Employment, unemployment: India - Revision history

Jyoti: /* Graduates and others: 2024 */

2026-08-17T06:50:28Z

‎Graduates and others: 2024

Jyoti: /* States, cities, regions and Job creation */

2026-08-16T19:55:42Z

‎States, cities, regions and Job creation

Jyoti: /* Graduates’ unemployment */

2026-04-18T21:49:31Z

‎Graduates’ unemployment

Jyoti: /* Unemployment, disguised */

2026-04-18T08:01:31Z

‎Unemployment, disguised

Jyoti: /* Quality of work/ employment */

2026-04-18T07:40:55Z

‎Quality of work/ employment

Jyoti: /* Unemployment, disguised */

2026-04-16T11:33:37Z

‎Unemployment, disguised

Jyoti: /* Eligibility for employment */

2026-04-16T10:59:59Z

‎Eligibility for employment

Jyoti: /* Unemployment, disguised */

2026-03-29T10:28:20Z

‎Unemployment, disguised

Jyoti: /* Factory Sector: 2011, 2019-2025 */

2026-02-26T19:11:09Z

‎Factory Sector: 2011, 2019-2025

Jyoti: /* 2020: Life sciences top draw for talent */

2026-02-26T19:07:04Z

‎2020: Life sciences top draw for talent

@@ Line 1,887: / Line 1,887: @@
 ==Wages, by education level==
 === Graduates and others: 2024===
-[[File: The Wages earned According to education level: Graduates and others, 2024.jpg|The Wages earned According to education level: Graduates and others, 2024 <br/> From: [https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=18_07_2026_010_002_cap_TOI  July 18, 2026: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]
+[[File: The Wages earned According to education level- Graduates and others, 2024.jpg|The Wages earned According to education level: Graduates and others, 2024 <br/> From: [https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=18_07_2026_010_002_cap_TOI  July 18, 2026: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]
@@ Line 1,893: / Line 1,893: @@
 '' The Wages earned According to education level: Graduates and others, 2024 ''
 ==Graduates, by gender==

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:55, 16 August 2026
Line 1,883:		Line 1,883:

	'' Indian metros that hire freshers: 2023-24 ''		'' Indian metros that hire freshers: 2023-24 ''
		+
		+	=Workforce status=
		+	==Wages, by education level==
		+	=== Graduates and others: 2024===
		+	[[File: The Wages earned According to education level: Graduates and others, 2024.jpg\|The Wages earned According to education level: Graduates and others, 2024 <br/> From: [https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=18_07_2026_010_002_cap_TOI July 18, 2026: ''The Times of India'']\|frame\|500px]]
		+
		+
		+	'''See graphic''':
		+
		+	'' The Wages earned According to education level: Graduates and others, 2024 ''
		+
		+	==Graduates, by gender==
		+	===2024===
		+	[[File: Workforce status of Graduates, by gender, in India- 2024.jpg\| Workforce status of Graduates, by gender, in India: 2024 <br/> From: [https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=20_07_2026_008_006_cap_TOI July 20, 2026: ''The Times of India'']\|frame\|500px]]
		+
		+	'''See graphic''':
		+
		+	'' Workforce status of Graduates, by gender, in India: 2024 ''
		+
		+	==== Graduate women staying out of the workforce/ 2024===
		+	[[File: Graduate women staying out of the workforce in India, age-wise, 2024.jpg\|Graduate women staying out of the workforce in India, age-wise/ 2024 <br/> From: [https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=19_07_2026_006_002_cap_TOI July 19, 2026: ''The Times of India'']\|frame\|500px]]
		+
		+	'''See graphic''':
		+
		+	'' Graduate women staying out of the workforce in India, age-wise/ 2024 ''
		+
		+	====Graduate men staying out of the workforce/ 2024====
		+	[[File: Graduate men staying out of the workforce in India, reasons, age-wise-2024.jpg\| Graduate men staying out of the workforce in India, reasons, age-wise/ 2024 <br/> From: [https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=22_07_2026_009_009_cap_TOI July 22, 2026: ''The Times of India'']\|frame\|500px]]
		+
		+	'''See graphic''':
		+
		+	'' Graduate men staying out of the workforce in India, reasons, age-wise / 2024 ''
		+
		+	==Graduates, by state==
		+	===2024===
		+	[[File: Graduates in the Indian workforce, by state, 2024.jpg\|Graduates in the Indian workforce, by state, 2024 <br/> From: [https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=21_07_2026_009_005_cap_TOI July 21, 2026: ''The Times of India'']\|frame\|500px]]
		+
		+	'''See graphic''':
		+
		+	'' Graduates in the Indian workforce, by state, 2024 ''

	[[Category:Bangladesh\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA		[[Category:Bangladesh\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:49, 18 April 2026
Line 2,100:		Line 2,100:

	'' The unemployment of Graduates’ in India vis-à-vis the world, presumably as in 2025 ''		'' The unemployment of Graduates’ in India vis-à-vis the world, presumably as in 2025 ''
		+
		+	=Labour origin mapping=
		+	==NHAI’s 2026 survey==
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=01_02_2026_001_009_cap_TOI Dipak Dash, February 1, 2026: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	[[File: Origin of construction workers in road projects, 2026.jpg\|Origin of construction workers in road projects, 2026 <br/> From: [https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=01_02_2026_001_009_cap_TOI Dipak Dash, February 1, 2026: ''The Times of India'']\|frame\|500px]]
		+
		+	Forty-nine districts across eight states — Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, UP and West Bengal — contribute a major share of construction workers engaged in highway projects across the country, according to a mapping of labour origins carried out by the National Highways Authority of India.
		+
		+	In a first-of-its-kind exercise, NHAI has collated details up to the village level from where workers travel to highway construction sites, in a move to provide targeted skill training to these labourers.

	[[Category:Bangladesh\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA		[[Category:Bangladesh\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:01, 18 April 2026
Line 1,503:		Line 1,503:

	In any case, for more than a decade now Indian experts have been puzzled by the trend in FLFPR that seemingly has not followed the secular increase pattern so rigorously estimated, and forecast, by Goldin.Using the usual status definition of labour force (employed for at least 30 days) for the age-group 15-64, the accompanying table shows that LFPR for women, at 39.2%, is now within 5 percentage points of the 44% level observed in 2004-05; and 6.3 percentage points higher than the 2011-12 level of 32.8 %. For the age-group 25-64, and one not contaminated by school and college enrolments, FLFPR in 2022-23 is observed to be 45.6%.Regardless of the definition, FLFPR estimates for 2022-23 are very close to the 1993-94 estimates, thus confirming the Goldin ‘U’ shaped curve. The news on the wage gap is even more encouraging for the Indian economy. For ages 25-64, the gender wage gap is 30%. But this wage gap does not adjust for education, an important contributor to earnings. A strict control for education is available via looking at only college educated workers.For all unmarried college degree workers, the wage gap is almost non-existent – only 3% in 2022-23 (for the US, 6%). For all college educated workers (married or unmarried), the wage gap is just 16% (for the US, 20%). No matter how you slice the wage data, the Indian record is one of consistent improvement over the years, and of low wage gaps – for college-educated workers, the numbers are comparable, and likely better, than in several advanced countries. I was an executive director at IMF at the time it approved the gender macro-criticality framework for future IMF work. In the analysis, and the discussions, the Indian experience was highlighted for its shockingly “low” FLFPR, a conclusion largely based on the private CMIE-CPHS data.It was often mentioned how Indian FLFPR was lower than many Arab economies (whose rates are lower due to cultural reasons). What “excuse” did India have for a lower FLPR than even the Arab countries? This narrative is explicitly false and based on faulty data. In conclusion, there is a labour force participation gap in India, but its level has been declining and is today very close to the level observed during 1993-2004, when India had a more liberal definition of female work. The gender wage gap is low, and comparable to the best of the advanced countries, especially for college educated women. A record Indian society can be proud of, with room left for further progress.The writer is a former executive director, IMF. Views are personal.		In any case, for more than a decade now Indian experts have been puzzled by the trend in FLFPR that seemingly has not followed the secular increase pattern so rigorously estimated, and forecast, by Goldin.Using the usual status definition of labour force (employed for at least 30 days) for the age-group 15-64, the accompanying table shows that LFPR for women, at 39.2%, is now within 5 percentage points of the 44% level observed in 2004-05; and 6.3 percentage points higher than the 2011-12 level of 32.8 %. For the age-group 25-64, and one not contaminated by school and college enrolments, FLFPR in 2022-23 is observed to be 45.6%.Regardless of the definition, FLFPR estimates for 2022-23 are very close to the 1993-94 estimates, thus confirming the Goldin ‘U’ shaped curve. The news on the wage gap is even more encouraging for the Indian economy. For ages 25-64, the gender wage gap is 30%. But this wage gap does not adjust for education, an important contributor to earnings. A strict control for education is available via looking at only college educated workers.For all unmarried college degree workers, the wage gap is almost non-existent – only 3% in 2022-23 (for the US, 6%). For all college educated workers (married or unmarried), the wage gap is just 16% (for the US, 20%). No matter how you slice the wage data, the Indian record is one of consistent improvement over the years, and of low wage gaps – for college-educated workers, the numbers are comparable, and likely better, than in several advanced countries. I was an executive director at IMF at the time it approved the gender macro-criticality framework for future IMF work. In the analysis, and the discussions, the Indian experience was highlighted for its shockingly “low” FLFPR, a conclusion largely based on the private CMIE-CPHS data.It was often mentioned how Indian FLFPR was lower than many Arab economies (whose rates are lower due to cultural reasons). What “excuse” did India have for a lower FLPR than even the Arab countries? This narrative is explicitly false and based on faulty data. In conclusion, there is a labour force participation gap in India, but its level has been declining and is today very close to the level observed during 1993-2004, when India had a more liberal definition of female work. The gender wage gap is low, and comparable to the best of the advanced countries, especially for college educated women. A record Indian society can be proud of, with room left for further progress.The writer is a former executive director, IMF. Views are personal.
		+
		+	=Unemployment and Educational Qualifications=
		+	==Graduates: 1983-2023 ==
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=18_03_2026_031_003_cap_TOI Shiva.Rajora, March 18, 2026: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	[[File: Unemployed graduates in India, 1983-2023.jpg\| Unemployed graduates in India, 1983-2023 <br/> From: [https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=18_03_2026_031_003_cap_TOI Shiva.Rajora, March 18, 2026: ''The Times of India'']\|frame\|500px]]
		+
		+	'''See graphic''':
		+
		+	'' Unemployed graduates in India, 1983-2023 ''
		+
		+
		+	New Delhi : The share of graduates among unemployed youth (20-29 years of age) has more than doubled over the past two decades, at a time when India has made substantial progress in expanding access to higher education for its youth, said a report released by the Azim Premji University.
		+
		+	Data showed that around 67% of unemployed youth in 2023 (around 1.1 crore) in the country were graduates, up from 32% in 2004 (30 lakh). At the same time, the share of graduates among youth has risen to 28% in 2023 (6.3 crore) from 10% in 2004 (1.9 crore). The report noted that between 2004 and 2023, approximately 50 lakh graduates were added every year, while the number of employed graduates rose by only around 28 lakh annually, out of which only 17 lakh were salaried. “Graduate employment, therefore, has not kept pace with graduate supply,” the report titled ‘State of Working India 2026’ noted.
		+
		+
		+	''' Report: Failure to create jobs has led to slowdown in graduate earnings '''
		+
		+	The failure to create adequate jobs for the burgeoning population of graduates has resulted in a situation of too many graduates and too few jobs. This has also contributed to the slowdown in graduate earnings,” the report noted.
		+	It argued that there are several reasons, including concerns around employability of young graduates, their lack of experience or mismatch in skill.
		+
		+	The report also said that there was a greater capacity among the youth to wait before finding a job, a phenomenon that included the poor er households as well, due to better income levels than earlier. Besides, the report noted that while young graduates continue to have more monthly earnings compared to the non-graduates in entry level jobs, this premium is narrowing over time.
		+
		+	The gap between graduate and non-graduate earnings for youth increased substantially, especially between 2004 and 2011. Since 2017, however, there has been a slowdown in earnings growth for young men.
		+
		+	The report also said that since 2017, the share of young men in education has fallen to 34% in 2024 from 38% in 2017, citing the need to support household incomes.
		+
		+	In terms of access to higher education, the report added that financial barriers continue to restrict access, particularly in professional fields such as engineering and medicine, as the cost of pursuing these degrees often exceeds the annual per capita expenditure for poorer households. “This gap has narrowed somewhat between 2007 and 2017,” it said. The report drew on official databases going back four decades to see how youth's participation in education and employment has changed, and the challenges and opportunities that arise in integrating them into the workforce.
		+
		+	[[Category:Bangladesh\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
		+	EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:China\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
		+	EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Development\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
		+	EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
		+	EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
		+	EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
		+	EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Pakistan\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
		+	EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]

	=Unemployment, duration of=		=Unemployment, duration of=

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:40, 18 April 2026
Line 2,077:		Line 2,077:

	See graphic, 'The quality of work/ employment in India and the states of India, according to The Just Jobs Index, 2019'		See graphic, 'The quality of work/ employment in India and the states of India, according to The Just Jobs Index, 2019'
		+
		+	=Working age population to dependent ratio=
		+	==1950- 2020==
		+	[[File: The Working age population to dependent ratio in India, 1950- 2020.jpg\| The Working age population to dependent ratio in India, 1950- 2020 <br/> From: [https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=19_03_2026_008_015_cap_TOI March 19, 2026: ''The Times of India'']\|frame\|500px]]
		+
		+	'''See graphic''':
		+
		+	'' The Working age population to dependent ratio in India, 1950- 2020 ''
		+
		+	[[Category:Bangladesh\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
		+	EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:China\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
		+	EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Development\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
		+	EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
		+	EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
		+	EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
		+	EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Pakistan\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
		+	EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]

	=Region-wise=		=Region-wise=

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:33, 16 April 2026
Line 1,503:		Line 1,503:

	In any case, for more than a decade now Indian experts have been puzzled by the trend in FLFPR that seemingly has not followed the secular increase pattern so rigorously estimated, and forecast, by Goldin.Using the usual status definition of labour force (employed for at least 30 days) for the age-group 15-64, the accompanying table shows that LFPR for women, at 39.2%, is now within 5 percentage points of the 44% level observed in 2004-05; and 6.3 percentage points higher than the 2011-12 level of 32.8 %. For the age-group 25-64, and one not contaminated by school and college enrolments, FLFPR in 2022-23 is observed to be 45.6%.Regardless of the definition, FLFPR estimates for 2022-23 are very close to the 1993-94 estimates, thus confirming the Goldin ‘U’ shaped curve. The news on the wage gap is even more encouraging for the Indian economy. For ages 25-64, the gender wage gap is 30%. But this wage gap does not adjust for education, an important contributor to earnings. A strict control for education is available via looking at only college educated workers.For all unmarried college degree workers, the wage gap is almost non-existent – only 3% in 2022-23 (for the US, 6%). For all college educated workers (married or unmarried), the wage gap is just 16% (for the US, 20%). No matter how you slice the wage data, the Indian record is one of consistent improvement over the years, and of low wage gaps – for college-educated workers, the numbers are comparable, and likely better, than in several advanced countries. I was an executive director at IMF at the time it approved the gender macro-criticality framework for future IMF work. In the analysis, and the discussions, the Indian experience was highlighted for its shockingly “low” FLFPR, a conclusion largely based on the private CMIE-CPHS data.It was often mentioned how Indian FLFPR was lower than many Arab economies (whose rates are lower due to cultural reasons). What “excuse” did India have for a lower FLPR than even the Arab countries? This narrative is explicitly false and based on faulty data. In conclusion, there is a labour force participation gap in India, but its level has been declining and is today very close to the level observed during 1993-2004, when India had a more liberal definition of female work. The gender wage gap is low, and comparable to the best of the advanced countries, especially for college educated women. A record Indian society can be proud of, with room left for further progress.The writer is a former executive director, IMF. Views are personal.		In any case, for more than a decade now Indian experts have been puzzled by the trend in FLFPR that seemingly has not followed the secular increase pattern so rigorously estimated, and forecast, by Goldin.Using the usual status definition of labour force (employed for at least 30 days) for the age-group 15-64, the accompanying table shows that LFPR for women, at 39.2%, is now within 5 percentage points of the 44% level observed in 2004-05; and 6.3 percentage points higher than the 2011-12 level of 32.8 %. For the age-group 25-64, and one not contaminated by school and college enrolments, FLFPR in 2022-23 is observed to be 45.6%.Regardless of the definition, FLFPR estimates for 2022-23 are very close to the 1993-94 estimates, thus confirming the Goldin ‘U’ shaped curve. The news on the wage gap is even more encouraging for the Indian economy. For ages 25-64, the gender wage gap is 30%. But this wage gap does not adjust for education, an important contributor to earnings. A strict control for education is available via looking at only college educated workers.For all unmarried college degree workers, the wage gap is almost non-existent – only 3% in 2022-23 (for the US, 6%). For all college educated workers (married or unmarried), the wage gap is just 16% (for the US, 20%). No matter how you slice the wage data, the Indian record is one of consistent improvement over the years, and of low wage gaps – for college-educated workers, the numbers are comparable, and likely better, than in several advanced countries. I was an executive director at IMF at the time it approved the gender macro-criticality framework for future IMF work. In the analysis, and the discussions, the Indian experience was highlighted for its shockingly “low” FLFPR, a conclusion largely based on the private CMIE-CPHS data.It was often mentioned how Indian FLFPR was lower than many Arab economies (whose rates are lower due to cultural reasons). What “excuse” did India have for a lower FLPR than even the Arab countries? This narrative is explicitly false and based on faulty data. In conclusion, there is a labour force participation gap in India, but its level has been declining and is today very close to the level observed during 1993-2004, when India had a more liberal definition of female work. The gender wage gap is low, and comparable to the best of the advanced countries, especially for college educated women. A record Indian society can be proud of, with room left for further progress.The writer is a former executive director, IMF. Views are personal.
		+
		+	=Unemployment, duration of=
		+	==As of 2025==
		+	[[File: Duration of Unemployment in India, presumably as in 2025.jpg\| Duration of Unemployment in India, presumably as in 2025 <br/> From: [https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=24_03_2026_009_004_cap_TOI March 24, 2026: ''The Times of India'']\|frame\|500px]]
		+
		+	'''See graphic''':
		+
		+	'' Duration of Unemployment in India, presumably as in 2025 ''
		+
		+	[[Category:Bangladesh\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
		+	EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:China\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
		+	EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Development\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
		+	EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
		+	EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
		+	EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
		+	EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Pakistan\|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
		+	EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]

	= Unemployment and Educational Qualifications=		= Unemployment and Educational Qualifications=

@@ Line 2,025: / Line 2,025: @@
 The 2001 decision of the apex court did not reflect the reason for which the two subjects were not treated to be interlinked, he said and agreed with Justice Katju that expert opinion on such issues should get primacy from the courts.
-[[Category:Bangladesh|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
+=Graduates’ unemployment=
-EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
+==India vis-à-vis the world==
-[[Category:China|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
+===2025===
-EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
+[[File: The unemployment of Graduates’ in India vis-à-vis the world, presumably as in 2025.jpg|The unemployment of Graduates’ in India vis-à-vis the world, presumably as in 2025 <br/> From: [https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=25_03_2026_028_002_cap_TOI  March 25, 2026: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]
-[[Category:Development|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
-EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
-EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:India|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
-EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Pakistan|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
-EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Bangladesh|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
+'''See graphic''':
 EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:China|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
+[[Category:China|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
-EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Development|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
-EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
-EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:India|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
-EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Pakistan|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
-EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
-−
-[[Category:Bangladesh|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
 EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:China|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
+[[Category:Development|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
 EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Development|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
+[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
 EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
+[[Category:India|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
 EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:India|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
+[[Category:Pages with broken file links|EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
 EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Pakistan|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
+[[Category:Pakistan|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
 EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]

@@ Line 1,502: / Line 1,502: @@
 There are two stylised Goldin gender gaps. First, that women participate less in market work than men. Second, when they do, they earn less than men. “Not equal pay for equal work.” In recognition for her work on gender performance, Claudia Goldin won the Nobel Prize for Economics on October 9. The prize was long overdue. I cannot think of a single male-female “question” which does not involve the pioneering contributions of Goldin.Goldin gender gaps have been a subject of inquiry for decades. Their importance has only increased. For example, just last year, IMF, known for its concern for matters like growth, inflation and debt decided to add a “new” subject to its armoury: gender disparities.Narrowing of gender gaps was considered macro-critical because of the contribution of a decline in these gaps to “growth, resilience, financial stability and income equality”. Out of the two gaps, the lower labour force participation rate (LFPR) for women has received the most attention in India. Indeed, its study has become somewhat of an industry after the NSS employment survey for 2011-12 showed a steep decline in female LFPR. Regardless of the work definition used, the decline in FLFPR compared to 2004-05 was more than 10 percentage points.With development, and education, the trend in LFPR has been upwards in most economies. Both economic growth and female educational attainment had increased rapidly in India between 2004-05 and 2011-12. So, what happened in the Indian labour market for females? Why did their FLFPR decline?Explanations abound. My favourite is that there was likely a definition change. Rural women who worked at home (collecting firewood, water etc) were counted as unpaid workers in 2004-05 (and hence in the labour force) and not counted as unpaid workers in 2011-12.
-In any case, for more than a decade now Indian experts have been puzzled by the trend in FLFPR that seemingly has not followed the secular increase pattern so rigorously estimated, and forecast, by Goldin.Using the usual status definition of labour force (employed for at least 30 days) for the age-group 15-64, the accompanying table shows that LFPR for women, at 39.2%, is now within 5 percentage points of the 44% level observed in 2004-05; and 6.3 percentage points higher than the 2011-12 level of 32.8 %. For the age-group 25-64, and one not contaminated by school and college enrolments, FLFPR in 2022-23 is observed to be 45.6%.Regardless of the definition, FLFPR estimates for 2022-23 are very close to the 1993-94 estimates, thus confirming the Goldin ‘U’ shaped curve. The news on the wage gap is even more encouraging for the Indian economy. For ages 25-64, the gender wage gap is 30%. But this wage gap does not adjust for education, an important contributor to earnings. A strict control for education is available via looking at only college educated workers.For all unmarried college degree workers, the wage gap is almost non-existent – only 3% in 2022-23 (for the US, 6%). For all college educated workers (married or unmarried), the wage gap is just 16% (for the US, 20%). No matter how you slice the wage data, the Indian record is one of consistent improvement over the years, and of low wage gaps – for college-educated workers, the numbers are comparable, and likely better, than in several advanced countries. I was an executive director at IMF at the time it approved the gender macro-criticality framework for future IMF work. In the analysis, and the discussions, the Indian experience was highlighted for its shockingly “low” FLFPR, a conclusion largely based on the private CMIE-CPHS data.It was often mentioned how Indian FLFPR was lower than many Arab economies (whose rates are lower due to cultural reasons). What “excuse” did India have for a lower FLPR than even the Arab countries? This narrative is explicitly false and based on faulty data. In conclusion, there is a labour force participation gap in India, but its level has been declining and is today very close to the level observed during 1993-2004, when India had a more liberal definition of female work. The gender wage gap is low, and comparable to the best of the advanced countries, especially for college educated women. A record Indian society can be proud of, with room left for further progress.The writer is a former executive director, IMF. Views are personal
+In any case, for more than a decade now Indian experts have been puzzled by the trend in FLFPR that seemingly has not followed the secular increase pattern so rigorously estimated, and forecast, by Goldin.Using the usual status definition of labour force (employed for at least 30 days) for the age-group 15-64, the accompanying table shows that LFPR for women, at 39.2%, is now within 5 percentage points of the 44% level observed in 2004-05; and 6.3 percentage points higher than the 2011-12 level of 32.8 %. For the age-group 25-64, and one not contaminated by school and college enrolments, FLFPR in 2022-23 is observed to be 45.6%.Regardless of the definition, FLFPR estimates for 2022-23 are very close to the 1993-94 estimates, thus confirming the Goldin ‘U’ shaped curve. The news on the wage gap is even more encouraging for the Indian economy. For ages 25-64, the gender wage gap is 30%. But this wage gap does not adjust for education, an important contributor to earnings. A strict control for education is available via looking at only college educated workers.For all unmarried college degree workers, the wage gap is almost non-existent – only 3% in 2022-23 (for the US, 6%). For all college educated workers (married or unmarried), the wage gap is just 16% (for the US, 20%). No matter how you slice the wage data, the Indian record is one of consistent improvement over the years, and of low wage gaps – for college-educated workers, the numbers are comparable, and likely better, than in several advanced countries. I was an executive director at IMF at the time it approved the gender macro-criticality framework for future IMF work. In the analysis, and the discussions, the Indian experience was highlighted for its shockingly “low” FLFPR, a conclusion largely based on the private CMIE-CPHS data.It was often mentioned how Indian FLFPR was lower than many Arab economies (whose rates are lower due to cultural reasons). What “excuse” did India have for a lower FLPR than even the Arab countries? This narrative is explicitly false and based on faulty data. In conclusion, there is a labour force participation gap in India, but its level has been declining and is today very close to the level observed during 1993-2004, when India had a more liberal definition of female work. The gender wage gap is low, and comparable to the best of the advanced countries, especially for college educated women. A record Indian society can be proud of, with room left for further progress.The writer is a former executive director, IMF. Views are personal.
 [[Category:Bangladesh|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA

@@ Line 315: / Line 315: @@
 ===Factory Sector: 2011, 2019-2025===
-[[File: Trends in factory employment in India: 2011, 2019-2025.jpg|Trends in factory employment in India: 2011, 2019-2025 <br/> From: [https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=30_01_2026_020_002_cap_TOI  January 30, 2026: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]
+[[File: Trends in factory employment in India- 2011, 2019-2025.jpg|Trends in factory employment in India: 2011, 2019-2025 <br/> From: [https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=30_01_2026_020_002_cap_TOI  January 30, 2026: ''The Times of India'']|frame|500px]]
 '''See graphic''':

@@ Line 303: / Line 303: @@
 Pankaj Patel, chairman Zydus Group, said there will be tremendous opportunities for growth in the healthcare and life sciences sector in the decade that has just begun. Healthcare and life sciences has been a top contributor to the economy as well, and is expected to see breakthroughs in therapeutics, biologicals, vaccines and diagnostics. Patel said India will be at the forefront driving these possibilities globally, both in terms of research and innovation as well as manufacturing.
 “This is a sector which has always been driven by knowledge, technology and skills and there will be a greater demand in the coming decade for young talent. Opportunities will open up for researchers, scientists, technologists and skilled professionals as the Indian healthcare industry continues to innovate, digitalize operations and explore newer technologies and tools like AI,” said Patel.
@@ Line 312: / Line 313: @@
 From a talent perspective, more than a quarter of the respondents still place job security at the forefront even as the economy slowly bounces back. However, some of the respondents are seizing the opportunity to look at new roles that would provide growth (19%), flexibility of remote working (18%) and job satisfaction (17%). Salary and compensation (money) now appears to have taken a backseat.
 [[Category:Bangladesh|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
@@ Line 322: / Line 330: @@
 EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
 [[Category:India|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA
 EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA]]
 [[Category:Pakistan|EEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIAEMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT: INDIA