CHART OF THE DAY: The slow-to-empty nest

Super chart on the increasing percentage of young adults that remain living with their parents/families, (courtesy of Business Insider) that I wanted to share here on the blog, and then offer up a couple of comments/observations on the data.

First the chart:

Sort of makes sense, right? Probably from both an observational and anecdotal perspective - we all know some 27 year old slacker still living in the parent's basement - and from a macroeconomic one as well. The lingering effects of the recession has made it tougher for many young adults to find jobs that pay well enough to allow them to strike out on their own. Combined with the consistent rise in college attendance, (needed in order to even try and find one of those elusive jobs), we now have more and more "kids" still living at home than we did even a few years earlier.

What might this trend mean for HR/Talent pros?

I can think of one thing for sure - the willingness for younger workers to switch jobs for even small reasons - a minor bump up in compensation or a slightly better working location. When you are not encumbered having to cover your own monthly mortgage or rent, and just have to maybe toss Mom and Dad a few bucks every week to keep the fridge stocked with Mountain Dew, then you are not really tied down by much of anything, including your job.

On the flip side though, that situation provides opportunity for HR and recruiters looking to poach those kinds of younger workers themselves. No house, no mortgage, no big set of monthly bills and trips to the Home Depot = someone more able to take off on short notice and take a new job, maybe even one in another state or country.

Mom and Dad could be totally enabling these kids, and perhaps that is not a good thing, but then again, a generation of more flexible, mobile, and recruitable workers could mean good news for you as an HR/Talent pro.

Have a great day! 

CHART OF THE DAY: What age group has employment rising faster than population?

Quick hit for a busy Tuesday - I wanted to share a chart (and the link to a few more interesting charts), on population growth, labor force growth, and employment growth between 2008 and 2014 for one specific category of workers - those aged 65 and up.

First, here is the chart from Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis, then some observations and free commentary:

Apologies if the chart resolution isn't great, but hopefully you can still make out the key pieces of data. Essentially, while the population growth of those aged 65+ is really high (about 20% of an increase in this group since 2008), the rates of increase in labor force participation and employment are even higher (about 37% and 35% respectively).

Additionally, this is the only age group where the labor force and overall employment rates are outpacing population growth. For example, 16-24 year olds have seen their ranks increase by about 4%, but employment for that group has declined about 6%.

I know I have posted a few times about the general increase in age of the workforce, and the challenges and opportunities this presents to organizations, but it is probably worth thinking about perhaps more frequently than before. Older workers are often overlooked, and can present great sources of experience, insight, and even value, as any folks in this cohort do probably realize that they might be outside of their prime earning years. Also, many will be motivated by the opportunity to share their knowledge and give back as it were to their less experienced workers - which is exactly the kind of on the job learning and mentoring that the next generation desires.  Lastly, you probably don't have to be that concerned, (if at all), with ongoing development and career pathing with this group - they have likely ran most of their career journeys already.

Anyway, this will have to be the last time I go on again about the aging workforce, I think the point has been beaten into submission. Unless I am still blogging say 20 years from now, where I will be screaming about the value of the older workers as far as I can still shout.

Happy Tuesday.

Is "In which month were you born?" a valid interview question?

Quick 8 Man Rotation take for a busy Tuesday. Check out the chart below, a birth month distribution of about 240,000 professional soccer players taken from a database that tracks player signing and transfers and was compiled by David Bauer:

Notice anything strange in the pattern distribution?

How about the unusually high (relative) percentages of professional soccer players born in the first quarter of the year, particularly in January (11.3%), and the relatively lower percentages of players that were born at the end of the year (down to a low of 6.5% in December).

It might not seem like that much of a disparity, but consider a similar chart that shows the birth month distribution of the entire population of the European Union, (below), and you can see some striking differences.

As you can see from the total EU chart, people are born more or less consistently across the months of the year, with only small differences in percentages born in the highest percentage months.

But professional soccer players? They show a striking and increased likelihood to be born in the first three months of the year.

This phenomenon is attributed to the traditional soccer (and other sports as well) youth development process that groups players of the same age (Under 10, Under 16, etc.), for training and competitions.

The theory then is that at those younger ages the physical size and skill differentials between an Under 10 year old player born in January and one born in December are really large, and noticeable. The player born in January then receives more attention, better coaching, more opportunities, etc., as he/she is simply deemed a better prospect than the player born in December. This then plays out again and again over time resulting in more of the 'early year' born players making it to the professional levels.

No one knows if this is really true and explains the birth month disparity of professional soccer players compared to the overall population, but it does seem at least plausible.

So circle this back to your HR/Talent shop. Does this kind of analysis make sense for you to consider? Is there a similar performance effect that can be seen in other types of occupations besides professional soccer based on birth month distribution? Are comparatively "older for their grade level" people likely to turn out to be better at more than just playing sports? Do you care about the birth month of a candidate or an employee?

I don't know. I guess it seems unlikely. But even so there is still a takeaway from this data which is this: If you want little Junior to grow up to be a pro soccer player, you may want to plan around a January birth date, (if it isn't too late).

Have a great Tuesday.

CHART OF THE DAY: The Falling US Birth Rate

For today's chart - take a look at the how the USA birth rate has been declining over the last several years, and after the chart, and for no additional costs, I will drop some comments about what, if anything, this might mean for you, the HR/Talent pro:

What might this mean, or at least suggest?

1. Your first reaction is that it means nothing. Who cares if there are relatively fewer kids being born right now? This won't impact labor markets for at least another 15 years or so and by then, who cares? A robot will be doing your job by then anyway, right?

2. But it is not just the sources of candidates/employees that matter or should matter to you. If your business has anything to do with selling products or services to the baby/youth/teen markets, then this trend is going to impact you. And if you think, 'We make industrial products that go into new home construction so this does not affect us', you might want to think again. The declining birth rate shouldn't be considered in a vacuum - their are related trends in marriage rates and ages of first marriage, household formation, and related spending at play here as well. Long story short, Americans are getting married less, are older when and if they do get married, are having fewer children, and are having them at more advanced ages than in the past.

3. This combination of a decline in birth rate and rise in the average age for both first marriages and having children will, if it has not already, influence your workforce planning processes in a few ways. You might be able to project a decrease or at least a reduction in the rate of increase in your benefits costs for covered dependents in the next few years, as your employees are covering fewer kids than in the past. Your succession planning processes may need to be re-emphasized if later career employees begin leaving (or simply taking leave) for child care reasons. These later career employees, say in their late 30s and up, are likely to have more senior and important roles in your company. Finally, if you are really and truly thinking long-term, say out 10-15 years, larger and wider demographic trends could effect things like expansion plans and ability of organization to move into new markets.

Perhaps I am stretching credibility by suggesting that you should really be worried about a probably caused by the 2007-2008 recession down trend in the birth rate when you have much more immediate and pressing concerns.

But I still find this kind of data fascinating, and even if you can't find an immediate or even medium-term impact of these bigger trends, I think they are worth recognizing. If nothing else you will at least know why the local school board wants to consolidate your elementary schools in the next few years.

Happy Thursday.