|
Why we aren’t reporting growth statistics in terms of net job growth I’ll never know. I would expect new jobs to be heavily dependent on population growth rates, which have been slowing down for some time now. Thanks for the hard numbers. |
| |
Written By:
Jeff the Baptist
URL:
http://jeffthebaptist.blogspot.com
|
|
We do report net job growth rate (that’s the 1.8 million number Kondracke cites). I think what you’re getting after is number of jobs relative to the size of the workforce. However, that number is effectively cited in the unemployment rate. If the unemployment rate is going down, then the ratio of employed people to the total labor force is going up. |
| |
Written By:
Jody
URL:
http://
|
Jon~
If I understand the stats you present correctly, the labor force has grown by approximately 6.4 million people during the Bush presidency, and the number of net jobs has increased by 1.8 million. You are right—this is not good. If the numbers were closer, it would be worthwhile pointing out that the average job growth needed to break even is 110,000 per month rather than the erroneous 150,00. However, since the average job growth seems to be more in the range of 30,000/month, we have a long way to go before the bad comparison becomes relevant. |
| |
Written By:
Steven Donegal
URL:
http://
|
the number of net jobs has increased by 1.8 million. You are right—this is not good. If the numbers were closer You see, this is exactly why I think a lot of these jobs/President arguments are really ridiculous. I mean, how do you bifurcate out the effects of the bubble we were riding in the late 90s? Or the effects of fed policy? Or the impact of the recession? Or of 9/11? All of those had, arguably, as much impact on the employment statistics as executive policies...and each probably had a lot more effect than Executive action. But instead, we pretend somehow correlation is causation and the President is responsible? That’s an awfully tenuous argument.
In any event, the current labor force participation rate is 66.1%. That’s about 1 percentage point less than it was in the late 90s, but about 1/2 percentage point higher than most of the 80s, and about .1 or .2 percentage points lower than in the first half of the 90s. i.e., it’s around the middle of the historical range.
|
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
So unemployment rate must be up if we create less jobs than we do workforce?
But I thought unemployment was still fairly low....can anyone explain? |
| |
Written By:
Harun
URL:
http://
|
|
I would assume these figures do not count the underground economy and illegal aliens. |
| |
Written By:
timactual
URL:
http://
|
But I thought unemployment was still fairly low....can anyone explain? If the unemployment statistic is derived from the number of people currently recieving unemployment benefits, then when those benefits run out, they are no longer counted regardless of if they have a new job or not. They just magically appear re-employed again. I don’t know if there is some follow up surveys or something that keeps that number accurate. Just one possibility.
The other notion I’ve heard of is "discouraged workers" - people that have been looking so long, they’ve given up. Presumably not a lot of heads of household in this category, but perhaps a lot of new grads who wind up giving up on finding their first job and head back to school or move in with mom and dad and freeload for a while.
For that matter, can you file for unemployment if you’ve never been employed yet? I don’t think so. The 110,000 number is people *entering* the workforce, so they wouldn’t go on the unemployment roles, I suppose...
As a side note, I think titling the post "The Labor Force Growth Myth" is a bit in-accurate. It isn’t a myth, just Somerby had an old number. |
| |
Written By:
Chuck
URL:
http://
|
If the unemployment statistic is derived from the number of people currently recieving unemployment benefits It’s not. The BLS describes their methodology, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with unemployment benefits.The other notion I’ve heard of is "discouraged workers" - people that have been looking so long, they’ve given up. BLS measures that, too. It’s slightly, but not exceptionally high.As a side note, I think titling the post "The Labor Force Growth Myth" is a bit in-accurate. It isn’t a myth, just Somerby had an old number. That number (140,000 - 150,000) is tossed around pretty often, actually. It’s taken on a life of its own, frequently cited by the NYTimes, editorialists, bloggers and economists. It’s become a myth. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
This why I am confused. If the labor force is inexorably growing, and job creation is below that amount, then why doesn’t unemployment go up?
Maybe early retirements? Maybe the defintions and numbers aren’t really in synch? Maybe those internet jobs created in the 90’s were so lucrative all those guys sit around spending their IPO money on tulip bulbs and pinot noirs?
|
| |
Written By:
Harun
URL:
http://
|
|
...all of which makes the employment growth rate that much more pitiful... |
| |
Written By:
Todd
URL:
http://
|
