: text: Why is this within the law project~? I see no direct relation with law. Andries (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for permission

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unsupported/incorrect 2012 data 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV Dispute 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wrong title 

message: 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)
thread_title:  PEPR 

message: The redirect 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)
thread_title:  "[[:EPOP]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]