Payroll employment increases by 156,000 in September; unemployment rate little changed...

[progree]

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

Last edited Fri Oct 7, 2016, 03:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Here are some summary tables of the key September 2016 jobs reports statistics from the Establishment Survey and the Household Survey released on October 7, 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, (F) indicates very bad, (D) indicates bad, (C) indicates neutral, (B) indicates good, (A) indicates very good

[font color=blue]OVER THE LAST MONTH[/font]:
== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ==
(A ) +156,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment ( CES0000000001 )

== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (warning: this survey's monthly change figures are very statistically noisy) ==
(A ) +444,000 Labor Force (employed + jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)

(A ) +354,000 Employed. Note it is much greater than
` ` ` the +156,000 increase in payroll employment. Go figure. (The latter is far
` ` ` less volatile due to a much larger sample).

(D ) +90,000 Unemployed (jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)

(A ) +0.1% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (it's at 59.8%)

(A ) +0.1% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (it's at 62.9%)
` ` ` It is only 0.5% above a multi-decade low of 62.4% reached in September 2015.
` ` ` OTOH, that 0.5% increase in this tough statistic in 12 months is really nice

(D ) +0.1% Unemployment rate (it's at 5.0%). Is Unemployed (as defined above) / Labor Force [N864.HM].
` ` ` Caused by a large increase in the number of people seeking jobs in the last 4 weeks,
` ` ` partly offset by those finding employment. Basically 444,000 more people looked for
` ` ` work in the past 4 weeks, and 354,000 found jobs. The remaining 90,000 raised the
` ` ` unemployed count. Overall, I'm happy that so many additional started looking for
` ` ` work and so many found jobs. But I'll still rate an uptick in the unemployment rate
` ` ` as a "D". (The month to month changes are more statistical noise than signal
` ` ` anyway, so none of this is a big deal. It's why I present longer time perspectives
` ` ` in the next sections).

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

(D ) +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. (U-7 is now at 12.0%). This is not good. Although over the past 12
` ` ` months it has ticked down by 0.2%.

(F ) +255,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
` ` ` In last month's report it went DOWN by 53,000. Again illustrating the month-to-month
` ` ` volatility of Household Survey statistics. Over the past 12 months it is up by
` ` ` 144,000. That's not good either.

(A ) -159,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)

(C ) +430,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9). I gave this a "neutral" (C ) rating because
` ` ` I'm undecided whether this is good or bad. The key statistic on part-time workers
` ` ` is the one above -- part-time workers who want full-time work, and this month that
` ` ` went down 159,000, which is very good.

(F ) -5,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9), awful. The righties and their DU allies will
` ` ` undoubtedly make an enormous hoo-hah out of this and the 430,000 increase in part-time
` ` ` workers, and try to make it sound like the story of the Obama administration (i.e. that
` ` ` most new jobs are part-time. But that's not true.
` ` ` In the last 3 months, full-time workers increased by an average of 237,000/month
` ` ` and in the past year, by 2.423 million ( 201,900/month average ). Since the job
` ` ` market bottom in February 2010, there has been a 10,000 increase in part-time
` ` ` workers and a 13,518,000 increase in full-time workers


^--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 ====
+2,447,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+0.91% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is 11 months thru August because no CPI data for September yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ========
+3,040,000 Labor Force = Employed + jobless people who looked for work in the past 4 weeks
+3,026,000 Employed
+14,000 Unemployed (jobless people who looked for work in the past 4 weeks)
+0.5% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate
+0.5% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate)
-0.1% Unemployment rate
-0.3% U-6 unemployment rate (fabulous. it includes anyone that looked for work even once in the past year)
-0.2% "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
+144,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
-140,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
+628,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+2,423,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

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

Most of the "over the last year" numbers are really good numbers. Exceptions:

The Labor Force Participation Rate, although ticking up a notch this past 12 months (good direction, though tiny) is at 62.9%, which is only 0.5 percentage points above a multi-decade low. (Though I'm happy that it has improved by 0.5 percentage points in just 12 months).

Interesting though that there was a 0.5 percentage point increase in the Employment To Population Ratio in the past 12 months, and a 1.6 percentage point increase from its multi-decade low point of 58.2% in November 2010. So we have the labor force participation rate increasing by only 0.5% from its multi-decade low, while the employment to population ratio has a much more substantial 1.6% increase from its multi-decade low. 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).

Another "bad" number is the 14,000 increased in the officially unemployed over the past 12 months. This is the increase in the number of jobless people who looked for work in the past 4 weeks. Despite 3,026,000 finding work in the past 12 months, the number of unemployed increased because even more than 3,026,000 sought jobs during this period. Paradoxically, this is a good sign, because a lot of jobless people have come off the sideline to look for work. (The civilian non-institutional age 16+ population (including the elderly, even centenarians) has grown by less than that, so its not a matter of population growth outstripping the number of jobs).

Another bad number is the 144,000 increase in "not in labor force, but says they want a job (NILF-WJ)" statistic. This "NILF-WJ" statistic includes every jobless person who hasn't looked for work in the past 4 weeks, but says they want a job. Kind of hard to explain the increase in this statistic in light of what I said about employment growth (3,026,000) exceeding the 2,766,000 growth of the civilian non-institutional population age 16+ (including the elderly, even centenarians). And the 0.5% increase in the employment to population ratio. My guess is more marginally interested people are thinking they might want a job, given the better likelihood of finding a job than a year ago.

[font color=blue]SINCE THE PAYROLL EMPLOYMENT RECOVERY BEGAN -- Last 79 months thru September 30, 2016: 9'16 - 2'10[/font]:
(This is the period from when continuous growth of payroll employment began, thru September 30, 2016)
==== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ====
+15,098,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+5.36% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is thru July 2016 because no CPI data for August yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ====
+6,213,000 Labor Force
+13,387,000 Employed
-7,174,000 Unemployed (jobless people who have looked for work in the past 4 weeks)
+1.3% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (woo hoo!)
-2.0% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (ughh)
-4.8% Unemployment rate
-7.3% U-6 unemployment rate
-6.9% "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
-10,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
-3,042,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
+10,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+13,518,000 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;"]Sep'15 Jun'16 Aug'16 Sep'16
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]4.1% 3.9% 4.0% 3.9%
[closes the light blue highlight tag begun b4 the 1st table]


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

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


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

This excellent post from early July 2015 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/2016/10/07/employment-situation-september. (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 September}

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/10141590296

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

10/7/16 -

I'm going to skip this narrative this month, since I have some urgent personal matters. A good jobs report, but not grand. What's worth noting is in the commentary that is with the tables above.

In a nutshell, the payroll jobs growth (+156,000) was good but not great. The unemployment rate ticked up a notch (+0.1% to 5.0%) which is bad -- but the reason is good: a huge 444,000 increase in the labor force (that's the sum of the employed plus jobless people who looked for work in the past 4 weeks aka "active job seekers&quot . Of the 444,000 increase in the labor force, 354,000 found jobs, which is great; but 90,000 didn't, and so they added to the unemployment count. (The civilian non-institutional population, age 16+ increased by 237,000, so the labor force increase far outstripped the adult population increase -- indicating we have a large number of people coming off the sidelines and joining the labor force either as employed or active job seekers).

The aberrant statistic of the month is the 5,000 decline in full-time workers. But in the last 3 months, full-time workers increased by an average of 237,000/month. And in the past year, full-time workers increase by 2.423 million ( 201,900/month average ).

Since the job market bottom in February 2010, there has been a 10,000 increase in part-time workers and a 13,518,000 increase in full-time workers. So the doomer meme that most new jobs under Obama are part-time simply isn't true, at least according to the BLS.