[derobert]

Errr, we're off to a good start!

> "The population under 16 (not working) and population over 65 (more likely to be retired) are roughly equivalent right now, which means our workforce age should hew pretty close to our overall median age."

Yeah, except:

1. Many in the 65+ group are working. So you can't cancel that out with the under-16 crowd where basically none work (and it is—with a few exceptions—illegal for them to work, especially the younger ones).

2. Many in the 16–24 range aren't working, because they're full-time students. Especially the 16–18 crowd.

So you'd expect the median worker to be older than the median person.

[ultrasaurus]

Agreed, looking at https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/civilian-labor-force-particip... it seems like it's just the media age of workers. There are almost as high a % of 65+ workers as 16-19 and more 45-54 year olds than 20-24. And 10% of the 75+ year olds are working, I sincerely doubt we have 10%+ participation in the <6 year old bracket.

Overall it looks like a demographic shift of more people going to school for longer (which is well known) and fewer students working.