« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

How Good are the New Unemployment Numbers?

The much anticipated November jobs number have been posted.  Here is a rundown of some of the highlights:

  • Jobs created in November:  The net increase in new jobs this month was 120,000.  There were 140,000 jobs added to the private sector, while the public sector shed 20,000.  The U3 unemployment number dropped from 9.0% to 8.6%.  In more good news, September’s numbers were revised up to 210,000 from 158,000, while October’s jobs numbers were boasted by 20,000 to a total of 100,000.  Also, the U6 number, which counts discouraged workers, dropped to 15.6 percent from 16.2 percent, its lowest level since March 2009.
  • Types of Jobs:  The largest share of new jobs came from the retail industry, which saw a 50,000 spike.  On the other hand, manufacturing only gained 2,000, while construction shed another 12,000 jobs.  This might be an indication that a lot of these jobs are temporary increases for the Christmas shopping season.  Another related point is that the sharpest drop in unemployment was amongst those with little or no college education.
  • Size of civilian labor force:  So why is this, at best, a mediocre jobs report?  Well, if you shrink the size of the pool, the unemployment rate will actually go down.  While a net-120,000 jobs were added in November, the civilian labor force shrunk by 315,000.  In October, the civilian labor force stood at 154.198 million.  Now, there are only 153.883 in the labor force.  Moreover, the Civilian noninstitutional population grew by 172,000, yet there are now 487,000 more people not in the labor force than there were in October.  Consequently, the labor participation number dropped from 64.2% to 64.0%.  This, along with the upward revisions from the past two months, has caused the U3 rate to drop by .4%.
  • Duration of unemployment: The average (mean) duration of unemployment is 40.9 weeks, a record high. By comparison, the average duration was 19.9 weeks in January 2009.
  • Comparison to January 2009-Obama’s inauguration date:  In January 2009, the labor force stood at 154.185.  This means that a net 302,000 people have left the labor force since Obama was inaugurated.  Concurrently, the size of the working age population grew over 5.7 million from 234.739 million at the time Obama was sworn in.  Also, in January 2009, 142.201 million were employed, over 1.62 million more than today.   So we have a larger population, a smaller workforce (resulting from discouraged workers), and more unemployed.  As AEI’s James Pethokoukis points out, if the labor force was the same size as when Obama took office, the U3 rate would be 11%.

  • Bonus points:

-          Hours and Earnings: Wages slipped slightly with the average hourly wage dropping 2 cents an hour to  $23.18.  Average weekly earnings dropped $1.28 to  $656.54.  Aggregate hours worked also fell.

-          Black unemployment actually rose .4% to 15.5%.

-          A key point often overlooked is the difficultly for those entering the workforce to find a job.  The unemployment rate for those 20-24 actually rose .2% to 14.2%, even as older demographics saw their unemployment rate decline.  That increase was incurred entirely by young males, who suffered a 0.9% spike to 15.6% (the rate for women actually declined .6%)

-          Now is not the time to extend more 99-week unemployment benefits.  They are clearly not stimulating jobs growth.  Worse, they are incentivizing more long-term unemployed to give up.

Overall, it is clear that the across-the-board contraction of jobs has stopped.  But is that really something to celebrate this far into a recovery, which is usually a time of robust growth?  In terms of the job growth, it is still unprecedentedly mediocre, and would only account for .1% of the U3 drop if not for the labor force shrinkage.  And therein lies the problem.  Worse than a high unemployment rate, we have an unprecedented number of people permanently giving up on the job market, a record high duration of unemployment, and, despite the drop, a terrible U6 rate.  At some point, the U3 rate has to climb back to 9% if and when those people return to the labor force.  It’s also worth noting that the more people sit out the labor force, the quicker Social Security and Medicare will become insolvent.

No – there probably won’t be a double-dip recession; there is not much more left to shed.  However, this is the type of report you want to see in 2009, not late 2011.  We will continue flat lining at (or near) the bottom of the employment trough indefinitely, especially if Obama and the Democrats get their way with extension of unemployment (stimulating) benefits.  This is exactly what a Keynesian recovery looks like.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • APA Guy

    These numbers reflect temp hiring and little more. If there is any good news, it is that the public sector continues to cut dead weight. But the job creators in this country aren’t prepared to wager their businesses on new hiring only to have to cut them back after 2012.

    Let’s face it: The private sector has given up on this president – and the senate. Why hire more employees when your taxes are going to jump? The cost of business with this reg-happy president (and his senate) is already high enough. Though I feel for those looking for jobs, I don’t blame the private sector for tempering hiring until someone with some brains for economics is making the policy decisions on the national level.

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      Yes- forgot to spotlight that point, If anything, the shedding of gov. jobs is the best news.

      • donald_24

        I actually know some people who have gotten newe jobs over the past year or so, and ALL of them got jobs in the public sector. One used to own a contracting business, but it went under due to the housing bust. An unintended consequence of laying off public workers is that there simpy are no private sector jobs to absorb those workers. So they are going to sit at home and collect UI for the next 99 weeks.

        Would you rather have more public employees or more welfare recipients?

    • donald_24

      What people don’t realize is that there has been ZERO private sector job growth over the last 10 years. Today there are 109 million workers in the private sector. In November 2001, there were 109 million workers in the private sector. ZERO growth.

      http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/USPRIV.txt

      • JSobieski

        but what if it is the new normal?

  • snowshooze

    Would that be someone who is no longer eligible for unemployment?
    Or when someone goes off the unemployment, are they off the books?
    And the new entrys to the market, how are they incorporated into the statistics?
    They are making such a game of shoving the employment rate around, running it through the wringer, dissecting and crunching the numbers that I have not assigned any credibility to them.
    I would think tracking payroll contributions would be far more accurate.
    Plus, there is more and more underground economics, those who have turned to whatever thay are able to keep body and soul together, such as cutting and selling firewood, Handyman services, and manufacturing and selling home made products anywhere from cabinetry, art, jams and jellies…
    Are they accounted for?
    Anyway, I see and read the Unemployment numbers..and dismiss them. Really, do you think we can believe this stuff?
    My guts tell me actual unemployment levels are nearer 20% than 8%

    • gekster

      (paraphrasing here) there are two unemplyment catagories,
      the first is recently unemployed, new filings,
      and the second catagory is those unemployed but not getting benifits.
      They only count catagory 1

      as close as I can recall,

    • Death_of_the_Donkey

      this information comes from a survey and a discouraged worker is one who says they would like a job, but haven’t been actively looking for one in the last 4 weeks.

      • Scope

        They go by the census and call households in random areas and randomly and inquire if there are any eligible workers in the household who are looking for jobs but have not been able to find one. The results of that survey are highly unreliable, and not credible.

        • Death_of_the_Donkey

          they call 60,000 households every month, weighted by state population. They publish ALL of the methodology behind the survey and the survey is not only highly accurate, but extremely credible as well (unless you are a zero hedge follower, then the only credible data is the stuff that agrees with your world view).

    • bonnman

      Is the poster’s position that unemployment is down not really because of the number of jobs created but more because the labor force shrunk? Do we know why people dropped out of the work force? It could be they lost hope or it could be they went back to school to try and improve their credentials or just tightened their belts and learned to get by on their spouse’s single salary. Without knowing these details its hard to factor a reduced work force size as a positive or negative indicator in unemployment.

      • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

        which would make it 15.6%, which is also a drop from October’s 16.2%

        But THESE are the numbers that really mean anything. “Marginally attached” basically means these are the people who are ABLE to work, but have stopped looking.

        • bonnman

          would we? As an extreme what if the 315,000 who dropped out all inherited millions of dollars from a Nigerian Prince and then just decided not to work anymore, why should they be included? Or have these people expressed a desire to find a job but gave up?(which is still different than ‘able’ to work. This is what I’m not clear about.

          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            right below the “not in the labor force” category on the report is a category for “not in the labor force but would like a job”. That number went up by about 200k this month, so we can (not with certainty) theorize that about 115,000 people left the workforce, but don’ really want a job now (retirees, going back to school, staying home with kids, etc).

          • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

            retirees have their own subset.

            http://www.davemanuel.com/investor-dictionary/marginally-attached-worker/

          • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

            How many people out there do you know personally who CAN work, but choose not to?

            Now, how many do you know who won the lottery or fell into a sudden inheritance?

            Not enough to make a difference to the big picture.

  • snowshooze

    And therefore, I assume it would be safe to consider the current report so much more hogwash?
    I believe that to be generous.

    • Scope

      the number of unemployeds will drop no matter what. We often hear that if unemployment is still high that Obama will not be re-elected. That will make sure that is not the case. That plus I’m sure many hired just for the holiday season.

      • snowshooze

        But the buck will stop at the ballot box.. those guys will count themselves. Obama can say anything he wants… but they won’t be buying.
        .

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    There are two reports that comprise the employment situation summary each month, the Establishment Survey and the Household Survey. The household survey is the one where we get the unemployment rate from and it also has a job creation component, so you cannot say “while a net-120,000 jobs were added in November, the civilian labor force shrunk by 315,000″ because in November, the household survey (the one from which you got the labor force shrinking number) also showed a net gain of 278,000 jobs.

    Also, the numbers are seasonally adjusted already, so it is not accurate to say that the retail numbers are because it is Christmas, they adjust for that every year, for instance, the unadjusted retail numbers showed a 424,000 employee gain for November.

    Overall, I would say this is actually a decent report and should we end up with a strong Christmas this year, it could lead to more strong reports in the next few months (provided the EU doesn’t collapse).

    • snowshooze

      That sounds ok, but the mechanics I do not know.
      My suspicions can be summarized:
      1. They skew the numbers by selective sampling
      2. thay heavily launder and spin their base numbers.

      So I am very cynical of these reports.

      • Death_of_the_Donkey

        http://www.bls.gov/cps/documentation.htm#concepts

        They will also respond directly to your email questions promptly as well. These are professional economists and statisticians, not political hacks.

      • streiff

        is done by Census Bureau staff under contract to BLS.

        The sampling is very rigorous. I dealt with them extensively in the past and they worship the accuracy of their numbers. They don’t care who is in office.

        If they are wrong they are consistently wrong in the same direction.

        • snowshooze

          It is then more difficult to discredit them, given the quality of the source.

          • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

            The numbers are definitely good, and as Streiff noted, they provide consistency. My article, as well as others, who are pointing out that the 8.6% number is not all good news are not trying to criticize BLS. We’re just drilling through the other factors to show how part of the drop comes from stinky news.

          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            That would be the not in the labor force increased by 315,000 half. The other +278,000 jobs created half isn’t so stinky.

  • johnt

    If Obama can part the Red Sea he can certainly cure unemployment, with a little help from the media.
    Slow growth, possible higher taxes, questionable data, sinking Europe,[ while we rush to follow their example] and a segment of our population that makes one dream of involuntary lobotomies, necessitates strong cocktails in the evening followed by a troubled sleep.

  • BufordB

    one assumed that

    1. Obama’s policies were implemented on inauguration day, and had an immediate effect on the economy.

    2. Obama’s had complete control of US economic and fiscal policy, and the factors were the only determinants of job creation.

    Narratives associated with numbers are a best a waste of time, and at worst a deliberate attempt to skew the perspective. The numbers are available to all, look at them and draw your own conclusions. What I see is a dramatic downturn from January 2008 to February 2010, followed by a relatively steady but tepid recovery. What do you see?

    http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=CE_cesbref1

  • donald_24

    The real unemployment rate, the U6 rate, is 15%. On top of that, a large chunk of the new jobs were just temporary retail jobs for the holidays. In addition, most of the job growth is going to people with little to no colelge education, which means that we are essentially creating nothing but low paying/ low-skilled jobs. Hey kids, go to college, and you too can become an overqualified hamburger flipper with massive student loan debt!

    • BufordB

      The numbers are seasonally adjusted. That means that temporary holiday hiring is factored out.

      U6 was 16.2% last month. 15(.6)% is less than 16.2%. Historically, 15.6 is a horrible number, but it’s also the lowest number since March, 2009, at least according to this data.

      http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

      I agree with you that the quality and compensation of the jobs created not just now, but for many years, is poor.

      You’re 1 for 3.

      • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

        seasonably adjusted labor force numbers have rarely
        dropped this steeply from October to November since 1982. http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

        The few times it took place was during the height of a recession.

        • BufordB

          Daniel – I that URL is incomplete. I want to be sure I’m looking at the same numbers as you.

          btw, if I don’t reply right away, don’t think I’m rude. I have to head out for a while.

  • morristhewise

    Lower wages are forecast for less than smart workers. But higher wages are forecast for those with managerial skills. There will be a greater economic separation between the smart and stupid. But expect the stupid to complain that they are not stupid but only victims of job discrimination. Their complaints will be believed only by the stupid.

    • donald_24

      Even “smart” people will see lower wages. I was actually at a huge job fair last year in DC and there were unemployed college graduates everywhere, including some with JDs and PhDs.

      A recent study found that only those with advanced degrees saw income growth. Even those with masters degrees saw their wages decline:

      http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/09/19/only-advanced-degree-holders-see-wage-gains/

  • Common_Cents

    or is it food stamp fraud?

    “A Safeway spokesman told FOX 12 they recently added the ability to use foodstamps in the Starbucks kiosk as a “convenience to customers.”

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/foodstamps-can-now-be-used-to-buy-starbucks-cfrappuccinos-and-muffins-2011-12#ixzz1fPTZi9z7

  • Scope

    on the 5 at 5. He showed the total labor force, and also the 120,000 jobs created. He said that in order for the unemployment number to drop by .4%, the number of jobs created would have to have been 612,000. He asked what happened to those jobs that seem to have disappeared? I’m sure that is the number reflected above in the number posted of those no longer in the labor force. They are most likely those that are now food stamp and Section 8 housing voucher recipients, as well as those that must use the emergency room as their physician. Ain’t socialism great?

  • californiagold

    During the last year, the civilian population rose by 1,726,000, while the labor force fell by 67,000. Those not in the labor force rose by 1,793,000. If you are not in the labor force, you are not counted as unemployed. In November those not in the labor force rose by 487,000. Were it not for people dropping out of the labor force, the unemployment rate would be around 11%.

    Having said that, the trend shows improvement from previous months where the “actual” umemployment rate that factored in those who dropped out of the labor force was around 15%.

    If the trend continues during 2012, republicans will have a hard time defeating Obama on the economic issue. The fallback issue of Obamacare will be front and center – all the more reason why Mitt Romney would be a disaster as the nominee.

    • donald_24

      The real unemployment rate, the U6 rate, is 15.6%.

      • californiagold

        U-6 = total unemployed PLUS all person marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time as a percent of the civilian labor force.

        The point is, U6 isn’t the most accurate method of determining the actual unemployment number.

    • Scope

      why are those 400 and some thousand not in the labor force? Is it because at least some of them can’t find a job, and are no longer qualified for unemployment benefits? As I said above, some of those people at least are now relying totally on government benefits such as food stamps and housing vouchers. Aren’t we now at the highest we have ever been with food stamps? Who’s paying for that?

      • californiagold

        Those not counted who’ve dropped out of the work force have multiple reasons for not finding a job – one of which is the bad economy.