HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Payroll employment increa...

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 08:37 AM

Payroll employment increases by 287,000 in June; unemployment rate rises to 4.9%

Last edited Tue Aug 2, 2016, 10:05 AM - Edit history (8)

Source: U.S. Bureau of labor Statistics

Economic News Release USDL-16-1409

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until
8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, July 8, 2016

Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov


THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- JUNE 2016


Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 287,000 in June, and the unemployment rate rose to 4.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job growth occurred in leisure and hospitality, health care and social assistance, and financial activities. Employment also increased in information, mostly reflecting the return of workers from a strike.

Household Survey Data

The unemployment rate increased by 0.2 percentage point to 4.9 percent in June, and the number of unemployed persons increased by 347,000 to 7.8 million. These increases largely offset declines in May and brought both measures back in line with levels that had prevailed from August 2015 to April. (See table A-1.)
....

The number of persons unemployed less than 5 weeks increased by 211,000 in June, following a decrease in the prior month. At 2.0 million, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) changed little in June and accounted for 25.8 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)
....

Both the labor force participation rate, at 62.7 percent, and the employment-population ratio, at 59.6 percent, changed little in June. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) decreased by 587,000 to 5.8 million in June, offsetting an increase in May. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)

In June, 1.8 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, about unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 502,000 discouraged workers in June, down by 151,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.3 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in June had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 287,000 in June, after changing little in May (+11,000). In June, job growth occurred in leisure and hospitality, health care and social assistance, and financial activities. Employment also rose in information, largely reflecting the return of workers from a strike. (See table B-1.)
....

In June, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up (+2 cents) to $25.61, following a 6-cent increase in May. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.6 percent. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 4 cents to $21.51 in June. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for April was revised from +123,000 to +144,000, and the change for May was revised from +38,000 to +11,000. With these revisions, employment gains in April and May combined were 6,000 less, on net, than previously reported. Over the past 3 months, job gains have averaged 147,000 per month.

____________
The Employment Situation for July is scheduled to be released on Friday, August 5, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).

Read more: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm



[font color="red"]These will be (or should be) the talking points:

1) A gain of 287,000 is far above Wednesday's estimate by ADP[sup]®[/sup] of a gain of 172,000 jobs and the estimate yesterday in TWSJ. of a gain of 165,000.[sup]1[/sup] As of yesterday, MarketWatch was reporting a forecast of a gain of 173,000 jobs and an unemployment rate of 4.8% from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).[sup]2[/sup] ;
2) "In June, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up (+2 cents) to $25.61, following a 6-cent increase in May. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.6 percent." ;
3) "The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for April was revised from +123,000 to +144,000, and the change for May was revised from +38,000 to +11,000. With these revisions, employment gains in April and May combined were 6,000 less, on net, than previously reported. Over the past 3 months, job gains have averaged 147,000 per month." ;
4) "Both the labor force participation rate, at 62.7 percent, and the employment-population ratio, at 59.6 percent, changed little in June. (See table A-1.)"[sup]3[/sup] ;
5) The civilian noninstitutional population not in the labor force went from 94,708,000 in May to 94,517,000 in June, a decrease of 191,000.[sup]4[/sup] ; and
6) The number of "{persons not in the labor force} who currently want a job" is 5,692,000. Therefore, the percentage of those not in the labor force who want a job now is (5,692,000/94,517,000) times 100%, or 6.0%.[sup]5[/sup][/font]

[sup]1[/sup] 5 Things to Watch in the June Jobs Report: "Does the U.S. face a troubling slowdown in job creation, or is the economy poised to move past a temporary stretch of weak hiring? The answer may come into focus Friday when the Labor Department releases its June jobs report. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal estimate nonfarm employers added a seasonally adjusted 165,000 jobs last month, and that the unemployment rate edged up to 4.8% from 4.7% in May. Here are five things to watch in the report, due out at 8:30 a.m. ET. 7 Jul 2016 8:39am By Ben Leubsdorf"

[sup]2[/sup] MarketWatch Economic Calendar

[sup]3[/sup] I've added mention of the employment-population ratio, aka the employment to population ratio, as progree argues that it is more worthy of attention than the labor force participation rate (LFPR). See: Over the past month, over the past year, and since February 2010

[sup]4[/sup] The datum "civilian noninstitutional population not in the labor force" is in Table A-1. It's also at Not in Labor Force. (Hat tip, progree: Only 6.3% of those 94 million "unemployed" people want a job now.) Some people make a big deal out of this number, so to keep them happy, here it is.

[sup]5[/sup] The figure is also found in or derived from Table A-1. Once again, I'm indebted to progree for pointing out the significance of these data: Only 6.3% of those 94 million "unemployed" people want a job now).


[center]Facilities for Sensory Impaired[/center]

Information from this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: 202-691-5200, Federal Relay Services: 1-800-877-8339.


[center]Introduction[/center]

Good morning, Freepers and DUers alike. I especially welcome our good friends from across the aisle. You're paying for this information too, so I am absolutely delighted to have you participate in this thread. Please, everyone, put aside your differences long enough to digest the information. After that, you can engage in your usual donnybrook.

Full disclosure: I do not work for BLS, nor am I friends with anyone over there. I'm just someone who appreciates the work they do. My sole connection with the agency is that I've been in the building to pick up some publications.

Thank you for being a part of this thread.

If you don't have the time to study the report thoroughly, here is the news in a nutshell:

Commissioner's Statement on The Employment Situation

It is easy to find one paragraph, or one sentence, or one datum in this report that will support the most outlandish of conclusions, from "the sky is falling" to "we'll have blue skies, nothing but blue skies, from now on." Easy, but disingenuous.

Every month, you can find something in the report that will cause you concern. Take the information in context. Consider not just this month’s data, but the trend.

Please take the time to look at progree's not-to-be-missed thread containing his thoughtful analysis, updated monthly. Here is the latest version:

Economy facts with links to official sources, rev 7/8/16.

This month, he also presented his analysis in the nineteenth reply in this thread:

Over the past month, over the past year, and since February 2010

Thank you so much for that, progree.

Let's begin with a couple of questions:


[center]What Is the Bureau of Labor Statistics?
Why Does It Release All These Numbers Every Month?
[/center]

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is a unit of the United States Department of Labor. It is the principal fact-finding agency for the U.S. government in the broad field of labor economics and statistics and serves as a principal agency of the U.S. Federal Statistical System. The BLS is a governmental statistical agency that collects, processes, analyzes, and disseminates essential statistical data to the American public, the U.S. Congress, other Federal agencies, State and local governments, business, and labor representatives. The BLS also serves as a statistical resource to the Department of Labor, and conducts research into how much families need to earn to be able to enjoy a decent standard of living.

The BLS data must satisfy a number of criteria, including relevance to current social and economic issues, timeliness in reflecting today’s rapidly changing economic conditions, accuracy and consistently high statistical quality, and impartiality in both subject matter and presentation. To avoid the appearance of partiality, the dates of major data releases are scheduled more than a year in advance, in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget.


[center]Household Survey vs. Establishment Survey[/center]

From the February 10, 2011, DOL Newsletter:

Take Three

Secretary Solis answers three questions about how the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates unemployment rates.

How does BLS determine the unemployment rate and the number of jobs that were added each month?

BLS uses two different surveys to get these numbers. The household survey, or Current Population Survey (CPS), involves asking people, from about 60,000 households, a series of questions to assess each person in the household's activities including work and searching for work. Their responses give us the unemployment rate. The establishment survey, or Current Employment Statistics (CES), surveys 140,000 employers about how many people they have on their payrolls. These results determine the number of jobs being added or lost.


[center]Complaint Department[/center]

I post this information on a nonpartisan basis. I am not here to make elected officials of any party or persuasion look good. I am certain that the people who compile these data are of the same outlook. They are civil servants. They do not work for a party; they work for you, the American people.

My only contribution is to cut and paste a few paragraphs from the BLS and then, in the commentary, link to some sources that I feel are trustworthy. I hope people come away with a better understanding of the data after reading this thread. Once again, I do not work for BLS, but I will nonetheless try to assist if I can.

If you feel the Bureau of Labor Statistics is handing out bunk, start here:

Point of Contact for Complaints Concerning Information Quality

Affected persons who believe that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has disseminated information that does not meet its guidelines or those of the Department of Labor or Office of Management and Budget, and who wish to file a formal complaint may send their complaint by mail, e-mail, or fax to:

Division of Management Systems
Bureau of Labor Statistics
U.S. Department of Labor
2 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Room 4080
Washington, D.C., 20212-0001
E-mail: dataqa@bls.gov
Fax: (202) 691-5111

Complainants should:

Identify themselves and indicate where and how they can be reached;
Identify, as specifically as possible, the information in question;
Indicate how they are affected by the information about which they are complaining;
Carefully describe the nature of the complaint, including an explanation of why they believe the information does not comply with OMB, Departmental, or agency-specific guidelines; and
Describe the change requested and the reason why the agency should make the change.

Failure to include this information may result in a complainant not receiving a response to the complaint or greatly reducing the usefulness or timeliness of any response. Complainants should be aware that they bear the burden of establishing that they are affected persons and showing the need and justification for the correction they are seeking, including why the information being complained about does not comply with applicable guidelines.


[center]We Got the Beat.[/center]

June Jobs Report: Everything You Need to Know

Was May's 38,000 klinker an outlier or harbinger?

By
WSJ Staff

Jul 8, 2016 8:08 am ET



ASSOCIATED PRESS

Yes, it’s that time again, folks. Jobs Friday, when for one ever-so-brief moment the interests of Wall Street, Washington and Main Street are all aligned on one thing: jobs.

Nonfarm payrolls increased by a seasonally adjusted 287,000 in June, the Labor Department said, the strongest month of hiring since last October. The unemployment rate rose to 4.9% in June from 4.7% in May

Here at MoneyBeat HQ, we will crunch the numbers, track the markets and compile the commentary before and after the data crosses the wires. Feel free to continue the conversation in the comments section. And while you’re here, why don’t you
sign up to follow us on Twitter.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

You forgot to say "Enjoy the show."

Before we do anything else, let's give credit to the workers behind the MoneyBeat blog:

The MoneyBeat Team:

Stephen Grocer
Editor

Phillipa Leighton-Jones
European Editor

Erik Holm
Deputy Editor

Maureen Farrell
Reporter, New York

Paul Vigna
Reporter, New York

David Cottle
Reporter, London

Kristen Scholer
Reporter, New York

Giles Turner
Reporter, London

MoneyBeat Columnists

Ronald Barusch
Dealpolitik

[font color="red"]off this assignment:
[strike]Francesco Guerrera
Current Account[/strike][/font]

[font color="red"]off this assignment:
[strike]Alen Mattich[/strike][/font]

Jason Zweig
The Intelligent Investor

[font color="red"]off this assignment:
[strike]Michael J. Casey
Horizons [/strike][/font]

E. S. Browning

Here's one comment:

8:50 am

Broad measure of underemployment falls

A broad measure of underemployment fell to 9.6%. This rate–known among economists as the U-6–takes into account jobless workers, those too discouraged to look for work, and part-timers who would prefer full-time jobs. The rate has fallen over the past year, from 10.5% in June 2015. But it’s still more than a percentage point above its pre-recession level.

by Joshua Mitchell

The Numbers: June Jobs Report


[center]How Do You Define Unemployment?
The Large Print Giveth, and the Fine Print Taketh Away.
[/center]

Long ago, a DUer pointed out that, if I'm going to post the link to the press release, I should include the link to all the tables that provide additional ways of examining the data. Specifically, I should post a link to Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization. Table A-15 includes those who are not considered unemployed, on the grounds that they have become discouraged about the prospects of finding a job and have given up looking. Here is that link:

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Also, hat tip, Recursion: How the Government Measures Unemployment

The following link to Barron's might not work for everyone. See progree's tips.[/font] From the July 20, 2015, issue of Barron's:

Refresher Course: Inside the Jobless Numbers

Are we undercounting the unemployment numbers—or overcounting? How the BLS gathers and calculates the numbers, and why it matters.

By Gene Epstein
July 18, 2015

The unemployment rate has never been the object of as much attention from the markets and the media as it is now, sparked by the keen interest taken in its monthly fluctuations by policy makers at the Federal Reserve.

Despite the heightened focus, there are a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions about how the rate is calculated. Some people assume the Bureau of Labor Statistics compiles the rate from the unemployment-insurance rolls. On that basis, they fault the BLS for undercounting the unemployed. But that’s just one myth among many about this cornerstone measure of economic pain and labor-market slack.

To estimate the unemployment rate, the BLS actually relies on the monthly Current Population Survey conducted for it by the Census Bureau. While the data are highly imperfect in their own way, we think the Federal Reserve is right to view the official unemployment rate as the best available information, while also keeping its eye on ancillary measures of “labor underutilization.”

In fact, a close look at BLS methods suggests that, if anything, the official unemployment rate may be overcounting rather than undercounting the unemployed.


[font color="red"]New material:[/font] In August 2015, DUers whatthehey and progree got into a 1995 report from economists John E. Bregger and Steven E. Haugen. The .pdf is unfortunately an image and thus challenging as a source of quotes. Trying to find it in a format that does make for easy copying, I was led to this:

Alternative Unemployment Rates: Their Meaning and Their Measure March 12, 2014


[center]Past Performance is Not a Guarantee of Future Results.[/center]

Nonetheless, what is important is not this month's results, but the trend. Let’s look at some earlier numbers:

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in June 2016:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 172,000 Jobs in June

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in May 2016:

Unemployment rate declines to 4.7% in May; payroll employment changes little (+38,000)

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in May 2016:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 173,000 Jobs in May

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in April 2016:

Payroll employment increases by 160,000 in April; unemployment rate unchanged at 5.0%

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in April 2016:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 156,000 Jobs in April

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in March 2016:

Payroll employment rises by 215,000 in March; unemployment rate little changed at 5.0%

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in March 2016:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 156,000 Jobs in April

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in February 2016:

Payroll employment rises by 215,000 in March; unemployment rate little changed at 5.0%

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in March 2016:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 200,000 Jobs in March

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in February 2016:

Payroll employment rises by 242,000 in February; unemployment rate unchanged at 4.9%

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in February 2016:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 214,000 Jobs in February

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in January 2016:

Payroll employment rises by 151,000 in January; unemployment rate changes little (4.9%)

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in January 2016:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 205,000 Jobs in January

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in December 2015:

Payroll employment rises by 292,000 in December; unemployment rate unchanged at 5.0%

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in December 2015:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 257,000 Jobs in December


[center]Why Won't You Talk About the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR)?[/center]

Every month in certain circles, someone will cite the labor force participation rate as a cause for concern. Let's look at that right now.

[font color="red"]New material, added July 31, 2016:[/font]

Title in the print edition of the Washington Post, page A17, Wednesday, July 27, 2016: "The unemployment-rate 'conspiracy' that isn't"

A popular conspiracy theory is spreading in the Trump family. It’s totally false.

By Matt O'Brien July 26
matthew.obrien@washpost.com
@ObsoleteDogma

The unemployment rate is not a conspiracy. It is not manipulated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And anyone who suggests otherwise is either uninformed, or trying to misinform others.

Which is to say that you shouldn't listen to Donald Trump & Co. For a year now, the alleged billionaire has insisted that the "real" unemployment rate is something like 42 percent instead of the 4.9 percent it actually is. He hasn't said how he's gotten this — maybe it's from the same "extremely credible source" who told him President Obama's birth certificate was fake? — but the simplest explanation is that he's just ballparking how many adults don't work. That's 40.4 percent right now. The problem with using that number, though, is that it counts college students and stay-at-home parents and retirees as being equally "unemployed" as people who are actively looking for work but can't find any. So it doesn't tell us too much, at least not on its own, unless you think it's a problem that we have more 70-year-olds than we used to.

Or unless conspiracy theories are one of your favorite accessories, as seems to be the case with the father, and now the son, Donald Trump Jr. On Sunday, he told CNN's Jake Tapper that the official unemployment numbers are "artificial" ones that are "massaged to make the existing economy look good" and "this administration look good."
....



Source: BLS

....
The boring truth is that the economy is in a lot better shape than it was when Obama took office, but that it could be in better shape still. The recovery, in other words, still has a ways to go. But that's a lot different from saying that we have 40 percent unemployment and that the government is trying to cover it up. That just suggests you don't understand — or don't want to accurately describe — how stats work and you don't know how to look up the ones you think the BLS is hiding. ... It's not what you'd expect from a major party presidential candidate.

[font color="red"]New material, added June 27, 2016:[/font]

Wonkblog

[link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/20/why-americas-men-arent-working/|
Why America’s men aren’t working]

By Ylan Q. Mui June 20

The national unemployment rate has fallen by more than half since the nation emerged from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. It peaked at 10 percent in 2010 and stood at just 4.7 percent last month.

That’s mostly good news: Private employers have added more than 14 million jobs. About 2 million people have been out of a job for six months or longer, far too many but only about a quarter of the number of long-term unemployed people seven years ago. By almost every measure, the labor market has made incredible progress.

But there’s one statistic that has been vexing economists. The size of the nation’s workforce -- known as the labor force participation rate -- continues to fall. Since the start of the downturn, the percentage of that population that has a job or is looking for one has dropped more than 3 percentage points, to 62.6 percent, a level not seen since the 1970s.

{America’s jobs market has had a great 2016. Will it last?}

The problem is particularly pronounced among men between the ages of 25 and 54, traditionally considered the prime working years. Their participation rate has been declining for decades, but the drop-off accelerated during the recession. The high mark was 98 percent in 1954, and it now stands at 88 percent. A new analysis from the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, slated for release Monday, found that the United States now has the third-lowest participation rate for “prime-age men” among the world’s developed countries.
....



....
People in prison are not counted as part of the population for the purposes of labor market statistics. At first blush, that would actually boost the participation rate: A smaller population means the share in the workforce is larger. But in reality, there are immense and well-documented barriers to the job market for workers once they leave prison. And the gloomy prospects of the formerly incarcerated outweigh the statistical benefit of having a large prison population.



....
Ylan Q. Mui is a financial reporter at The Washington Post covering the Federal Reserve and the economy. Follow @ylanmui

[font color="red"]New material, added January 2016:[/font] People who are not in the labor force: why aren't they working?

Beyond the Numbers

December 2015 | Vol. 4 / No. 15

EMPLOYMENT & UNEMPLOYMENT

People who are not in the labor force: why aren't they working?

By Steven F. Hipple

People who are neither working nor looking for work are counted as “not in the labor force,” according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since 2000, the percentage of people in this group has increased. Data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) and its Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) provide some insight into why people are not in the labor force. The ASEC is conducted in the months of February through April and includes questions about work and other activities in the previous calendar year. For example, data collected in 2015 are for the 2014 calendar year, and data collected in 2005 are for the 2004 calendar year.1 In the ASEC, people who did not work at all in the previous year are asked to give the main reason they did not work. Interviewers categorize survey participants’ verbatim responses into the following categories: ill health or disabled; retired;2 home responsibilities; going to school; could not find work;3 and other reasons.

This Beyond the Numbers article examines data on those who were not in the labor force during 2004 and 2014 and the reasons they gave for not working. The data are limited to people who neither worked nor looked for work during the previous year.

This July 2014 report from the Council of Economic Advisers addresses the LFPR:

THE LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE SINCE 2007: CAUSES AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

(Hat tip, Adrahil: Look deeper.)

[font color="red"]New material:[/font] Here's a Power Point (or equivalent) presentation given by Jason Furman, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, before the National Press Club on August 6, 2015. If you go to the next-to-the-last slide, you'll see that the long-term projected trend is down:

"Trends in Labor Force Participation", 8/6/15

(Hat tip, progree: Over the past month, over the past year, and since February 2010)

[font color="red"]New material:[/font] Paul Vigna had a comment about the LFPR in the December 4, 2015, MoneyBeat column about the November figures:

8:55 am

Breaking down the participation rate
by Paul Vigna

Here’s what we mean when we talk about the participation rate and employment-population ratio.

There are 251.7 million people in the “civilian noninstitutional population,” according to the BLS (this is all contained in this chart). This is the number of people over age 16 who are not in jail or health-care facilities or the military.

Of that group, 157.3 million comprise the civilian labor force. The ratio of the second group to the first is 62.5%. This is the labor force participation rate, the number of people who could be in the labor force – either working or looking for a job – who are in the labor force.

There are 149.3 million people working. The ratio of that group to the overall civilian population is 59.3%. This the employment-population ratio, the number of people who could be working who actually are working.

Why do these number matter? Well, if you just looked at the raw data, you’d see the numbers rising, more or less, month after month. That’s not because the economy’s so rip-roaring, but because the number of people in the nation keeps rising. So you need the ratios to get a sense of how strong the labor force really is.

The labor-force participation rate remains near multi-decade lows, and whether that’s due to demographics, as in people retiring, or weak job opportunities, or whatever, it points to one sort of unavoidable problem: the economy cannot grow at its full potential if you simply don’t have enough people contributing.

Oh, and for the record, there are 94.4 million people not in the labor force.

[font color="red"]New material, added December 2015:[/font]

3:12 pm ET
Dec 8, 2015
economics

As America’s Workforce Ages, Here’s Where the Jobs Will Be

By Jeffrey Sparshott
Jeffrey.Sparshott@wsj.com
@jeffsparshott

The U.S. labor force is expected to expand only slowly over the coming decade as the country ages and more Americans give up on holding a job, a potential drag on broader economic growth.

The economy is expected to generate 9.8 million new jobs, a 6.5% increase, from 2014 to 2024, the Labor Department said in new projections released Tuesday. While steady, that is a historically slow pace. By comparison, 10-year job creation averaged almost 14% during the 2001-07 expansion and close to 17% during the 1990s.

The slowdown highlights declining participation as baby boomers retire and younger Americans opt out of the workforce. Those two trends are expected to continue to push the labor-force participation rate lower, to 60.9% in 2024 from 62.9% in 2014, Labor estimates. If realized, that would be the lowest level since 1973, when Richard Nixon was president.

Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen at a congressional hearing last week held out hope the participation rate would hold near current levels as people came off the sidelines and into jobs.


[center]Nattering Nabobs of Negativism[/center]

[font color="red"]New material, added February 26, 2016:[/font] More High-Wage Employment Doesn't Mean the Job Market's Out of the Woods

That's the print edition title.

Wonkblog

The recovery is generating more high-wage jobs — but does that matter?

The U.S. is still digging out of a big hole, and isn't creating new opportunities for those whose jobs disappeared.

By Lydia DePillis February 24
@lydiadepillis

A couple of weeks ago, some economists from Goldman Sachs came out with a rosy pronouncement: "Millions of new jobs and plenty of good ones," read the headline on a note to investors. High-wage employment appeared to pick up from 2013 to the present, a change from the early years of the economic recovery, which generated a disproportionate number of low-wage jobs.



And you don’t have to just take it from an investment bank. The Department of Labor has run its own numbers, and saw similar growth back in October, rendered in absolute numbers rather than growth rates (which Labor’s Chief Economist Heidi Shierholz says held through the end of 2015 in an analysis the department completed last week).

The green bars in the graph below show changes in actual employment, and the orange line shows what it would have been if the growth had been evenly distributed. Shierholz says the loss of low-wage jobs is likely a result of workers in those categories having their wages bumped up above $10 an hour, as the huge growth in low-wage sectors from 2009-2013 led to competition for people in restaurants and retail, or finding better jobs.



That renewed growth in high-wage jobs, which started to show up in 2014, is typical of recoveries from recessions: Low-wage retail and restaurant jobs come back first, as consumers start to buy small-ticket items and go out to eat again. Later on, the profitability trickles up, leading firms to make more expensive hires. Overall, the trend could be responsible for the small uptick in wages that's become evident in recent months, as well.

[font color="red"]Revised material:[/font] Here’s a grim thought:

Fed economists: America’s missing workers are not coming back

Wonkblog

By Max Ehrenfreund September 12 {2014}

A paper by Federal Reserve staff that will be discussed at the Brookings Institution on Friday {September 12, 2014} possibly hints at the central bank's thinking on interest rates and employment in advance of a consequential Fed meeting next week. The findings support [links:http://online.wsj.com/articles/fed-minutes-rate-hike-debate-heating-up-1408557628|hawks] on the Federal Open Market Committee, who feel that the Fed needs to prepare to raise rates sooner than expected, although the results are still being debated and might not persuade the committee's more dovish members.

The paper discusses the number of people who consider themselves part of the workforce -- including both people who have a job and those who are looking for work. It is a measure of the total manpower available in the U.S. economy. This number, the labor force participation rate, has been decreasing steadily since 2000. Americans who can't find work have been leaving the workforce, as have more and more retirees as the population ages.

Let’s follow that with another grim thought:

Why wage growth disparity tells the story of America's half-formed economic recovery

By Chico Harlan November 21, 2014
@chicoharlan
chico.harlan@washpost.com

....
With unemployment down to 5.8 percent, the country’s half-formed recovery is often described with a convenient shorthand: We have jobs but little wage growth. But stagnancy is just an average, and for many Americans, the years since the financial crisis have pushed them farther from the line, according to a detailed analysis of government labor statistics by The Washington Post.
....

Among the winners in this climate: Older workers, women and those with finance and technology jobs. ... Among the losers: Part-timers, the young, men, and those in the health, retail and food industries.
....

Chico Harlan covers personal economics as part of The Post's financial team.

Dissenters, take note:

A New Reason to Question the Official Unemployment Rate

David Leonhardt
AUG. 26, 2014

The Labor Department’s monthly jobs report has been the subject of some wacky conspiracy theories. None was wackier than the suggestion from Jack Welch, the former General Electric chief executive, that government statisticians were exaggerating job growth during President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. Both Republican and Democratic economists dismissed those charges as silly.

But to call the people who compile the jobs report honest, nonpartisan civil servants is not to say that the jobs report is perfect. The report tries to estimate employment in a big country – and to do so quickly, to give policy makers, business executives and everyone else a sense of how the economy is performing. It’s a tough task.

And it has become tougher, because Americans are less willing to respond to surveys than they used to be.

A new academic paper suggests that the unemployment rate appears to have become less accurate over the last two decades, in part because of this rise in nonresponse. In particular, there seems to have been an increase in the number of people who once would have qualified as officially unemployed and today are considered out of the labor force, neither working nor looking for work.

[font color="red"]New material, added January 2016:[/font] From July 2013:

Mort Zuckerman: A Jobless Recovery Is a Phony Recovery

Commentary

Mort Zuckerman: A Jobless Recovery Is a Phony Recovery

More people have left the workforce than got a new job during the recovery—by a factor of nearly three.

By Mortimer Zuckerman
July 15, 2013 7:09 p.m. ET

In recent months, Americans have heard reports out of Washington and in the media that the economy is looking up—that recovery from the Great Recession is gathering steam. If only it were true. The longest and worst recession since the end of World War II has been marked by the weakest recovery from any U.S. recession in that same period.

The jobless nature of the recovery is particularly unsettling. In June, the government's Household Survey reported that since the start of the year, the number of people with jobs increased by 753,000—but there are jobs and then there are "jobs." No fewer than 557,000 of these positions were only part-time. The survey also reported that in June full-time jobs declined by 240,000, while part-time jobs soared by 360,000 and have now reached an all-time high of 28,059,000—three million more part-time positions than when the recession began at the end of 2007.

That's just for starters. The survey includes part-time workers who want full-time work but can't get it, as well as those who want to work but have stopped looking. That puts the real unemployment rate for June at 14.3%, up from 13.8% in May.

The 7.6% unemployment figure so common in headlines these days is utterly misleading. An estimated 22 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed; they are virtually invisible and mostly excluded from unemployment calculations that garner headlines.
....

Mr. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report.


[center]On the Road Again[/center]

The DOL Newsletter - October 6, 2011

DOL Data: There's an App for That
Have an iPhone, iPod Touch or Android phone? Now you can access the latest labor data and news from the department's Bureau of Labor Statistics and Employment and Training Administration in the palm of your hand. The latest free mobile app displays real-time updates to the unemployment rate, Unemployment Insurance initial claims, the Consumer Price Index, payroll employment, average hourly earnings, the Producer Price Index, the Employment Cost Index, productivity, the U.S. Import Price Index and the U.S. Export Price Index in real time, as they are published each week, month or quarter. News releases providing context for the data can also be accessed through the app and viewed within a mobile browser or as PDF documents.

US Labor Department launches economic and employment statistics app

Smartphone users gain mobile access to latest labor data and news

WASHINGTON — The most up-to-date employment data and economic news releases from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics and its Employment and Training Administration now can be viewed using a new mobile application.
....

The new app is currently available for the iPhone and iPod Touch as well as Android phones. The Labor Department is working to develop versions for BlackBerry and iPad devices. Visit http://m.dol.gov/apps/ to download this and other mobile apps.

Download the Data, Other Mobile Apps


[center]A Few More Things[/center]

[font color="red"]New material, added February 4, 2016:[/font] This article appeared as "Stocks vs. the Economy: Which Ruins Which?"on page C2 of the print edition of The Wall Street Journal. on Tuesday, February 2, 2016.

Does the Economy Ruin the Stock Market or Does the Stock Market Ruin the Economy?

2:49 pm ET
Feb 1, 2016
Markets

By John Carney

Don’t confuse the market for the economy. Markets have overshot fundamentals. There are no signs of contagion into the real economy. ... Anyone paying attention has heard some version of these sentiments lately. Paul Samuelson’s famous quip that the market has predicted nine of the past five recessions is once again on the lips of the wise men and women of Wall Street.

But what if the stock market is more than just an indicator? What if a stock selloff can actually cause unemployment and recessions? ... That’s exactly what historical data on the stock market and the unemployment rate running back to 1929 seem to suggest. A persistent 10% decline in the stock market pushes unemployment up three percentage points.

That, at least, is the finding of University of California Los Angeles economist Roger Farmer. Currently a Distinguished Professor of Economics at UCLA and a Visiting Scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Mr. Farmer has been a fellow at the Bank of England and has won awards for his work on inefficiency in financial markets and self-fullfilling prophecies.

In a pair of academic papers written in the wake of the financial crisis, the first published in 2012 and the second published this year, Mr. Farmer has argued that changes in the value of the stock market cause changes in the unemployment rate. The idea will be expanded upon in Mr. Farmer’s forthcoming book, Prosperity for All.

[font color="red"]Moved here, February 6, 2016:[/font] The Federal Reserve looks at, among many other things, the BLS employment reports when it decides what to do with "the interest rate." The interest rate in question is the federal funds target rate. Here is some information about that:

Federal funds rate

The federal funds target rate is determined by a meeting of the members of the Federal Open Market Committee which normally occurs eight times a year about seven weeks apart. The committee may also hold additional meetings and implement target rate changes outside of its normal schedule.

Meet FRED, every wonk’s secret weapon

StorylineMeet the wonks

By Todd C. Frankel August 1, 2014

FRED stands for Federal Reserve Economic Data. It serves as an online clearinghouse for a wealth of numbers: unemployment rates, prices of goods, GDP and CPI, things common and obscure. Today, FRED is more than a little bit famous, thanks to the public’s fascination with economic data.

Federal Reserve Economic Data

So how many jobs must be created every month to have an effect on the unemployment rate? There's an app for that:

Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Jobs Calculator™

(Note new link for Jobs Calculator™. Hat tip, progree.)

Monthly Employment Reports from BLS

The U.S. Department of Commerce releases economic data too. Some of its releases come from the U.S. Census Bureau:

U.S. Census Bureau Latest News

U.S. Census Bureau Economic Indicators

Other Department of Commerce releases come from the Bureau of Economic Analysis:

Bureau of Economic Analysis

For people who need a daily fix:

BLS-Labor Statistics Twitter feed

Read tomorrow's news before it happens. Here's the schedule for all economic reports:

MarketWatch Economic Calendar[font color="red"]

21 replies, 1549 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Payroll employment increases by 287,000 in June; unemployment rate rises to 4.9% (Original post)
mahatmakanejeeves Jul 2016 OP
Snarkoleptic Jul 2016 #1
rjsquirrel Jul 2016 #2
Stuart G Jul 2016 #7
Ace Rothstein Jul 2016 #10
rjsquirrel Jul 2016 #11
whatthehey Jul 2016 #3
IronLionZion Jul 2016 #8
rjsquirrel Jul 2016 #12
IronLionZion Jul 2016 #13
rjsquirrel Jul 2016 #14
leftynyc Jul 2016 #4
treestar Jul 2016 #5
DrToast Jul 2016 #16
videohead5 Jul 2016 #6
Stuart G Jul 2016 #9
IronLionZion Jul 2016 #15
BumRushDaShow Jul 2016 #17
RBInMaine Jul 2016 #18
mahatmakanejeeves Jul 2016 #20
progree Jul 2016 #19
mahatmakanejeeves Jul 2016 #21

Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 08:47 AM

1. Woo Hoo!

As we inch ever closer to a tight labor market, there will steadily increasing upward pressure on wages.
Now if we can just get the Fed to sit on their hands, rather than spooking everyone about the inflation boogey man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)


Response to rjsquirrel (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 09:17 AM

7. My thoughts exactly....great number....nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rjsquirrel (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 09:22 AM

10. April was revised up and May was revised down.

April +21k
May -27k

Very odd that we added 11k jobs in May then 287k in June. The average of May and June is very much in line with previous months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Rothstein (Reply #10)


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 08:49 AM

3. So this month it will be the rate that matters

Whereas last month only people leaving the workforce mattered. Consistency is not expected but would be nice. Everyone pissing and moaning about last month's numbers should if not hypocrites be doing cartwheels this time, when an increase in the labor force raised the U3 rate depite a good jobs number.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatthehey (Reply #3)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 09:19 AM

8. Or they'll just say the numbers are bogus

because it is from a socialist-sounding Bureau of Labor Statistics.

They'll say "seasonally adjusted" is proof that its BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #8)


Response to rjsquirrel (Reply #12)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 09:31 AM

13. Many of our people are paranoid, cynical, pessimistic

and eternally wallowing in negativity and self-pity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #13)


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 08:51 AM

4. Wow - not sure

 

what the "expected" number was but would be surprised to find out this didn't exceed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 08:58 AM

5. In June we'd expect an increase in the number of people in the labor market

with graduations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 09:37 AM

16. That's a seasonal adjustment

The BLS knows about things like that and models it into the number.

What happened here is that more people returned to the workforce than expected given the month.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 09:00 AM

6. Trump Will Tweet

These are made up phony numbers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 09:21 AM

9. According to this link, economists only expected 180,000 jobs..That's 107,000 more than expected...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/june-jobs-report_us_577f8e18e4b0c590f7e8d9d9?section=

The U.S. added 287,000 to the economy in June, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Prior to the report, economists estimated only 180,000 jobs would be added.

The unemployment rate went up to 4.9 percent, from 4.7 percent. Slight increases in the unemployment rate can be a good thing because it means that a lot of people who had previously given up on finding a job came back into the labor force and started looking again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 09:35 AM

15. Part of this was the Verizon strike ended

That was about 35,000 workers

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-economy-adds-287000-jobs-in-june-2016-07-08

Wages are increasing.

Average hourly wages rose 0.1% to $25.61 in June. Hourly pay increased 2.6% in the 12 months to June 2016, matching the highest level of the recovery.


I think the Fed will announce a rate increase soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 09:48 AM

17. K&R

and that May revision makes that month pretty wild. But I expect (per the post another post in this thread) that the Verizon strike may have had some impact on those numbers.

Thanks for the monthly analysis post!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 09:57 AM

18. The reason why the unemployment rate is up even with these large jobs gains are that more people

 

Last edited Fri Jul 8, 2016, 10:58 AM - Edit history (1)

are entering the workforce to look for work. Also, more people are willing to leave existing jobs in hope of finding a better job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RBInMaine (Reply #18)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 01:55 PM

20. "Also, more people are willing to leave existing jobs in hope of finding a better job."

The BLS's Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) measures that. It comes out next Tuesday at 10 a.m. Watch LBN.

MarketWatch Economic Calendar

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 01:17 PM

19. Over the past month, over the past year, and since February 2010

Here are some summary tables of the key June 2016 jobs reports statistics from the Establishment Survey and the Household Survey released on July 8,, 2016.

A narrative "Detailed Discussion" section follows these tables.

In the below tables, all "%" ones are percentage point changes, *not* percent increases or decreases. FOR EXAMPLE, when you see something like this:

+0.1% Unemployment rate

It means that the unemployment rate increased by 0.1 percentage points (this EXAMPLE is from March 2016 when the unemployment rate rose from 4.9% to 5.0%).

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#CEF6FE;"]Before each item, (vv) indicates very bad, (v ) indicates bad, (0 ) indicates neutral, (^ ) indicates good, (^^) indicates very good

[font color=blue]OVER THE LAST MONTH[/font]:
== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ==
(^^) +287,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment ( CES0000000001 )

== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (warning: this survey's monthly change figures are very statistically noisy) ==
(^^) 414,000 Labor Force (employed + jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)

(vv) +67,000 Employed (positive direction but very weak). Note the enormous difference
` ` ` with the +287,000 increase in payroll employment. Go figure. (The latter is far
` ` ` less volatile due to a much larger sample)

(vv) +347,000 Unemployed (jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)
` ` ` The last 3 lines overall is not good news: 414,000 more people either employed or
` ` ` looking for work in the past 4 weeks, but only a 67,000 increase in employment.
` ` ` The remainder, 347,000, is additional people looking for work in the past 4 weeks
` ` ` But like all Household survey numbers, these are all wildly volatile from month
` ` ` to month.

(v ) -0.1% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (it's at 59.6%)

(^ ) +0.1% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (it's at 62.7%)
` ` ` But it is only 0.3% above a multi-decade low of 62.4% reached in September 2015.

(vv) +0.2% Unemployment rate (it's at 4.9%). Is Unemployed (as defined above) / Labor Force [N864.HM].
` ` ` Caused by a large increase in the number of people seeking jobs in the last 4 weeks,
` ` ` and only 67,000 finding employment

(^) -0.1% U-6 unemployment rate (it's at 9.6%) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709

(^^) -0.3% "U-7" unemployment rate: Counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job,
` ` ` no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want
` ` ` full time work (it's at 11.7%)

(^^) -231,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639

(^^) -587,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
` ` ` An astonishing decrease, great (but remember: volatitlity, volatility).

(0 ) -491,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9).

(^^) +451,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9) - The righties will have a sad about this huge
` ` ` surge in full-time workers and the huge drop in part-time workers. It is counter
` ` ` to the narrative about Obama being the "part-time jobs president". However, one should
` ` ` note that in May it was the opposite -- an increase in part-time workers and a decrease
` ` ` in full-time workers. And so it is with the extremely extremely volatile household survey numbers

^--Monthly change figures in the Household Survey are probably best ignored due to volatility caused by statistical noise. That's true in both "bad" months and in "good" months

The "U-7" unemployment rate is a creation of Paul Solman of the PBS Newshour, not a BLS number. The above number is one I calculated, because he doesn't update his number every month, and when he does, it is about a day after the jobs report comes out. My number has consistently matched his within 0.1 percentage points (and mine has always been a bit higher). The "U-7" unemployment rate counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job, no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want full time work

For more background on the U-7 number, see: "If you count everyone who says they want a job, even if they have made no effort to find one in many years" at http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439#post2

[font color = magenta]See "Detailed Discussion" section below for a narrative discussion of the above statistics over the past month, the past year, and since the jobs recovery began in March 2010[/font]

[font color=blue]OVER THE LAST YEAR (last 12 months)[/font]:
==== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ====
+2,451,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+1.72% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is 11 months thru May because no CPI data for June yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ========
+1,896,000 Labor Force
+2,375,000 Employed
-479,000 Unemployed
+0.3% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate
+0.1% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate)
-0.4% Unemployment rate
-0.9% U-6 unemployment rate (fabulous. it includes anyone that looked for work even once in the past year)
-1.0% "U-7" unemployment rate: Counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job,
` ` ` no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want
` ` ` full time work
-365,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
-622,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
-206,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+2,530,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

The reason there's no data for June yet for the inflation-adjusted Weekly Earnings is because the CPI inflation adjustment number for June is not yet available.

All the "over the last year" numbers are really good numbers except the Labor Force Participation Rate, although ticking up a knotch this past 12 months (good direction, though tiny) is at 62.7% which is only 0.3 percentage points above a multi-decade low. Interesting though that there was a 0.3% percentage point increase in the Employment To Population Ratio. So we have the labor force participation rate barely moving, while the employment to population ratio has a decent increase. The Population being talked about is the civilian non-institutional population age 16 and over, yes, including all elderly people, even centenarians .

Seems to me that there is too much discussion in the media of the Labor Force Participation Rate -- aka the Labor Force to Population Ratio -- (the employed plus the jobless people who have looked for work in the last 4 weeks, all divided by the population), and not enough attention to what seemingly matters more -- the Employment to Population Ratio. Why aren't we celebrating the increase in the percentage of the population that is employed (the employment to population ratio)-- a figure that has been slowly moving up since the job market bottom, despite the growing wave of baby boomer retirements?

(As always, the population being talked about is the civilian non-institutional population age 16 and over, including the elderly, even centenarians).


[font color=blue]SINCE THE PAYROLL EMPLOYMENT RECOVERY BEGAN -- Last 76 months thru June 30, 2016: 6'16 - 2'10[/font]:
(This is the period from when continuous growth of payroll employment began, thru June 30, 2016)
==== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ====
+14,526,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+5.20% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is thru April 2016 because no CPI data for May yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ====
+5,186,000 Labor Force
+12,516,000 Employed
-7,330,000 Unemployed
+1.1% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (woo hoo!)
-2.2% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (ughh)
-4.9% Unemployment rate
-7.4% U-6 unemployment rate
-7.1% "U-7" unemployment rate: Counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job,
` ` ` no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want
` ` ` full time work
-406,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
-3,093,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
-182,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+12,808,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

[font color=blue]Part-Time Workers Who Want Full Time Jobs, as % of All Employed[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]Jun'15 Mar'16 May'16 Jun'16

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]4.3% 4.0% 4.3% 3.9%
[closes the light blue highlight tag begun b4 the 1st table]

Umm, but aren't most of the new jobs part-time? (umm, no)

A graph of part-time and full-time workers (from June 2009 through November 2015)


CLARIFICATION: in the above, these are part-time workers and full-time workers, not part-time jobs and full-time jobs.

This excellent post from early July show two perspectives of the trends in part-time workers and full-time workers (not part-time jobs and full-time jobs). Thanks mahatmakanejeeves
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141134306#post12

What kind of Wages?

INFLATION-ADJUSTED Average Weekly Earnings Of Production And Nonsupervisory Employees, Total Private, 1982-84 Dollars
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031


Again, the above are INFLATION-ADJUSTED earnings

Here is the nominal, i.e. not-inflation-adjusted version of the above:
Weekly: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000030
Hourly: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000008

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#CEF6FE;"]See "Detailed Discussion" section below for a narrative discussion of the above statistics over the past month, the past year, and since the jobs recovery began in March 2010

The links to the data above
# Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
# INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031
# Labor Force http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000
# Employed http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000
# Unemployed http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13000000
# Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
# LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
# Unemployment rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
# U-6 unemployment rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709
# NILF-WJ -- Not in Labor Force, Wants Job http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15026639
# Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12032194
# Part-Time Workers (Table A-9) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12600000
# Full-Time Workers (Table A-9) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12500000

########################################################################
FFI on the most recent jobs report, straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age (household survey) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

Several graphs of the key economic stats -- http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps_charts.pdf

The whole enchilada -- including all 16 "A" tables (the household survey) and all 9 "B" tables (the establishment survey) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

[font color = brown] ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A-1 and other tables can be found at the all-tables full jobs report at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf, or gotten one-at-a-time from the bottom section of http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm . For example, Table A-9 alone is at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm )
----------------------------------------------------------------------[/font]

BLS Commissioner's Statement on The Employment Situation http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jec.nr0.htm

The Council of Economic Advisors' Take on the Jobs Report
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/07/08/employment-situation-june . (find this at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/blog or http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea
and look for the last "The Employment Situation in" post). Or Google what's in between the {}'s: {site:whitehouse.gov employment situation in June}

Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner's Corner: http://beta.bls.gov/labs/blogs/ Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BLS_gov

mahatmakanejeeves thread - very comprehensive OP each month when the jobs report comes out, as well as additional material he posts to the thread in the following hours. Watch the OP for edits too. And the thread for more material http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141512461

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color: #ffa !important;"][font size=4 color=blue]Detailed Discussion[/font]

7/8/16 -

A great jobs report this month -- 287,000 net new nonfarm payroll employment in June. April and May were revised down by a combined 6,000. So we have 281,000 more payroll employees than we did in last month's report ( 287 - 6 = 281 ). We needed it, since the previous 2 months, April and May, added only a combined 155,000 jobs (May was especially pathetic at just +11,000 jobs.

The Household Survey shows an employment increase of just 67,000. This on top of a DEcrease of 316,000 in April and an anemic 26,000 increase in May. So for the past 3 months we've had a 223,000 DEcrease in employment (For a longer perspective, employment has grown by 2,375,000 over the past 12 months, pretty closely matching the 2,451,000 payroll jobs increase in the Establishment Survey)

The labor force went up by a huge 414,000 (mostly due to an increase in the number of people looking for work in the past 4 weeks). Employment went up by only 67,000, so the remaining 347,000 ended up increasing the unemployment roles. (Note in May the labor force went down by a huge 458,000. As always, month to month changes in household survey statistics are mostly statistical noise).

(For a longer perspective, the Labor Force has grown by a healthy 1,896,000 over the past 12 months). The labor force is essentially the sum of the employed plus jobless people who looked for work in the past 4 weeks.

Now, as for the unemployment rate jumping up from 4.7% to 4.9% in June -- that's because of the above-mentioned surge of people looking for work in the past 4 weeks. (May was just the opposite -- a huge decline in the number of people looking for work, resulting in the unemployment rate fropping from 5.0% in April to 4.7% in May. Sigh).

The number of part-time workers wanting full-time work decreased by a super-massive 587,000. (But in May it increased by a super-massive 468,000. Volatility (aka statistical noise) again. Over the past 12 months, there has been a decline of 622,000 in this number.

The number of full time workers surged by 451,000 in June, while the number of part-time workers declined by 491,000. That's super-good -- more full-time workers and fewer part-time workers. Exactly opposite to the narrative about Obama being the "part-time jobs president". (Don't expect any OP's touting that on DU, all you see around here is when the opposite occurs).

However, to be fair, one should note that in May it was the opposite -- an increase in part-time workers and a decrease in full-time workers. And so it is with the extremely extremely volatile household survey numbers.

Over the past year, full-time workers increased by 2,530,000, and part-time workers decreased by 206,000. (Good good).

And since the job market bottom of February 2010, full-time workers increased by 12,808,000, and part-time workers decreased by 182,000. (Very good, both).

The broader measures of unemployment -- U-6 and U-7 -- declined. U-6 fell by 0.1% to 9.6%. Paul Solman's "U-7" declined by a hefty 0.3 percentage points to 11.7%. (Contrast that to the 0.2 percentage point increase in the official unemployment rate, aka U-3, from 4.7% to 4.9%). Overall I'm happier that the broader measures of unemployment declined that I am sad that the narrow U-3 unemployment rate increased.

(Both U-6 and U-7 count part-timers wanting full-time work as unemployed. As for what U-7 is, that's a creation of Paul Solman of the PBS Newshour that counts every jobless person who SAYS they want work as unemployed, no matter how long it has been since they last looked for work. Plus part-timers wanting full-time work are also counted as unemployed.)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 02:04 PM

21. Charts and graphs from BLS and TWSJ.

BLS:

http://twitter.com/BLS_gov

BLS: Graphics for Economic News Releases

BLS: More charts and analysis on the June nonfarm payroll employment numbers. Current Employment Statistics Highlights, June 2016

TWSJ.:

June Jobs Report, by the Numbers

The June Data in 15 Charts

Economists React to the June Jobs Report: ‘Christmas in July’

'The June employment report could bring Christmas in July to U.S. equity markets'

By Josh Mitchell

Jul 8, 2016 10:19 am ET

Why Some Economists See Faster Wage Growth Around the Corner

Looking beneath the headline wage figures offers a bit more hope for U.S. workers

By Lisa Beilfuss

Jul 6, 2016 12:22 pm ET

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread