">
Home
June 26, 2017 Why's the FED Panicking?
May 25, 2017 LFPR anyone?
Apr 26, 2017 What's up with the FED?
March 10, 2017 Feb Employment Situation
Oct 10, 2016 Tax Burden
Aug 1, 2016 Here Comes the Debt
June 26, 2016 Moribund US Economy
June 16 2016 Labor Update
Mar 10, 2016 Spring Renewal for Labor Markets?
Feb 21, 2016 GDP Gap
Feb 16, 2016 FED and Monetary Policy
Jan 19, 2016 Employment Gap Age Groups LFPR
Jan 10, 2016 A look at the Employment Situation
Dec 30, 2015 Fed Funds Rate up 25 Basis points...so what?
Dec 15, 2015 Fed Funds on the rise? Has Yellen 'Fell-in'?
Oct 15, 2015 Labor Markets Seven years of misery
Oct 6, 2015 Sept: Horrible Month for Labor
Sept 30, 2015 The FED: Interest Rate Angst
Sept 11, 2015 FED on the Monetary Policy Front
July 31, 2015 Trade and Foreign Exchange Rates
July 20, 2015 Economic Growth?
July 10, 2015 Labor Picture by Age Group
July 2, 2015 Disastrous Month in Labor Rpt
June 19, 2015 Minimum Wage - Income Distribution
Jun 5, 2015 Encouraged Worker Effect
May 8, 2015 Updated Employment Situation for April
May 4, 2015 Languishing Labor Markets
Apr 7, 2015 LFPR Doldrums on the Labor Front
March 8, 2015 Less than Zero Interest Rates - Trade War
2014 Articles
2013 Articles
2012 Articles
Dec 31, 2012 Fiscal Cliff --- Increased Spending
Dec 24, 2012 Fiscal Cliff---Rising Revenues with current tax cuts?
Dec 13, 2012 November Jobs Report
Nov 28, 2012 Regulation and the Financial System
Nov 17, 2012 Employment Escarpment - Moving the Jobs Needle
Oct 31, 2012 Update on Shale Gas and Tight Oil
Oct 11, 2012 Restructuring of an Industry: US Light Vehicles
Sep 4, 2012 Resuscitating the Moribund US Economy
August 4, 2012 Unemployment Rises Again
July 21, 2012 Misguided Fiscal Policy: Is it a case of fool’s gold, or the Consequences of Economic Ignorance?
July 6, 2012 Let Freedom  Ring!!! The Shale Gale
June 26 Productivity Macro
June 11, 2012 Painted into Corner
June 4, 2012 Encouraged Worker Effect
May 28, 2012 European Honeymoon Over
May 14, 2012 Back to Basics
May 4, 2012 Labor Force Participation Rate Shrinking
Apr 26, 2012 Income Distribution
Apr 15, 2012 Energy Independence
Apr 6, 2012 Jobs Jobs Jobs
Mar 27, 2012 Gas Prices Killing Economic Growth
Mar 15, 2012 Rough Road or Smooth Sailing?
March 9, 2012 Employment Challenges Ahead
Mar 6, 2012 Stalled US Economy?
Mar 1, 2012 FED Profitabiility
Feb 22, 2012 Population Changes
Feb 13, 2012 Bernanke on Unemployment
Feb 8, 2012 Lower Unemployment - Bad News?
Feb 3, 2012 Chinese Miracle???
Jan 12, 2012 Low Interest Rates - Why so low?
Jan 9, 2012 Labor Force Participation Rate
2011 & 2010 Articles
Introduction
About us
Links of Interest
Straw Poll
Definitions & Miscellaneous
 

2012 Volume Issue 20


Economic Newsletter for the New Millennium

August 4, 2012


Editor
Donald R. Byrne, Ph.D.
dbyrne5628@aol.com  


Associate Editor
Edward T. Derbin, MA, MBA
edtitan@aol.com  


For a downloadable version, click here


2012 Volume Issue 20 Employment Picture August 4.pdf


...a bit more compressed version of same


2012 Volume Issue 20 Employment Picture August 4-compressed.pdf





Unemployment Woes Continue: Labor Force shrinks; Employment falls; Unemployment rises – no surprise that the Unemployment Rate increases and the Labor Force Participation Rate falls


Summary:


U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics


The Employment Situation – July 2012


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf  

 

In July 2012, the official U-3 unemployment rate rose from 8.2% to 8.3%, while the U-6 or more inclusive unemployment rate measuring marginally attached (part-time, discouraged, etc.) went from 14.9% to 15.0%.


 
The good news coming from the Establishment (Payroll) Survey, which measures nonfarm payroll employment, was that there were 163,000 additions to those payrolls in July 2012 in comparison to June 2012.  The problem with this is that Establishment (Payroll) Survey is [over time] effectively a subset of the overall employment picture (Household Survey), which actually showed a net drop of 195,000 from the employment rolls.








1-Establishment Survey is a subset of the Household Survey.jpg








2-Establishment Survey.jpg







3-Household Survey has been up and down for the past few months.jpg




The Breakdown in the Household Survey

 

Keeping in mind that the Establishment (Payroll) Survey measures about 95% of the Household Survey and seem to be in concert over time:
 

Frequently Asked Questions about Employment and Unemployment Estimates

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf  



Why are there two monthly measures of employment? 

The household survey and establishment survey both produce sample-based estimates of employment and both have strengths and limitations. The establishment survey employment series has a smaller margin of error on the measurement of month-to-month change than the household survey because of its much larger sample size. An over-the-month employment change of about 100,000 is statistically significant in the establishment survey, while the threshold for a statistically significant change in the household survey is about 400,000. However, the household survey has a more expansive scope than the establishment survey because it includes the self-employed, unpaid family workers, agricultural workers, and private household workers, who are excluded by the establishment survey. The household survey also provides estimates of employment for demographic groups.
  

-----






The Payroll Survey measures about 95 percent of what the Household Survey does-over time they tend to reflect similar numbers 1.1 million job losses since end of 2008.jpg



The broadest measure in the Household Survey is shown in the Civilian Noninstitutional Population (population 16 and over who are not in the military, incarcerated, or in other institutions).  The two groups comprising the Civilian Noninstitutional Population are the Labor Force and the Not in Labor Force groups.  Included in the Labor Force are those employed and those unemployed (actively seeking employment). The Not in Labor Force component includes retirees, those discouraged workers no longer seeking employment (therefore not considered unemployed, or part of the labor force) and increasingly, we are seeing disability numbers on the rise in conjunction with those opting to go onto Social Security earlier than they would have otherwise if the employment situation was not so bleak.

 

 

A SUMMARY OF THE 2012 ANNUAL REPORTS

Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html  

 


Covered Workers and Benefits 

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2012/lr4b2.html  

 

 

 

Editorial: Disability claims swelling in recession

USA Today
Feb 2, 2012

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-02-02/disability-Social-Security-recession/52940278/1  


“In 2007, 8.9 million people were on disability. Now that number is 10.7 million, a 20% jump in just five years.”


Recession Hits Social Security Benefits
Wall Street Journal
July 27, 2012

http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2012/07/27/recession-hits-social-security-benefits/  

 

"…Boston College Center for Retirement Research. 

Between 2007 and 2009, the portion of 62-year-olds claiming Social Security benefits – and receiving payments that were 25% less than they would have received at their full retirement age of 66 – “increased sharply,” the study says.  
 

More than 5% of the people eligible to claim their Social Security retirement benefits at age 62 were induced to do so by “the Great Recession,” it says.”

 

 

Civilian Noninstitutional Population (population 16 and over who are not in the military, incarcerated, or in other institutions) increases by 199,000.

 

Labor Force (those employed or unemployed (out of work seeking employment)) dropped by 150,000

 

Labor Force Participation Rate fell from 63.8% to 63.7% reflected by the combination of the rise in the Civilian Noninstitutional Population (+199,000) and the fall of the Labor Force (-150,000), resulting in a net increase in the Not in the Labor Force category of 348,000.  On a net basis, those additions to the Civilian Noninstitutional Population (+199,000) were combined with the fall off in the Labor Force (-150,000) resulting in 348,000 (rounding) people being sidelined.

 

In addition to changes in the size of the Civilian Noninstitutional Population (rising by 199,000) and the fall-off in the Labor Force (falling by 150,000), we now turn to the components within the Labor Force, those employed and the unemployed.  Within the context of the labor force, the Employed decreased by 195,000 and the Unemployed increased by 45,000.  Again, the difference between the Employed and Unemployed of 150,000 reflects the total of those leaving the Labor Force.

 

This shrinking Labor Force of 150,000, plus the 199,000 net add to the Civilian Noninstitutional Population, drove the Labor Force Participation Rate to an even lower 63.7% for July, down from 63.8% from June 2012.  By the way, the Labor Force Participation Rate (or LFPR) had risen from a low of 63.6% in April 2012 to 63.8% for May and June of 2012.  Since most forecasts indicate continued anemic growth – if not a shrinking economy, it’s not likely that the employment situation will improve any time soon.

 

Federal Reserve Open Market Committee Press Release

August 1, 2012

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20120801a.htm  
 

“Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in June suggests that economic activity decelerated somewhat over the first half of this year. Growth in employment has been slow in recent months, and the unemployment rate remains elevated.”


 


 

4-The Labor Force Participation Rate continues to founder as more people drop out of the Labor Force - July 2012 it was 63.7 percent.jpg

 

 
As noted previously, employment in the Household Survey fell by 195,000.  Keep in mind that the Establishment Survey is a subset of the Household Survey, so while there was an improvement on the Establishment Survey of 163,000, the overall number as reflected in the Household Survey Employed number fell by 195,000 in July 2012 







5-Household Survey Employment Numbers dropped by 195,000 in July 2012.jpg


The next ratio to review is the Employment-Population Ratio which measures the relationship between Employment and the Civilian Noninstitutional Population.  In the preceding two months (May and June 2012) the ratio appeared to be showing signs of improvement after moving up from 58.4% in April to 58.6% in both May and June.  The drop-off in July to 58.4% raises red flags since those who are employed are ultimately responsible for ‘growing’ the economy.  If you are not employed, you are either unemployed or not in the labor force, in either case, you are not contributing to economic growth.  To summarize, if the Employment-Population continues to either remain low or fall further, this will put additional pressure on those gainfully employed to carry the rest.







6-The Employment- Population Ratio fell to 58.4% in July2012-the FED keeps a close eye on this measurement.jpg

 
And now we move on to the unemployed… 

In July 2012, the (official) U-3 Unemployment Rate rose from 8.2% in the preceding month to 8.3%.  Over the past several months, the unemployment rate has fallen quite a bit, but it’s been viewed with some degree of skepticism based on deterioration in the Labor Force Participation Rate (revealing that that many workers unable to find employment left the Labor Force altogether) and the stubbornly high U-6 Unemployment Rate which includes marginalized workers, many of whom are either discouraged or working part-time - unable to find adequate full-time employment. 







7-Unemployment Rate moved up to 8.3% in July 2012 from 8.2 in June 2012.jpg






8-The Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) fell to 6.37% in July 2012.jpg







9-U-6 Unemployment Rate has been on the rise after falling below 15% in earlier months.jpg



 


10-Percent of 27 weeks and over comprised 40.7% of the total unemployed in July 2012.jpg



 

 

 

 














11-Average Number of Weeks Unemployed continued to remain at a quite high level of 38.8 weeks in July 2012.jpg




----

Whereas a falling unemployment rate in the Bush era was derided as a jobless recovery – owing to the significant employment gains outside of the Payroll Survey, such additions to the employment numbers in the Household Survey (Current Population Survey) would be very welcome indeed currently.  



(Read the following from the pages of the Economist Magazine in May 2003)

Another Bush, another jobless recovery

The jobs market looks bleak and the president's tax cut is unlikely to help

Economist Magazine - May 8, 2003
 

http://www.economist.com/node/1772963     

 
“In the end, the Republican Congress looks likely to force through a stimulus package that is largely based around tax cuts. Some of these measures may be sensible long-term reforms, and returning money to taxpayers is seldom unpopular. But the stimulus will not create many jobs now, whatever Mr Bush says.”


The Reality...






12-the economy added 3.6 million jobs between May 2003 and April 2005.jpg



 

The last piece of this Employment Picture puzzle that we’ll delve into is the Not in Labor Force component.  In July 2012, the Not in Labor Force reading was 348,000 (rounding) which reflected an increase in the Civilian Noninstitutional Labor Force of 199,000 and a decrease in Labor Force of 150,000 (Employed fell by 195,000 but was offset by an increase in Unemployment of 45,000, netting out to a decrease in the Labor Force of 150,000).

Since February 2009, the Not in Labor Force component increased by 7.948 million.  While it’s normal to see increasing numbers in the Not in Labor Force portion of the Civilian Noninstitutional Population, the rate since February 2009 has been 187,000 per month, while for the preceding 43 months the average was around 90,000 per month (typically, the number would be in the 70,000 range).    





13-The Not in Labor Force portion of the Civilian Noninstitutional Population has increased by 8.6 million from Feb 2009-July 2012.jpg