Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42139289›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026

The pig in the python: US decennial labor flows and economic opportunity, 1910-2040.

Steven Ruggles

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Steven RugglesInstitute for Social Research and Data Innovation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455.ORCID 0000-0001-5353-2578

Funding

Microdata for Population Dynamics and Health ResearchR01HD043392 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI Sarah M Flood, Steve Ruggles · 2002 to 2026
$14.8M
Minnesota Population Center Science and Technical CoreP2CHD041023 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI THERESA LOUISE OSYPUK · 2016 to 2026
$4.3M
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (JDCTMF) G-FLWS-2210-156901NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD041023NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD043392
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This analysis revisits the relative cohort size hypothesis proposed by demographer Richard Easterlin in the 1960s. Easterlin argued that the economic and social prospects of a generation are influenced by the size of the cohort relative to adjacent cohorts. He hypothesized that relative cohort size affects wages, employment, marriage, and fertility decisions. The theory fits the data well for the period from 1940 to 1980 but fails in later decades. I present a more nuanced view of the impact of demographic factors on worker competition through the lens of a measure of decennial labor-force flows. This approach allows consideration of the effects of retirement, female labor-force participation, and immigration on labor-market competition. I calculate these flows for the period from 1910 to 2040 and propose an index of employment competition. The results show that trends in labor-market competition are consistent with wage trends of young workers since 1940. Projections to 2040 show that we are on the verge of a radical reshaping of labor markets in which new workers will be in extremely short supply.

Indexed as

EmploymentFemaleHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansRetirementSalaries and Fringe BenefitsUnited Statesbaby boomcohort sizelabor flows

Identifiers

PMID42139289
PMCPMC13187804

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.