HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Unemployment rate decline... » Reply #8

Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 12:47 PM

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

Here are some summary tables of the key May 2016 jobs reports statistics from the Establishment Survey and the Household Survey released on June 3, 2016.

A narrative "Detailed Discussion" section follows these tables.

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

+0.1% Unemployment rate

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

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

[font color=blue]OVER THE LAST MONTH[/font]:
== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ==
(vv) +38,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment ( CES0000000001 )

== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (warning: this survey's monthly change figures are very statistically noisy) ==
(vv) -458,000 Labor Force (employed + jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)

(vv) +26,000 Employed

(^^) -484,000 Unemployed (jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)
` ` ` The last 3 lines overall is bad news: 458,000 fewer people either employed or
` ` ` looking for work in the past 4 weeks, and only a 26,000 increase in employment.
` ` ` The difference is the officially unemployed. In short, only 26,000 more people are
` ` ` employed and an additional 458,000 jobless people stopped looking for work
` ` ` in the past 4 weeks. But like all Household survey raw numbers, it is wildly volatile
` ` ` from month to month

(0 ) -0.0% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (it's at 59.7%)

(vv) -0.2% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (it's at 62.6%)
` ` ` It is only 0.2% above a multi-decade low of 62.4% reached in September 2015.

(0 ) -0.3% Unemployment rate (it's at 4.7%). Is Unemployed (as defined above) / Labor Force [N864.HM].
` ` ` By itself, it looks great, a huge decline to a multi- multi- year low. But this month's
` ` ` decline is caused mostly by a 458,000 drop in the labor force - fewer people looking for
` ` ` work in the past 4 weeks. So I'll give this a neutral rating. Its mostly monthly volatility
` ` ` anyway.

(0 ) 0.0% U-6 unemployment rate (it's at 9.7%) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709

(v ) +0.1% "U-7" unemployment rate: Counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job,
` ` ` no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want
` ` ` full time work (it's at 12.0%)

(vv) +130,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639

(vv) +468,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
` ` ` An astonishing increase (volatitlity, volatility). Over the past 12 months its declined
` ` ` by 170,000.

(0 ) +139,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9).

(vv) -59,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9) - Ruh Roh, the righties will be making an enormous
` ` ` hoohah about this as they always do when some number in the extremely very volatile
` ` ` Household Survey comes out the way they want it to come out. And then they will try
` ` ` to make it seem like this is the story of the whole Obama administration. Well, not
` ` ` quite. Over the past year, full-time workers went up by 1.7 million, and since the jobs
` ` ` market bottom in Feb 2010, it went up by 12.4 million.

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

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

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

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

[font color=blue]OVER THE LAST YEAR (last 12 months)[/font]:
==== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ====
+2,398,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+1.70% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is 11 months thru April because no CPI data for May yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ========
+1,099,000 Labor Force
+2,282,000 Employed
-1,183,000 Unemployed
+0.3% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate
-0.2% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate)
-0.8% Unemployment rate
-1.0% U-6 unemployment rate (fabulous. it includes anyone that looked for work even once in the past year)
-1.0% "U-7" unemployment rate: Counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job,
` ` ` no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want
` ` ` full time work
-124,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
-170,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
+484,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+1,720,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

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

All the "over the last year" numbers are really good numbers except the Labor Force Participation Rate shows a 0.2% drop to 62.6% which is only 0.2 percentage points above a multi-decade low. Interesting though that there was a 0.3% percentage point INcrease in the Employment To Population Ratio. So we have the labor force participation rate going in one direction, and the employment to population ratio going in another direction. The Population being talked about is the civilian non-institutional population age 16 and over, yes, including all elderly people, even centenarians .

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

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

[font color=blue]SINCE THE PAYROLL EMPLOYMENT RECOVERY BEGAN -- Last 75 months thru May 31, 2016: 5'16 - 2'10[/font]:
(This is the period from when continuous growth of payroll employment began, thru May 31, 2016)
==== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ====
+14,245,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+5.37% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is thru April 2016 because no CPI data for May yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ====
+4,772,000 Labor Force
+12,449,000 Employed
-7,677,000 Unemployed
+1.2% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (woo hoo!)
-2.3% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (ughh)
-5.1% Unemployment rate
-7.3% U-6 unemployment rate
-6.8% "U-7" unemployment rate: Counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job,
` ` ` no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want
` ` ` full time work
-175,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
-2,506,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
+309,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+12,357,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

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

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]4.4% 4.0% 3.9% 4.3%
A very nice decrease from May 2015 through April 2016, but unfortunately a big jump in May -- to almost the same level as a year ago.
[closes the light blue highlight tag begun b4 the 1st table]

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

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


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

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

What kind of Wages?

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

Again, the above are INFLATION-ADJUSTED earnings

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Council of Economic Advisors' Take on the Jobs Report
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/06/03/employment-situation-may . (find this at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/blog or http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea
and look for the last "The Employment Situation in" post). Or Google what's in between the {}'s: {site:whitehouse.gov employment situation in May}

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

mahatmakanejeeves thread - very comprehensive OP each month when the jobs report comes out, as well as additional material he posts to the thread in the following hours. Watch the OP for edits too. And the thread for more material
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141474623

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

6/3/16 -

At best an abysmal jobs report this month Just 38,000 net new nonfarm payroll employment in May. March and April were revised down by a combined 59,000. So we have 21,000 FEWER payroll employees than we did in last month's report ( 38 - 59 = -21 ).

The Household Survey shows an employment increase of just 26,000. This on top of a DEcrease of 316,000 in April. (For a longer perspective, employment has grown by 2,282,000 over the past 12 months, pretty closely matching the 2,398,000 payroll jobs increase in the Establishment Survey)

Also the labor force went down by 458,000 (mostly due to a drop in the number of people looking for work -- 26,000 stopped looking for work for a happy reason -- because they found employment. But the rest is a net reduction in the number of jobless people who looked for work in the last 4 weeks, and so who are no longer counted as officially unemployed in the headline unemployment statistic.

(For a longer perspective, the Labor Force has grown by 1,099,000 over the past 12 months). The labor force is essentially the sum of the employed plus jobless people who looked for work in the past 4 weeks.

Anyway, the reason I'm not celebrating the drop in the official unemployment rate from 5.0% in April to 4.7% in May is because it was mostly produced by a massive drop in the number of people looking for work in the past 4 weeks. (But month - to - month changes in Household Survey statistics are more statistical noise than real changes to what it is that we are trying to measure).

The number of part-time workers wanting full-time work increased a massive 468,000. Over the past 12 months, there has been a decline of 170,000 in this number.

The broader measures of unemployment -- U-6 and U-7 -- were roughly stable -- U-6 stayed unchanged at 9.7%, while Paul Solman's "U-7" increase by 0.1 percentage points to 12.0%.

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

Perhaps the worst number in today's Household Survey, besides the massive increase in part-timers wanting full-time work, is that there are 59,000 FEWER Full-Time Workers in May than in April. Ruh Roh, the righties will be making an enormous hoohah about this as they always do when some number in the extremely very volatile Household Survey comes out the way they want it to come out. And then they will try to make it seem like this is the story of the whole Obama administration.

Well, not quite. Over the past 12 months, part-timers wanting full-time work went down by 170,000. And full-time workers went up by 1.7 million. And since the jobs market bottom in Feb 2010, part-timers wanting full-time work went down by 2.5 million, while full-time workers went up by 12.4 million.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 14 replies Author Time Post
mahatmakanejeeves Jun 2016 OP
philosslayer Jun 2016 #1
BumRushDaShow Jun 2016 #2
IronLionZion Jun 2016 #3
Recursion Jun 2016 #4
rladdi Jun 2016 #5
IronLionZion Jun 2016 #6
Dhantesvz Jun 2016 #7
mahatmakanejeeves Jun 2016 #10
progree Jun 2016 #11
LineNew Reply Over the past month, over the past year, and since February 2010
progree Jun 2016 #8
mahatmakanejeeves Jun 2016 #9
GummyBearz Jun 2016 #12
mahatmakanejeeves Jun 2016 #13
GummyBearz Jun 2016 #14
Please login to view edit histories.