HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » U.S. economy added just 1...

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 07:34 AM

U.S. economy added just 136,000 jobs in September, in fresh sign economy is cooling

Source: Washington Post

The U.S. economy added a modest 136,000 jobs in September, in what is likely to be interpreted as further evidence that the country is headed for a slowdown.

The pace is well-below average monthly growth last year, though the unemployment rate fell to a 50-year-low of 3.5 percent.Manufacturing has already entered a decline and - after more than a year of strength - consumer spending is also appearing to soften.

The National Retail Federation warned Thursday that economic uncertainty, new tariffs and fluctuations in the stock market could derail Americans' spending plans in the run-up to the holidays.

And economists point to other signs, including a manufacturing recession as affecting employers as they struggle to find workers in a tight jobs market.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/04/us-economy-added-just-jobs-september-fresh-sign-economy-is-cooling/





TEXT
BLS-Labor Statistics

@BLS_gov

Unemployment rate declines to 3.5% in September; payroll employment increases by 136,000 https://go.usa.gov/vrK #JobsReport #BLSdata
29
8:30 AM - Oct 4, 2019


Report: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Original article & headline -

U.S. economy added just 136,000 jobs in September, fueling fears that trade war pain has snowballed

By Washington Post Staff
Oct. 4, 2019 at 8:31 a.m. EDT

The labor market's performance is being closely watched by the Federal Reserve, business leaders and elected officials as they try to determine the economy's strength heading into 2020. There have been numerous signs that the economy is slowing down, but White House officials have promised President Trump's agenda will lead to strong growth.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2019/10/04/u-s-economy-added-just-136000-jobs-in-september-fueling-fears-that-trade-war-pain-has-snowballed/



Our resident DU economic analysts should be along shortly to fill in the details! TGIF!

43 replies, 2989 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 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply U.S. economy added just 136,000 jobs in September, in fresh sign economy is cooling (Original post)
BumRushDaShow Oct 2019 OP
DrToast Oct 2019 #1
BumRushDaShow Oct 2019 #2
OnlinePoker Oct 2019 #3
DrToast Oct 2019 #6
mahatmakanejeeves Oct 2019 #4
BumRushDaShow Oct 2019 #5
ancianita Oct 2019 #7
mathematic Oct 2019 #8
me_not_you Oct 2019 #30
progree Oct 2019 #9
mathematic Oct 2019 #11
progree Oct 2019 #12
mathematic Oct 2019 #18
progree Oct 2019 #20
mathematic Oct 2019 #22
progree Oct 2019 #24
progree Oct 2019 #25
progree Oct 2019 #26
mathematic Oct 2019 #35
progree Oct 2019 #38
progree Oct 2019 #27
mathematic Oct 2019 #33
progree Oct 2019 #40
me_not_you Oct 2019 #31
mathematic Oct 2019 #36
me_not_you Oct 2019 #37
mahatmakanejeeves Oct 2019 #10
progree Oct 2019 #13
mahatmakanejeeves Oct 2019 #14
mathematic Oct 2019 #19
progree Oct 2019 #21
mathematic Oct 2019 #23
me_not_you Oct 2019 #32
mahatmakanejeeves Oct 2019 #15
BumRushDaShow Oct 2019 #16
mahatmakanejeeves Oct 2019 #17
progree Oct 2019 #28
mathematic Oct 2019 #34
progree Oct 2019 #39
mathematic Oct 2019 #41
progree Oct 2019 #42
ck4829 Oct 2019 #29
mahatmakanejeeves Dec 2019 #43

Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 07:54 AM

1. In a word: Meh

It's not a terrible report given fears of a recession, but it's not a very good one either.

Interesting points:
Census hiring accounted for 21,000 of the job gains. Private sector payrolls were up only 114,000
Revisions to July & August were up, but were also mostly driven by government hiring
Year-over-year wage wages are only 2.9%, which is a real gain, but mediocre considering we have a 3.5% unemployment rate

More later...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrToast (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 08:12 AM

2. Was looking for an found a mention of any revisions of previous months

and saw this -

This is the slowest pace of job growth in four months, as businesses grew more cautious about hiring, but employment gains for August and July revised up by a combined 45,000

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-adds-136000-jobs-in-september-unemployment-rate-hits-50-year-low-2019-10-04


Last month there were a bunch of downward revisions of previous months' reporting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrToast (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 08:23 AM

3. According to BLS, only 1000 were hired for the census

Federal hiring for the 2020 Census was negligible (+1,000)

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnlinePoker (Reply #3)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 09:33 AM

6. Good catch

I was relaying the early comments from CNBC. Government was responsible for 22,000 of the jobs and they probably assumed that was all Census. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 09:26 AM

4. WH statement. Read it quickly, as they mistakenly included charts that go back to 1990 and 1992.

Whoever made that mistake will be out of a job soon.

Good morning, and thanks for the thread.

ECONOMY & JOBS

U.S. Unemployment Rate Falls to 50-Year Low
October 4, 2019 4 minute read

Council of Economic Advisers

Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its monthly Employment Situation Report, which shows robust employment growth in September. Job gains are particularly noteworthy considering that the United States is in the midst of the longest economic recovery in its history.

{snip}

Additionally, the unemployment rate for people without a high school diploma fell to 4.8 percent, the lowest rate since the series began in 1992 and much lower than the 7.8 percent rate in November 2016 (figure 1). Since President Trump’s election, the unemployment rate for those without a high school degree has fallen at a faster rate than the unemployment rate for those with a bachelor’s degree or higher. The decrease has narrowed the gap between the unemployment rate for non-high school graduates and the unemployment rate for college graduates to 2.8 percentage points, matching the lowest gap ever seen in the series.



{snip}

In the third quarter of 2019, 73.7 percent of workers entering employment came from out of the labor force rather than from unemployment, the highest share since the series began in 1990 (figure 2). In an encouraging sign that people previously on the sidelines will continue entering the workforce, more than 300 companies have signed the Pledge to America’s Workers. These companies pledged to create upwards of 14 million new job and training opportunities through education and reskilling initiatives for current and future employees over the next 5 years.



{snip}

With a 50-year low for the unemployment rate and consistent job gains, the September employment data make it clear that the American labor market remains historically strong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #4)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 09:29 AM

5. Good morning and LOL!

The BLS staffers knew what they were doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 09:49 AM

7. Silicon Valley people would say the economy is shrinking, not cooling. Big difference, imo.

They should know, because they're behind the huge nationwide push for automation, along with every Walmart and other retailer we know, along with the more obvious manufacturing sector.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 10:30 AM

8. Full employment leads to low jobs numbers

I get why everybody on DU likes to pretend that the economy sucks and I understand that boilerplate economic reporting/analysis takes a shallow look a the jobs number but with HISTORICALLY LOW UNEMPLOYMENT, the most likely explanation for these lower job numbers is that there simply aren't more than 100-150k new people per month (net) looking to get a job.

I'm not saying that the tariffs aren't harming the economy. I'm not saying that the tariffs haven't harmed the economy enough to put us on the edge of recession right now. I'm just saying that after a year or so of historically low unemployment and tepid jobs numbers everybody should reconsider what a "stable" jobs report looks like.

In the long run, job growth has to match population growth, adjusted by the proportion of the population that wants to work, and that's exactly what 100-150k jobs per month IS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #8)

Fri Oct 11, 2019, 12:42 AM

30. Richard Wolff & I disagree with ya

 

I'm to lazy (because your points are bonkers) to sauce all the deets. But the fine folks at democracy at work can provide the hard evidence. One point tho, real unemployment is still 7%. [1] The U-3 number is dumb & misleading. Populism (specifically fascism) is always a reaction to the failures of capitalism. So, given we are on the verge of an authoritarian take-over. Would say most Americans are still bad off.

Joe and Jane 6-pack aren't doing any better now than 10 years ago. Working 32 hours a week at Walmart with no bennys isn't quite the American Dream.


[democracy at work]
https://www.democracyatwork.info/


[1]
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-real-unemployment-rate-3306198




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 01:32 PM

9. Prime age LFPR (age 25-54) is below the pre-Great Recession levels, back to 1987

Last edited Fri Oct 4, 2019, 04:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Yes, yes, the unemployment rate is at 50 year lows, but note that the prime age (25-54) labor force participation rate (LFPR) is below the pre-Great Recession numbers, going back all the way to about 1987. I just looked at the September column, starting in September 1988 through September 2008, and ALL of them have prime age LFPR's that are higher than September 2019's 82.6% number. (September 1987 matched the September 2019 number)

(in the years before 1987 the prime age LFPR was considerably less because the female LFPR had not yet ramped up to contemporary levels)

All: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300060
Men: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300061
Women: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300062

As former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellin and many others have stated, the unemployment rate is understating the slack in the labor market compared to decades in the past (as evidenced by relatively poor LFPR and U-6 under-employment numbers among other indicators).

Somebody here on DU had an explanation though, offered with no evidence. As I remember it, "people don't want to work as much as they used to, and that's a good thing"

(On edit, deleted a two word remark that was objected to and didn't add anything to the discussion)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #9)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 03:03 PM

11. Yeah, that's me and it's still a good thing

The idea that everybody needs to work, even when they don't want to is straight fucking garbage.

The EVIDENCE for the claim is precisely that the unemployment rate, which measure the people that don't have jobs and are actually looking for one, is at historically low levels. You're denying that this is evidence because you believe everybody should want to work as much as people in the past wanted to work.

I have literally no idea how you're construing this as MAGA, which is a philosophy that wants to make things more like the past, which had a HIGHER male labor force participation rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #11)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 03:12 PM

12. Why do people want to work less now than they used to? Something other than the

official unemployment rate which has a lot of methodological problems, e.g. fewer people answering their phones and/or agreeing to sit for long surveys.

And it certainly isn't that we have more money income or wealth on an inflation-adjusted basis, so that we don't need to work as much.

And with pensions and former-employer-provided retiree medical benefits going the way of the landline phone, I think these numbers will get worse.

Also often cited is that with the labor market so "tight", why are real wage increasing so slowly?

Why do you think Yellen is wrong and you are right?

Google
problems with unemployment rate measure

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #12)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 03:48 PM

18. It's not a data problem

The unemployment rate is measuring a thing. So is the LFPR. As long as the definitions of these things are constant over time then how closely they actually measure the things they purport to measure isn't so important when examining the relationship between these measures over time. (I'm not talking about how accurately the unemployment rate tracks some notion of a "true" unemployment rate. U-5, which includes people that have looked for work in the last 12 months and people that aren't even available to work, is at 4.3%! That would be considered low unemployment for U-3.)

As for Yellen being wrong and me being right? Well, the idea that the prime-age LFPR has a number it "should" be seems to be an assertion without evidence. Should it be 95%? 80%? 60%? Why should it be any of these things? So it's not what it once was. And yet, so few of those people not in the labor force are looking for jobs or are available to take a job. What gives? It seems like the default assumption is that people should want to work and the conclusion is that since they're not there's something wrong. This is a statement on values. There are a few common explanations and a few uncommon explanations why I think that the prime age LFPR is lower now than in the past that do not indicate something is wrong with the labor market.

In case you're actually interested in those possible explanations...
Common:
-More post-graduate study, which takes people out of the labor force until their 30s. That, combined with the fact that millennials are a large generation and are exactly at this stage in their life/education, would suggest that there's a temporary 5 years or so more where LFPR will be low.
-More families are opting into staying at home to raise children, even if only for a few years. More than in the past, men are doing this.

Uncommon:
-A generation raised on Fight Club and Office Space simply don't value work and, if they don't have a family to support, will go extended periods without working or looking for job, entirely by choice.
-As wealth has become more concentrated and intergenerational wealth less taxed, there are more people living the trust-fund lifestyle than in the past.


Also, what's the Yellen commentary that you're referring to? Is it specifically a comment on what the LFPR should be or is she expressing some vague concern for a metric that has changed from its historic norms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #18)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 03:57 PM

20. It's not a data problem?

Do you disagree that household survey response rates are lower than say 2 decades ago? I sure the heck don't remember getting deluged with telemarketing calls 20 years ago.

You can google Yellen yourself. And she is definitely not alone in this, I've read numerous articles. She's made that comments about the unemployment rate being out of sync with the other data.

Another reason why people think there is more slack in the labor market than the unemployment rate indicates -- if the labor market is as tight as you think (based on one statistic) why haven't real wages been doing more than just creeping up?

Again, I encourage you to read up on the subject

Google
problems with unemployment rate measure

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #20)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 04:08 PM

22. Yes, I can google Yellen

But I have no idea which Yellen comments YOU are referring to and I'm not going to just sit around and guess.

You haven't acknowledged or addressed any of the provided explanations that indicate a voluntary non-participation in the labor force by the prime age population. You're only accepting the explanation that there is a problem in the labor market, despite the household survey (which you often cite without criticism, btw) contradicting that explanation. Your only recourse to maintain your position on what people SHOULD be doing is to cast doubt on the household survey and then proclaim that it's true that people want to do what you think they should be doing.

Come on man. I'm being open-minded about this. I'm not saying that the prime age LFPR is lower now than it's been in the past for any specific reason. The only thing I'm sticking to is that the LFPR is not a number that should be anything. It's a thing that's measured and may go higher or lower and as long as people that want to work can find work then what that number is isn't a problem. To me the question is not "How many people are working?" it's "How many people want jobs but can't find them?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #22)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 04:17 PM

24. Good.

You can google this:
janet yellen on labor force slack and unemployment rate

You're only accepting the explanation that there is a problem in the labor market, despite the household survey (which you often cite without criticism, btw) contradicting that explanation.


Or vice versa - these other measures contracdict YOUR explanation. I'm not saying any of these numbers are without fundamental methodology problems -- I'm saying you are latching on to one measure and I'm saying it contradicts the LFPR numbers. I haven't even gone into involuntary part-time employment (people who want full-time employment but are stuck with like 30 hours jobs so that their employers won't have to pay benefits). Or crappy gig jobs. Or people who work multiple jobs (did you know that a person who works two or more part-time jobs is counted as a full-time and not part-time, as long as their total hours exceeds 35?)

The economy has changed, people have changed, people aren't answering their phones or talking to surveyors as much as they used to.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #18)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 05:09 PM

25. Throw in the part-timers who want full-time work, and it's 6.9% (U-6)

U-5, which includes people that have looked for work in the last 12 months and people that aren't even available to work, is at 4.3%


They are available for work ...

Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization -- http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm
Discouraged workers (U-4, U-5, and U-6 measures) are persons who are not in the labor force, want and are available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They are not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the prior 4 weeks, for the specific reason that they believed no jobs were available for them. The marginally attached (U-5 and U-6 measures) are a group that includes discouraged workers. The criteria for the marginally attached are the same as for discouraged workers, with the exception that any reason could have been cited for the lack of job search in the prior 4 weeks. Persons employed part time for economic reasons (U-6 measure) are those working less than 35 hours per week who want to work full time, are available to do so, and gave an economic reason (their hours had been cut back or they were unable to find a full-time job) for working part time. These individuals are sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers.


The 6 alternative measures (the numbers): https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

U-6: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709

What's interesting is that people who have multiple part-time jobs -- such that the total hours exceeds 35 hours a week -- are counted as full-time, not part-time. Lots of crappy employers deliberately keep their part-time workers below 30 hours just to avoid paying benefits. And then there's the explosion of crappy gig economy jobs. Part-time, crappy, no-benefits, whatever -- they are all counted as Employed in determining all unemployment rate measures (except U-6 counts involuntary part-timers as unemployed)



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #18)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 06:26 PM

26. Those extra years in school are not really voluntary for most, it's what's needed to earn

more than a little above minimum wage.

#22 - You haven't acknowledged or addressed any of the provided explanations that indicate a voluntary non-participation in the labor force by the prime age population.

#18 - In case you're actually interested in those possible explanations...
Common:
-More post-graduate study, which takes people out of the labor force until their 30s. That, combined with the fact that millennials are a large generation and are exactly at this stage in their life/education, would suggest that there's a temporary 5 years or so more where LFPR will be low.


Many decades ago, it used to be that there were many jobs for people with just a high school diploma and earn a middle class wage that could buy a house and support a family on one income.

Now it seems a college degree is what's needed for an income that is much more than minimum wage. Or working 80 hours. And the requirements keep ratcheting up. (I know there are a number of mid-skill blue collar jobs that pay reasonable wages, but its a small percentage. And yes, there are some who start their own businesses that are successful).

Certainly the percent of the population with college and above, and 2 or more years, yada has been climbing. I really don't think that's because we've all got more time and money (given median household incomes and wage levels, that, on an inflation-adjusted basis, are a smidgen above 1970's levels), And I don't think piling on six-figure student debt levels is voluntary either. I think it's because there just aren't enough mid-wage (or better) mid-skill jobs available.

When I lost my job in 1992, I went back to the U of Minnesota to take some computer science courses. A couple of professors remarked that they never had age 35+ students in the past (there were about 3 or 4 in my cohort in Computer Science).

Nowadays, going back to school in mid-life is common, e.g. all these for-profit colleges that have been screwing their students. And piling tons of debt. If we adjusted earnings by the years of schooling that it takes to achieve them, or subtracted from the earnings the cost of school including lost wages, they would be substantially less than the 1970s (adjusted for inflation). This is not a positive for people or the economy.

Inflation-adjusted median household income: 1973: $50,083, 2017: $61,372 -- that's up 22.5% in 44 years, but there are a lot more 2-earner household incomes now than back then,
https://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php

Inflation-adjusted Average earnings of production and non-supervisory workers (1982-1984 dollars) (Aug 1973: $9.18, 2019: $9.45, up 2.9% in 46 years
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000032

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #26)

Fri Oct 11, 2019, 12:22 PM

35. Going to school is voluntary

I don't think there's anything you can say to change my mind on that one.

Furthermore, it's voluntary in the sense of the labor force participation rate, since we're talking about people that are specifically not looking for a job now because they are studying to get a better job later. You may not like the choice they made or you may think they shouldn't have had to make that choice but they did and they're not in the labor force by choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #35)

Fri Oct 11, 2019, 12:53 PM

38. "You may not like the choice they made ..."

What I care about is whether they like the choice they made, not whether you or I like the choice they made.

In 1970 I "volunteered" to join the Navy so as to not get drafted into the Vietnam War. It really wasn't voluntary -- it was avoiding a worse situation of ending up as an Army private on the ground in Vietnam.

Likewise, spending years and years in school after high school just to earn much above $15/hour and accumulating 10's of K$ in debt is only "voluntary" when it is the only alternative to living at near poverty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #18)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 07:03 PM

27. "More families are opting into staying at home to raise children" Really?

-More families are opting into staying at home to raise children, even if only for a few years. More than in the past, men are doing this.


I thought birth rates were dropping precipitously. And "More families are opting into staying at home to raise children" - compared to when? I can believe compared to the depths of the Great Recession (at least as far as voluntarily staying at home), but what about 20 or more years ago? Compared to back when female labor force participation rates were a lot lower? I doubt it.

As for men staying at home more often than in the past, yes, without a doubt, but I read recently ("Man Out" ) that that accounted for less than 1% of the male labor force participation rate. And that is almost always done in lieu of the female staying home with the children, i.e. it enables the woman to continue in paid employment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #27)

Fri Oct 11, 2019, 12:18 PM

33. "Really?" Are you asking if I typed that?

Yes, I typed that. The context was as a possible explanations for the prime working age population to be out of labor force.

The comparison would be with the last 2 decades. Prior to that, as you say, women were still entering the workforce. I did look up a few of the data reports on working families but it's hard to tell with just my eyeballing. I think a more sophisticated analysis would have to be involved to account for overall state of the labor force over time. Again, as you say, a statistic on parental employment doesn't mean much when they might be staying at home in the middle of a recession.

I haven't read Man Out but if it measured a change, even if less than 1%, then that does speak to a (small) cultural change in the prime age labor force. None of the changes need to be large or all-encompassing. Small changes can add up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #33)

Fri Oct 11, 2019, 01:36 PM

40. I don't believe there are more adults voluntarily staying at home with their children

Yes, I typed that. The context was as a possible explanations for the prime working age population to be out of labor force.


I don't believe there are more adults voluntarily staying at home caring for their children now then there have been on average in the past 2 decades, quite the opposite. People are having fewer children.

I haven't read Man Out but if it measured a change, even if less than 1%, then that does speak to a (small) cultural change in the prime age labor force. None of the changes need to be large or all-encompassing. Small changes can add up.


I think you missed my point that instead of the woman being the one that almost always stays at home to care take, now it's a relatively very small number of men who sometimes do that instead of the woman (not along with the woman) ...

(from my #27) And that is almost always done in lieu of the female staying home with the children, i.e. it enables the woman to continue in paid employment.


I don't think they are BOTH voluntarily staying at home with the children. It's always one or the other (where it is financially possible for anyone to not be bringing in income)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #18)

Fri Oct 11, 2019, 12:52 AM

31. That's just stupid"

 


"As wealth has become more concentrated and intergenerational wealth less taxed, there are more people living the trust-fund lifestyle than in the past."

That makes no sense at at all. If wealth is becoming more concentrated, that would then mean less people are able to live "the trust-fund lifestyle."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me_not_you (Reply #31)

Fri Oct 11, 2019, 12:31 PM

36. Here's how it could work

It may seem like a contradiction but it's not.

Imagine if everybody in America had the average income. $60k per year per family. How many trust fund 25 year olds living it up in the big city? Zero.

Imagine we live in today's America where many families are very wealthy. How many trust fund 25 year olds living it up in the big city? MORE than zero.

So, as wealth becomes more concentrated from full equality to what we have today, the number of trust funders INCREASES. See? Not stupid.

Whether that's happening more now, how much it's happening, and how much family wealth might be needed to support such things are all open questions, as far as I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #36)

Fri Oct 11, 2019, 12:46 PM

37. Imagine there's no heaven, Imagine all the people, Imagine there's no countries

 

Are you trying rewrite 'Imagine' by John Lennon?

You premise holds true if we imagine, but given we live within an objective reality with history you present a false premise. So yes, this idea is in fact stupid. Try using actual data to construct an argument. Lets stay away from conjecture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 02:50 PM

10. Unemployment rate declines to 3.5% in September; payroll employment increases by 136,000

Well, let's do it.

If I go over to the Walmart to buy a case of beer after work this afternoon, I'll walk right past the BLS. Is there anything you want me to tell them?

Unemployment rate declines to 3.5% in September; payroll employment increases by 136,000

Economic News USDL-19-1735
Employment Situation Summary
Transmission of material in this news release is embargoed until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, October 4, 2019

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 -- SEPTEMBER 2019


The unemployment rate declined to 3.5 percent in September, and total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 136,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment in health care and in professional and business services continued to trend up.

This news release presents statistics from two monthly surveys. The household survey measures labor force status, including unemployment, by demographic characteristics. The establishment survey measures nonfarm employment, hours, and earnings by industry. For more information about the concepts and statistical methodology used in these two surveys, see the Technical Note.

Household Survey Data

In September, the unemployment rate declined by 0.2 percentage point to 3.5 percent. The last time the rate was this low was in December 1969, when it also was 3.5 percent. Over the month, the number of unemployed persons decreased by 275,000 to 5.8 million. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for Whites declined to 3.2 percent in September. The jobless rates for adult men (3.2 percent), adult women (3.1 percent), teenagers (12.5 percent), Blacks (5.5 percent), Asians (2.5 percent), and Hispanics (3.9 percent) showed little or no change over the month. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs declined by 304,000 to 2.6 million in September, while the number of new entrants increased by 103,000 to 677,000. New entrants are unemployed persons who never previously worked. (See table A-11.)

In September, the number of persons unemployed for less than 5 weeks fell by 339,000 to 1.9 million. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 1.3 million and accounted for 22.7 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)

The labor force participation rate held at 63.2 percent in September. The employment-population ratio, at 61.0 percent, was little changed over the month but was up by 0.6 percentage point over the year. (See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged at 4.4 million in September. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.)

In September, 1.3 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by 278,000 from a year earlier. (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 321,000 discouraged workers in September, little changed from a year earlier. (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 978,000 persons marginally attached to the labor force in September 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 136,000 in September. Job growth has averaged 161,000 per month thus far in 2019, compared with an average monthly gain of 223,000 in 2018. In September, employment continued to trend up in health care and in professional and business services. (See table B-1.)

In September, health care added 39,000 jobs, in line with its average monthly gain over the prior 12 months. Ambulatory health care services (+29,000) and hospitals (+8,000) added jobs over the month.

Employment in professional and business services continued to trend up in September (+34,000). The industry has added an average of 35,000 jobs per month thus far in 2019, compared with 47,000 jobs per month in 2018.

Employment in government continued on an upward trend in September (+22,000). Federal hiring for the 2020 Census was negligible (+1,000). Government has added 147,000 jobs over the past 12 months, largely in local government.

Employment in transportation and warehousing edged up in September (+16,000). Within the industry, job growth occurred in transit and ground passenger transportation (+11,000) and in couriers and messengers (+4,000).

Retail trade employment changed little in September (-11,000). Within the industry, clothing and clothing accessories stores lost 14,000 jobs, while food and beverage stores added 9,000 jobs. Since reaching a peak in January 2017, retail trade has lost 197,000 jobs.

Employment in other major industries, including mining, construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, information, financial activities, and leisure and hospitality, showed little change over the month.

In September, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls, at $28.09, were little changed (-1 cent), after rising by 11 cents in August. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by 2.9 percent. In September, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees rose by 4 cents to $23.65. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 34.4 hours in September. In manufacturing, the average workweek and overtime remained at 40.5 hours and 3.2 hours, respectively. The average workweek of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees held at 33.6 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for July was revised up by 7,000 from +159,000 to +166,000, and the change for August was revised up by 38,000 from +130,000 to +168,000. With these revisions, employment gains in July and August combined were 45,000 more than previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.) After revisions, job gains have averaged 157,000 per month over the last 3 months.

_____________
The Employment Situation for October is scheduled to be released on Friday, November 1, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).

* * * * *

[center]Facilities for Sensory Impaired[/center]

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #10)


Response to progree (Reply #13)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 03:26 PM

14. That reminds me. I'm out of potato salad.

It's a seasonal item at the Aldi, and it's already gone from the shelves. Walmart sells it year-round.

Thanks. Enjoy the weekend. You too, BumRushDaShow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #13)


Response to mathematic (Reply #19)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 04:03 PM

21. Actually I was thinking of Trump admin bragging about the low unemployment rate and how fantastic

the economy is. That's why I included the MAGA! Sorry about the confusion. Anyway, I self-deleted to avoid the confusion and that it doesn't add anything to the discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #21)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 04:09 PM

23. Ok, no prob. I did the same

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #10)

Fri Oct 11, 2019, 12:54 AM

32. lol

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 03:37 PM

15. The mind-numbing rant, based on a version posted on the first Friday in September 2016:

For everyone who thinks the BLS is just making this stuff up, there's contact information in here. You can write them and let them know you're on to them.

Last edited 4:40 p.m., Friday, October 4, 2019.

I used to run this every month in the commentary in the zeroeth post. It explains just about every aspect of the monthly report.

[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 thread. Here is the latest version:

EF-0. Economic Statistics with links to official sources

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.

[font color="red"]New material, added August 29, 2016:[/font] Print title, Washington Post, Saturday, March 10, 2012, front page, above the fold: "Watching the clock: Monthly data release is an economic, political obsession timed to the nanosecond"

‘Jobs Day’: Monthly release of employment data an economic, political obsession

By Eli Saslow
http://twitter.com/elisaslow

March 9, 2012

The release of employment numbers by the Bureau of Labor Statistics has long been a ritual in Washington, but lately it has turned into an obsession during an election year defined by economic instability. Once each month, a nondescript government agency compiles and releases 24 tables of economic data that have come to define the 2012 election and so much else. Republican presidential candidates turn the numbers into speeches. The president’s staff monitors how they affect his approval rating. The Federal Reserve reevaluates interest rates. Investors prepare for the stock market to rise or fall, sometimes swinging in value by $150 billion in the minutes after the report is released.
....

The raw data had arrived at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), like always, on Wednesday the week before the report’s release: millions of characters representing survey information from 55,000 households; and then, a few days later, monthly payroll data from 486,000 businesses. Kosanovich’s boss posted a two-page schedule on the office wall, detailing the tasks ahead for a team of more than 20 economists. They would be required to make a series of six deadlines. Their work would undergo 15 fact checks and then 15 clearance reviews. They would sit together in a windowless conference room and read aloud from their eventual creation, a three-page news release and 24 data tables, debating commas and verbs for hours on end.

They would do it all with absolute discretion during an eight-day security lockdown, signing confidentiality agreements each morning, encrypting their computers and locking data into a safe every time they walked 10 yards away to use a bathroom. “Is your workstation secure?” asked a sign in the hallway. They all remembered the last security miscue, in November 2008 — the accidental transmission of some data to one wire service a full 25 seconds before the report’s scheduled release, an incident that had necessitated a series of internal investigations and revisions.

“We always tape paper over the windows of the conference room or draw the shades,” Kosanovich said about her typical routine during a lockdown. She made a habit of refraining from answering phone calls or e-mails from unknown numbers and never discussing data outside her office. For eight days, nobody visited her team’s floor at BLS without a security clearance. The custodial staff did not empty their trash until the report was released.
....


[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.

[font color="red"]New material, added March 9, 2018:[/font]

People often wonder how in the world the BLS comes up with all this information. This article from two months ago will help explain things:

Monthly Labor Review

JANUARY 2018

The Current Population Survey—tracking unemployment in the United States for over 75 years

For more than three-quarters of a century, the Current Population Survey has been a vital tool for providing information on U.S. unemployment and other aspects of labor market performance. This article highlights major developments in the survey’s history.

The Current Population Survey (CPS) has been conducted for more than three-quarters of a century.1 From the outset, the main purpose of the survey has been to gather information on the employment status of the U.S. population, with an emphasis on the measurement of unemployment. CPS data have been used by policymakers and others to gauge both the degree of labor market weakness during recessions and the strength of the job market in economic expansions. More than 900 monthly reports on national employment and unemployment have been issued since the survey began in March 1940.

The survey also has been used to provide a wealth of information on a wide range of other subjects—some related to the labor market and some unrelated—through supplemental questions to the basic survey instrument. Over the years, supplements to the CPS have been used to collect data on topics ranging from income and worker displacement to tobacco use and participation in the arts.

The main objective of the CPS, however, has always been to measure unemployment and other aspects of labor market performance. This article summarizes some of the major developments in achieving this goal over the past three-quarters of a century.
....


[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]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


[center]What About Employment on Farms?[/center]

[font color="red"]New material, added May 4, 2018:[/font]

Note that the BLS measures only "nonfarm payroll employment."

Nonfarm payrolls

I'm hoping the following link goes to an impartial site:

What is 'Nonfarm Payroll'

So who measures employment on farms? Hmmmmmm....

United States Department of Agriculture
Economic Research Service

Farm Labor

ERS provides information on a range of farm labor issues, including:

Size and composition of the U.S. agricultural workforce (self-employed versus hired)

Recent trends in the employment of hired farmworkers

Demographic characteristics of hired farmworkers, including age, sex, and nativity

Geographic distribution of hired farmworkers (all occupations)

Wages of hired farmworkers

Labor cost share of total gross revenues

H-2A temporary agricultural visa program

Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR)

Legal status and migration practices of hired crop farmworkers

Finally, we provide links to key data sources with summaries.

[font color="red"]New material, added August 8, 2016:[/font]

This appeared at the top of page A2 in the Wednesday, July 27, 2016, print edition of The Wall Street Journal. as "Jobless Picture is Open to Interpretation."

Jobless Picture is Open to Interpretation

Gauges used to measure unemployment vary in how they define who is out of work {print: "Political campaigns clash over different ways of measuring unemployment"}



By Josh Zumbrun
josh.zumbrun@wsj.com
@JoshZumbrun

July 26, 2016 7:56 p.m. ET

Because political campaigns can rise and fall on the health of the economy, spats often flare over the gauges used to measure growth and unemployment.

The latest dust-up, raised by the campaign of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, focuses on the monthly employment numbers. A long streak of hiring has nudged the jobless rate down to 4.9%. ... Donald Trump Jr., the nominee’s son, recently criticized the official statistics as “artificial numbers…massaged to make the existing economy look good.”

The nominee himself has said unemployment is far higher than the Labor Department’s headline 4.9% rate would suggest, part of his message that the economy is in a dire state. After he won the New Hampshire primary in February, Mr. Trump called the official jobless figures “phony” and said the real number could be as high as 42%.

This isn’t the first time people have cast aspersions on the jobs numbers in an election year, but the Trump claim is also part of a larger discussion over how best to assess the health of the labor market.

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]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 September 30, 2016:[/font]

September 2016

Labor force participation: what has happened since the peak?

The labor force participation rate is the percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and older that is working or actively looking for work. It is an important labor market measure because it represents the relative amount of labor resources available for the production of goods and services. After rising for more than three decades, the overall labor force participation rate peaked in early 2000 and subsequently trended down. In recent years, the movement of the baby-boom population into age groups that generally exhibit low labor force participation has contributed to the decline in the overall participation rate. From 2000 to 2015, most of the major demographic groups saw a decrease in labor force participation. Teenagers experienced the largest drop in participation, which coincided with a rise in their school enrollment rate. Young adults 20 to 24 years also showed a decline in labor force participation, but the decrease was not as steep as that for teenagers. The labor force participation rate of women 25 to 54 years also fell, with the decrease more pronounced for women who did not attend college. The labor force participation rate of men 25 to 54 years continued its long-term decline. As in the past, the decrease in participation among men with less education was greater than that of men with more education. However, labor force participation rates of men and women 55 years and older rose from 2000 to 2009 and subsequently leveled off.

[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? (1) — 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.

(1)

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

chico.harlan@washpost.com
@chicoharlan

....
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 https://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 July 8, 2017:[/font]

The power of the president over the economy is limited

By Ezra Klein January 13, 2012

....
But it would be even better if voters had a consistent benchmark for judging a president’s performance. The question — and it’s a tough one — is how to separate the very real influence the president has on the economy from the myriad other factors that weigh on whether consumers spend and businesses hire. So I put the issue to an exclusive club of economists who have an unusually fine-grained understanding of what the president can and can’t do: the former chairs of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers. And I asked each the same question: How much of national job creation during a presidency can we properly attribute to the president?

“Very little,” wrote Harvard’s Martin Feldstein in an e-mail. Feldstein led the CEA under Reagan, and he didn’t see much role for the president in normal economic times. “The key is growth of population and labor force participation. Policy — primarily monetary policy — affects cyclical conditions and therefore the unemployment rate. Fiscal policy is usually irrelevant but with interest rates at the current level there has been a role for fiscal policy.”

Laura D’Andrea Tyson, a Berkeley economist who served under President Clinton, emphasized the need to consider timing in our evaluations. “There are significant lags between the time a President proposes a policy, the time it is enacted by Congress and the time necessary for it to take effect,” she wrote to me. “These lags should be taken into account in measuring the economy’s job performance under a President. The first year probably should not count at all in terms of assessing the effects of a new Administration’s policies.”

Greg Mankiw, a Harvard economist who served as CEA chair under George W. Bush, directed me to a blog post he had written on the subject. “Randomness is a fact of economic life,” Mankiw wrote, “and it would be a mistake to judge a president by the economic outcome during his administration. It is better to look at the decisions the president made, and to acknowledge that the outcome is a function of those decisions and many other factors not under his control. As an economist, I have views about what best practices are for economic policy, and I judge presidents by how closely they adhere to those principles.” ... “Unfortunately,” he concluded, “that evaluation process is not quite as simple and objective as the reader might have hoped for. But I don’t think there is a better alternative.”
....

kleine@washpost.com
https://twitter.com/ezraklein

[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

and for BLS reports only:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Release Calendar

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #15)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 03:42 PM

16. Thanks for getting your info in today! TGIF

and hope you enjoy the nice fall weekend coming up!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #16)

Fri Oct 4, 2019, 03:44 PM

17. I'm taking some old stuff that doesn't fit anymore to the thrift store.

Last edited Fri Oct 11, 2019, 08:48 AM - Edit history (1)

Errands, basically. Maybe watch some teevee. Not you-know-who.

I wonder what's on Svengoolie this week.

Thanks again for the thread. It can turn into a lot of work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Sat Oct 5, 2019, 09:08 PM

28. OMFG, look at this -- the long-term unemployed as a percent of the unemployed

One of many factors that former Fed Chair Janet Yellen has cited as indicative of people having trouble finding jobs compared to past times with low unemployment rates. ( https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20140822a.htm ). Well sadly this percentage is way high -- about where it was at the worst parts of bad labor markets in the past. When it should be way down to what they were in the best parts.

I know, some will say it's just a number that is not supposed to be anything, whatever, its just a number or somesuch. Or that it's good that people are not jumping at the first job offer or whatever. Others, such as myself and Yellen and many economists (one can Google to see many discussions about this), see it as at least in large part a sign that it's taking longer to find jobs, i.e. one of many signs of labor market distress.

Anyway, the OMFG graph of the long-term unemployed (those unemployed 27 weeks or longer) as a percent of the unemployed is at FRED: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS1302570



In 9/1/69 the percent of long-term unemployed (as a percent of all unemployed) was 4.9%, whereas in 9/1/19 it was 22.7% (but it wiggles a lot -- the average of the last 6 months is 21.6%)

I can and will hunt for other times with very low overall unemployment rates, but this will do for now. The interested reader can of course contribute data and analysis. These things take an hour or two or more to make/write.

# BLS - Unemployed (aka the overall unemployed) in thousands -- this is the numerator of the official U-3 unemployment rates that the Trumpsters and a few others are gurgling ecstatically about that proves "with evidence" we're in a labor market nirvana:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13000000

# BLS - Unemployment rate (U-3, the official unemployment rate), percent
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

# BLS - Long-term unemployed - unemployed for 27 weeks or longer, in thousands
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13008636

# BLS - Long-term unemployed - unemployed for 27 weeks or longer, as a percent of all unemployed:
I don't think the BLS has a data timeseries for this, but one can do some spreadsheet work using the BLS data above (the ones expressed in thousands) and calculating percents. Fortunately FRED has it (below). FRED is the Federal Reserve Board of St. Louis

# FRED - Long-term unemployed - unemployed for 27 weeks or longer, as a percent of all unemployed:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS13025703

(I've embedded the graph near the beginning of this post)

The official unemployment level in thousands, and the rate (U-3) is jobless people who have actively sought work in the last 4 weeks (something more than just looking at want ads), say they want a job, and are available to work

The long term unemployed in the above is a subset of the above -- these people meet all the criteria of the above criteria, it's just that they have been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer. So we're basically talking about people who have been out of work for more than 6 months and have also looked for work in the past 4 weeks.

To emphasize, the unemployed in this posting are people who have actively sought work in the past 4 weeks..

# FRED tip - to see the data, one can mouse over a point on the graph. To get a table of ALL of the data, first notice the following on the far left side just above the graph itself:
Observation:
Sep 2019: 22.7 (+ more)
Updated: Oct 4, 2019


Then click on the (+ more) to display the last 5 data points. This pulldown will also have a big blue "View All" button
Click on the "View All" button and it will display a text file with all of the data, currently https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/LNS13025703.txt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #28)

Fri Oct 11, 2019, 12:18 PM

34. Using the # of unemployed in that measure distorts it

If the long term unemployed consists of two populations
1) People that can't find now but will be able to as the economy continues to improve
2) People that can't find jobs no matter how good the economy gets

then using the # of unemployed as the denominator will naturally show your measure to be increasing as the economy improves. Say, the second group was 1%. 1/3 > 1/4, even though the number of people in that group hasn't changed.

I think a better way to look at long term unemployment is as a % of the labor force because this indicates how many long term unemployed people there actually are, as opposed to relating them to the number of other unemployed people.

The chart shows that we're currently at the 2000s boom level, which is about the same as the 90s expansion just before the peak (so not 98-00). Ditto with the 80s, before the last 2 years of the 80s peak. Ultimately the difference is .2-.3% of the labor force, despite being a large proportion of the long term unemployed, is small enough that I don't think there's going to be any definitive explanation for it.

Chart (I had trouble embedding so I badly screengrabbed it):


Link to chart:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=p8Px

All of this is a lot of detail to basically say "the labor market now is similar to periods in the last 4 decades where people considered the labor market excellent, when considering the long term unemployed" and this seems to be the opposite of what you conclude, for some reason.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #34)

Fri Oct 11, 2019, 01:15 PM

39. "then using the # of unemployed as the denominator will naturally show your measure to be increasing

Huh?

Here's the graph again -- if it supposedly "naturally shows (Progree's) measure to be increasing", then why does it trend down every time that the economy improves?



All of this is a lot of detail to basically say "the labor market now is similar to periods in the last 4 decades where people considered the labor market excellent,


I don't know what "people" considered the economy "excellent" over the last 4 decades. I never have, but that's because I grew up in the 1950's and 1960s, and it was a hell of a lot better economy than we've had since 1973 or so (oil embargo, high inflation, than stagflation), than Reaganomics followed, and ever growing inequality which has continued to grow to this day. And benefits disappearing -- virtually gone are pensions and retiree health care and stable jobs.

On labor force statistics (leaving aside wages and benefits and quality of jobs), in general I concede that many of them are very good compared to the average of the last several decades. But they are nowhere near as good as they were the last time the official unemployment rate is 3.5% -- in 1969. My whole point is that there is more slack in the labor market than in past periods where the unemployment rate was in the under-4% range. I don't argue that there is a LOT of slack.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #39)

Fri Oct 11, 2019, 01:42 PM

41. Yeah, I took a shortcut in that explanation

I didn't want to get too bogged down with it so I tried to give a short example.

I described the long term unemployed in 2 distinct categories. The first category, which is people that are LT unemployed because of the business cycle. That number will absolutely decline when unemployment declines. The second category are the people that might be considered structurally unemployed. They're unemployed and no matter how hot the economy gets they won't be able to find employment. THAT is the cause of the distortion at low unemployment levels. The measure you use is dominated by the category 1 people most of the time, which is why you see such a strong relationship with the business cycle.

The short example I gave was with 1% LT unemployment. When the overall unemployment rate is 4% your measure shows 25% when the unemployment rate improves to 3% and with the same number of LT unemployed of 1% your measure shows 33%. So despite not having any more LT unemployed your measure shows an increase.
(I've re-edited this a bunch to try to improve the clarity. I kept trying to incorporate both of my descriptive categories in the example but I don't think it's necessary to the explanation and I wasn't doing it well anyway).

My comment about an excellent labor market was specifically at those points in time. I know that the economy has been far from excellent many times over the last 4 decades. But in '87, '97, and '06 were all recognized as easy times to get jobs. Honestly, I don't like comparing the job market back to the 70s because it sure as hell wasn't easy to get a job back then unless you were a man. Even the 80s is a transition decade to our current level of gender and racial disparity in the labor force (which is still not equal, of course).

To your point, there's definitely more slack now than in '69, '89, or '99. I'd even go so far as to compare it to '06, '97, and '87, where the long term unemployed accounted for .7% of the labor force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mathematic (Reply #41)

Fri Oct 11, 2019, 02:34 PM

42. Easy times to get jobs - almost always it's easy to find crap jobs

My comment about an excellent labor market was specifically at those points in time. I know that the economy has been far from excellent many times over the last 4 decades. But in '87, '97, and '06 were all recognized as easy times to get jobs. Honestly, I don't like comparing the job market back to the 70s because it sure as hell wasn't easy to get a job back then unless you were a man. Even the 80s is a transition decade to our current level of gender and racial disparity in the labor force (which is still not equal, of course).


I don't know who recognized that '87, '97, and '06 were easy times to get (non-crap) jobs. They were, relative to the surrounding years, yes, but not like pre-1973. And I don't have remember '06 as being an "easy" job market!

As for "it sure as hell wasn't easy to get a job back then unless you were a man." in the 1970s - Women were entering the professions in droves, and affirmative action was a big thing. I was around.

Now if we're talking about the 1950's and 1960's (and yes, I've referenced those years too as having better labor statistics than ever since for the most part), I'd still say it was easy for a woman to find a job -- just not a very good job for most (similar to today but now for both genders -- there are always plenty of crummy jobs, and back then, pink-collar ghetto jobs). But since the unemployment rate, the LFPR, and all the other labor force statistics that are ballyhood in the media and by the Trumpsters don't say anything about the quality of jobs (wages and BENEFITS and job security) -- they just look at counts of the employed and the unemployed and ratios and percentages based on them -- and we're supposed to conclude from that how great the economy is, and too many brush aside the details.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 06:58 PM

29. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Dec 6, 2019, 10:06 AM

43. Links to earlier reports:

I added this on December 6, 2019, as I had not included this post back in October.

[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 November 2019:

U.S. private sector job growth slows down sharply in November: ADP

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in October 2019:

U.S. economy added 128,000 jobs in October as GM strike displaced workers; jobless rate ticks up

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in September 2019:

U.S. economy added just 136,000 jobs in September, in fresh sign economy is cooling

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in September 2019:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 135,000 Jobs in September

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in August 2019:

U.S. economy adds just 130,000 jobs in August amid worries

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in August 2019:

Survey: Businesses added a solid 195,000 jobs in August

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in July 2019:

U.S. Added 164,000 Jobs in July; Unemployment Rate at 3.7 Percent

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in July 2019:

ADP says 156,000 private-sector jobs added created in July

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in June 2019:

Hiring rebounds as U.S. economy adds 224,000 jobs in June;unemployment rate inched up to 3.7 percent

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in June 2019:

U.S. private sector hiring picks up less than expected in June: ADP

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in May 2019:

The U.S. economy added only 75,000 jobs in May amid bite from Trump's trade war

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in May 2019:

ADP private-sector job growth tumbles to a 9-year low in May

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in April 2019:

UPDATE: U.S. unemployment fell to 3.6 percent, lowest since 1969

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in April 2019:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 275,000 Jobs in April

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in March 2019:

UPDATE: U.S. added 196,000 jobs in March as economy shows signs of spring bounce

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in March 2019:

Private sector hiring falls to 18-month low, and manufacturing sheds jobs, ADP says

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in February 2019:

U.S. adds meager 20,000 jobs in February to mark smallest increase in 17 months

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in February 2019:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 183,000 Jobs in February

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in January 2019:

U.S. creates 304,000 jobs in January, unemployment rises to 4%

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in January 2019:

U.S. added 213,000 private-sector jobs in January, ADP says

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in December 2018:

Payroll employment increases by 312,000 in December; unemployment rate rises to 3.9%

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in December 2018:

U.S. adds most private-sector jobs in almost 2 years, says ADP

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in November 2018:

Payroll employment increases by 155,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged at 3.7%

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in November 2018:

U.S. adds 179,000 private-sector jobs in November: ADP

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in October 2018:

The U.S. economy added 250,000 jobs in October, unemployment stays at 3.7 percent

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in October 2018:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 227,000 Jobs in October 2018:

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in September 2018:

Unemployment rate declines to 3.7% in September; payroll employment increases by 134,000

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in September 2018:

U.S. adds 230,000 private-sector jobs in September: ADP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread