I was surprised by this morning’s Bureau of Labor Statistics
employment figures. Were you?
I wrote last month that September’s data was mangled by the
storms, giving us strange results such as the loss of 33,000 net new jobs. Accordingly, we would need to combine it with
October’s to get a fairer view of how our working economy is really doing. So, what happened?
In October, we gained 261,000 net new nonfarm payroll
positions. That would normally be
outstanding, but when we combine it with the last set and divide it by two we
get 114,000 per month. With population
increase consuming over 130,000, that’s a slowdown. Also on the down side, the two measures of
how common it is for Americans to be working, the employment-population ratio
and the labor force participation rate, erased and more than erased
respectively their September improvements, going off 0.2% and a steep 0.4% to
reach 60.2% and 62.7%. Average private
nonfarm payroll hourly earnings gave up a little of its large September
improvement, down 2 cents per hour to $26.53.
Many of the other numbers were unexpectedly good. The adjusted unemployment rate fell 0.1% to reach
another post-Great-Recession low of 4.1%.
The unadjusted variety, lower since October is typically an
above-average working month, achieved the same, shedding 0.2% to get to 3.9%. These two numbers were also down, 0.2% and
0.4%, in September. Those officially
jobless and out for 27 weeks or longer cut another 100,000 to reach 1.6
million, and the count of people working part-time for economic reasons, or
seeking full-time work while holding on to shorter-hours employment, plunged
over 300,000 to 4.8 million. In September
the former number stayed the same, but the latter one, which usually changes half
that amount or not at all, improved 200,000.
The American Job Shortage Number or AJSN, which shows in one
figure how many more positions could quickly be filled, dropped an unexpected half-million
to reach another post-recession low, as follows:
The AJSN’s drop was only partially caused by lower
unemployment, which accounted for 282,000 of the difference. More significant was a cut of almost 400,000
in those wanting to work but not looking for it in the previous year. Both were offset slightly by increases in
those calling themselves discouraged and a surprising 1.2 million gain,
precipitating a 60,000 AJSN difference, in the count of those claiming no
interest in employment.
Compared with a year before, important since the AJSN is not
seasonally adjusted, it has dropped over 1.1 million, with almost that amount
from lower official unemployment, and over 300,000 from the
did-not-search-in-previous-year category partially neutralized by 1.2 million
growth in those in the armed forces, in institutions, or off the grid, and by a
700,000 gain in the number of American-citizen expatriates now overseas. The share of the AJSN coming from those
officially jobless, now under 35%, reached another post-recession low, and
means that almost two-thirds of those taking new positions would not be
expected to be counted as unemployed.
Overall, how good was the data for the past two months? Lukewarm.
Fewer people are unemployed, unemployed for six months or longer, or
struggling with part-time positions instead of the full-time ones they
want. Wages are ahead of inflation. Yet jobs growth and labor force participation
are on the wane. We’re only one number, specifically
“did not search for work in previous year,” away from saying we’re going
nowhere, and that work in America is continuing to depart, however slowly, from
being the norm – and with that metric’s tendency to fluctuate without a
long-term trend, that isn’t enough. The
turtle stayed put.
As long as there are unemployed people looking for a job why does the "did not search for work in previous year" number matter? If every one of those people were looking for a job then the same number of people would be unemployed, but those who really need a job would have a harder time finding one.
ReplyDelete