Jobless rate soared to 14.7% in April as U.S. shed 20.5 million jobs amid coronavirus pandemic

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Washington Post

The U.S. unemployment rate jumped to 14.7 percent in April, the highest level since the Great Depression, as most businesses shut down or severely curtailed operations to fight the deadly coronavirus.

Over 20 million people lost their jobs in April, the Labor Department said Friday, wiping out a decade of job gains in a single month. The staggering losses are more than double what the nation experienced during the 2007-09 crisis, which used to be described as the harshest economic situation most people ever confronted. Now that has been quickly dwarfed by the fallout from the global pandemic.

President Trump and numerous state and local leaders decided to put the economy in a deep freeze in an effort to minimize exposure to the virus. This led businesses to suddenly shed millions of workers at a rapid rate never seen before. Analysts warn it could take many years to return to the 3.5 percent unemployment rate the nation experienced in February.

The sudden economic contraction has forced millions of Americans to turn to food banks and seek government aid for the first time or stop paying rent and other bills. As they go without paychecks for weeks, some have also lost health insurance and even put their homes up for sale. “This is pretty scary,” said Lindsey Piegza, chief economist at Stifel. “I’m fearful many of these jobs are not going to come back and we are going to have an unemployment rate well into 2021 of near 10 percent.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/08/april-2020-jobs-report/

---

Yup it's that Friday again and our official DU economic analysts will be here shortly to provide the deep dives into the data.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. Right on time. From the source:

Nonfarm payroll employment falls 20.5 million in April; unemployment rate rises to 14.7%

Economic News Release USDL-20-0815

Employment Situation Summary
Transmission of material in this news release is embargoed until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, May 8, 2020

Technical information:
Household data: [e-mail] * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: [e-mail] * www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact: [phone] * [e-mail]


THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- APRIL 2020


Total nonfarm payroll employment fell by 20.5 million in April, and the unemployment rate rose to 14.7 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The changes in these measures reflect the effects of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and efforts to contain it. Employment fell sharply in all major industry sectors, with particularly heavy job losses in leisure and hospitality.

This news release presents statistics from two monthly surveys. The household survey measures labor force status, including unemployment, by demographic characteristics. The establishment survey measures nonfarm employment, hours, and earnings by industry. For more information about the concepts and statistical methodology used in these two surveys, see the Technical Note.

Household Survey Data

In April, the unemployment rate increased by 10.3 percentage points to 14.7 percent. This is the highest rate and the largest over-the-month increase in the history of the series (seasonally adjusted data are available back to January 1948). The number of unemployed persons rose by 15.9 million to 23.1 million in April. The sharp increases in these measures reflect the effects of the coronavirus pandemic and efforts to contain it. (See table A-1. For more information about how the household survey and its measures were affected by the coronavirus pandemic, see the box at the end of the news release.)

In April, unemployment rates rose sharply among all major worker groups. The rate was 13.0 percent for adult men, 15.5 percent for adult women, 31.9 percent for teenagers, 14.2 percent for Whites, 16.7 percent for Blacks, 14.5 percent for Asians, and 18.9 percent for Hispanics. The rates for all of these groups, with the exception of Blacks, represent record highs for their respective series. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of unemployed persons who reported being on temporary layoff increased about ten-fold to 18.1 million in April. The number of permanent job losers increased by 544,000 to 2.0 million. (See table A-11.)

In April, the number of unemployed persons who were jobless less than 5 weeks increased by 10.7 million to 14.3 million, accounting for almost two-thirds of the unemployed. The number of unemployed persons who were jobless 5 to 14 weeks rose by 5.2 million to 7.0 million. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 939,000, declined by 225,000 over the month and represented 4.1 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)

The labor force participation rate decreased by 2.5 percentage points over the month to 60.2 percent, the lowest rate since January 1973 (when it was 60.0 percent). Total employment, as measured by the household survey, fell by 22.4 million to 133.4 million. The employment-population ratio, at 51.3 percent, dropped by 8.7 percentage points over the month. This is the lowest rate and largest over-the-month decline in the history of the series (seasonally adjusted data are available back to January 1948). (See table A-1.)

The number of persons who usually work full time declined by 15.0 million over the month, and the number who usually work part time declined by 7.4 million. Part-time workers accounted for one-third of the over-the-month employment decline. (See table A-9.)

The number of persons at work part time for economic reasons nearly doubled over the month to 10.9 million. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. This group includes persons who usually work full time and persons who usually work part time. (See table A-8.)

The number of persons not in the labor force who currently want a job, at 9.9 million, nearly doubled in April. These individuals were not counted as unemployed because they were not actively looking for work during the last 4 weeks or were unavailable to take a job. (See table A-1.)

Persons marginally attached to the labor force--a subset of persons not in the labor force who currently want a job--numbered 2.3 million in April, up by 855,000 over the month. These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months but had not looked for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached who believed that no jobs were available for them, numbered 574,000 in April, little changed from the previous month.(See Summary table A.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment fell by 20.5 million in April, after declining by 870,000 in March. The April over-the-month decline is the largest in the history of the series and brought employment to its lowest level since February 2011 (the series dates back to 1939). Job losses in April were widespread, with the largest employment decline occurring in leisure and hospitality. (See table B-1. For more information about how the establishment survey and its measures were affected by the coronavirus, see the box note at the end of the news release.)

In April, employment in leisure and hospitality plummeted by 7.7 million, or 47 percent. Almost three-quarters of the decrease occurred in food services and drinking places (-5.5 million). Employment also fell in the arts, entertainment, and recreation industry (-1.3 million) and in the accommodation industry (-839,000).

Employment declined by 2.5 million in education and health services in April. In health care, employment declined by 1.4 million, led by losses in offices of dentists (-503,000), offices of physicians (-243,000), and offices of other health care practitioners (-205,000). Employment also declined in social assistance (-651,000), reflecting job losses in child day care services (-336,000) and individual and family services (-241,000). Employment in private education declined by 457,000 over the month.

Professional and business services shed 2.1 million jobs in April. Sharp losses occurred in temporary help services (-842,000) and in services to buildings and dwellings (-259,000).

In April, employment in retail trade declined by 2.1 million. Job losses occurred in clothing and clothing accessories stores (-740,000), motor vehicle and parts dealers (-345,000), miscellaneous store retailers (-264,000), and furniture and home furnishings stores (-209,000). By contrast, the component of general merchandise stores that includes warehouse clubs and supercenters gained 93,000 jobs.

In April, manufacturing employment dropped by 1.3 million. About two-thirds of the decline was in durable goods manufacturing (-914,000), which saw losses in motor vehicles and parts (-382,000) and in fabricated metal products (-109,000). Nondurable goods manufacturing shed 416,000 jobs.

Employment in the other services industry declined by 1.3 million in April, with nearly two-thirds of the decline occurring in personal and laundry services (-797,000).

Government employment dropped by 980,000 in April. Employment in local government was down by 801,000, in part reflecting
school closures. Employment also declined in state government education (-176,000).

Construction employment fell by 975,000 in April, with much of the loss in specialty trade contractors (-691,000). Job losses also occurred in construction of buildings (-206,000).

Employment fell in transportation and warehousing in April (-584,000). Transit and ground passenger transportation and air transportation lost 185,000 jobs and 141,000 jobs, respectively.

Wholesale trade shed 363,000 jobs in April, largely reflecting losses in the durable and nondurable goods components.

Employment in financial activities fell by 262,000 over the month, with the vast majority of the decline occurring in real estate and rental and leasing (-222,000).

Employment in information fell by 254,000 in April, driven by a decline in motion picture and sound recording industries (-217,000).

Mining lost 46,000 jobs in April, with most of the decline occurring in support activities for mining (-33,000).

In April, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by $1.34 to $30.01. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by $1.04 to $25.12 in April. The increases in average hourly earnings largely reflect the substantial job loss among lower-paid workers; this change, along with earnings increases, put upward pressure on the average hourly earnings estimates. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.1 hour to 34.2 hours in April. In manufacturing, the workweek declined by 2.1 hours to 38.3 hours, and overtime declined by 0.9 hour to 2.1 hours. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.1 hour to 33.5 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for February was revised down by 45,000 from +275,000 to +230,000, and the change for March was revised down by 169,000 from -701,000 to -870,000. With these revisions, employment changes in February and March combined were 214,000 lower than previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.)

_____________
The Employment Situation for May is scheduled to be released on Friday, June 5, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).


_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
| Coronavirus (COVID-19) Impact on April 2020 Establishment and Household Survey Data
|
|
| Data collection for both surveys was affected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The household
| survey is generally collected through in-person and telephone interviews, but personal interviews
| were not conducted for the safety of interviewers and respondents. The household survey response
| rate, at 70 percent, was about 13 percentage points lower than in months prior to the pandemic.
| In the establishment survey, approximately one-fifth of the data is collected at four regional data
| collection centers. Although these centers were closed, about half of the interviewers at these
| centers worked remotely to collect data by telephone. Additionally, BLS encouraged businesses to
| report electronically. The collection rate for the establishment survey in April was 74.9 percent,
| essentially unchanged from collection rates prior to the pandemic.
|
| In the establishment survey, workers who are paid by their employer for all or any part of the pay
| period including the 12th of the month are counted as employed, even if they were not actually at
| their jobs. Workers who are temporarily or permanently absent from their jobs and are not being
| paid are not counted as employed, even if they are continuing to receive benefits. The length of
| the reference period does vary across the respondents in the establishment survey; one-third of
| businesses have a weekly pay period, slightly over 40 percent a bi-weekly, about 20 percent
| semi-monthly, and a small amount monthly.
|
| There was a change to the estimation method used in the establishment survey for April. Business
| births and deaths cannot be adequately captured by the establishment survey as they occur. Therefore,
| the establishment survey estimates use a model to account for the relatively stable net employment
| change generated by business births and deaths. Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the
| relationship between the two was no longer stable in April. Therefore, the establishment survey
| made modifications to the birth-death model. For more information, see
| www.bls.gov/cps/employment-situation-covid19-faq-april-2020.pdf.
|
| In the household survey, individuals are classified as employed, unemployed, or not in the labor
| force based on their answers to a series of questions about their activities during the survey
| reference week (April 12th through April 18th). Workers who indicate they were not working during
| the entire survey reference week and expect to be recalled to their jobs should be classified as
| unemployed on temporary layoff. In April, there was an extremely large increase in the number of
| persons classified as unemployed on temporary layoff.
|
| However, there was also a large increase in the number of workers who were classified as employed
| but absent from work. As was the case in March, special instructions sent to household survey
| interviewers called for all employed persons absent from work due to coronavirus-related business
| closures to be classified as unemployed on temporary layoff. However, it is apparent that not all
| such workers were so classified.
|
| If the workers who were recorded as employed but absent from work due to "other reasons" (over
| and above the number absent for other reasons in a typical April) had been classified as unemployed
| on temporary layoff, the overall unemployment rate would have been almost 5 percentage points higher
| than reported (on a not seasonally adjusted basis). However, according to usual practice, the data
| from the household survey are accepted as recorded. To maintain data integrity, no ad hoc actions
| are taken to reclassify survey responses.
|
| More information is available at www.bls.gov/cps/employment-situation-covid19-faq-april-2020.pdf.
|
|______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Employment Situation Frequently Asked Questions
Employment Situation Technical Note
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age
Table A-3. Employment status of the Hispanic or Latino population by sex and age
Table A-4. Employment status of the civilian population 25 years and over by educational attainment
Table A-5. Employment status of the civilian population 18 years and over by veteran status, period of service, and sex, not seasonally adjusted
Table A-6. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not seasonally adjusted
Table A-7. Employment status of the civilian population by nativity and sex, not seasonally adjusted
Table A-8. Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status
Table A-9. Selected employment indicators
Table A-10. Selected unemployment indicators, seasonally adjusted
Table A-11. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment
Table A-12. Unemployed persons by duration of unemployment
Table A-13. Employed and unemployed persons by occupation, not seasonally adjusted
Table A-14. Unemployed persons by industry and class of worker, not seasonally adjusted
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization
Table A-16. Persons not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted
Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
Table B-2. Average weekly hours and overtime of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
Table B-4. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
Table B-5. Employment of women on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted
Table B-6. Employment of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
Table B-7. Average weekly hours and overtime of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
Table B-8. Average hourly and weekly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)
Table B-9. Indexes of aggregate weekly hours and payrolls for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted(1)

Access to historical data for the "A" tables of the Employment Situation News Release
Access to historical data for the "B" tables of the Employment Situation News Release
HTML version of the entire news release
The PDF version of the news release
News release charts
Supplemental Files Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Last Modified Date: May 08, 2020

* * * * *

[center]Facilities for Sensory Impaired[/center]

Information from these releases will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: [phone], Federal Relay Services: 1-800-877-8339.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. I stayed on WaPo's front page and refreshed to try to grab it

before they eventually sent out the breaking banner.

Good morning (I think?)!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

6. I'm waiting for the usual crowd to start up with the "I don't trust the numbers" chant.

Good morning.

[BumRushDaShow]

8. One of my sisters already texted that sentiment

[Hugin]

26. I have no doubt it's seasonally adjusted somehow.

Fairy tales! Gibberish! Fantasy!

[denem]

7. First time I have ever been sitting on the BLS website

waiting for 8.30.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. That's a shame.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

13. It's fun, isn't it? I don't mean this month's numbers, but the constant hitting of

the "refresh" button.

[denem]

19. A trip down memory lane.

Hitting the refresh on the DJI in 2008.

[sandensea]

42. "...brought employment to its lowest level since February 2011.." (?) Try June 1999, BLS.

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

[progree]

43. Looks right to me -- it's talking about the Establishment Survey's nonfarm payroll employment

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment fell by 20.5 million in April, after declining by 870,000 in March. The April over-the-month decline is the largest in the history of the series and brought employment to its lowest level since February 2011 (the series dates back to 1939).

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001

Year . Jan . . . Feb . . . . Mar . . .
2011 130841 131053 131288 131602 131703 131939 131999 132125 132358 132562 132694 132896

April 2020: 131045 (C,P)
C=Corrected, P=Preliminary

Well, April 2020 is 8,000 below the February 2011 level but above the January 2011 level, so I'd say April 2020 was at its lowest level since January 2011. Maybe the "C" correction changed the April number a bit since that text was written.

Your link doesn't work, but presumably was to the Household Survey's Employed
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000
which does look like April 2020 is the lowest since June 1999 as you say.

[sandensea]

44. Yes - that's the one. Thank you.

So, which one is right? And why can't they publish one set - be it the Population or Establishment survey?

[progree]

46. All's I "know" is from the summary and from the technical note ..

In the summary, they present the establishment survey nonfarm payroll numbers as THE job numbers. Here is how it begins:

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- APRIL 2020

Total nonfarm payroll employment fell by 20.5 million in April ((from the Establishment Survey --Progree)), and the unemployment rate rose to 14.7 percent ((from the Household Survey --Progree)), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The changes in these measures reflect the effects of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and efforts to contain it. Employment fell sharply in all major industry sectors, with particularly heavy job losses in leisure and hospitality.

This news release presents statistics from two monthly surveys. The household survey measures labor force status,
including unemployment, by demographic characteristics. The establishment survey measures nonfarm employment,
hours, and earnings by industry. For more information about the concepts and statistical methodology used in these
two surveys, see the Technical Note.

Note that it doesn't even mention the Household Survey's employment numbers until the middle of the 5th paragraph of the Household Survey section:

The labor force participation rate decreased by 2.5 percentage points over the month to 60.2 percent, the lowest
rate since January 1973 (when it was 60.0 percent). Total employment, as measured by the household survey, fell
by 22.4 million to 133.4 million. The employment-population ratio, at 51.3 percent, dropped by 8.7 percentage points
over the month. ...

From the technical note -- the Establishment Survey is a much larger survey with a much smaller 90% confidence interval:

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.tn.htm

The household survey provides information
on the labor force, employment, and unemployment that appears in the "A" tables,
marked HOUSEHOLD DATA. It is a sample survey of about 60,000 eligible households
conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

The establishment survey provides information on employment, hours, and
earnings of employees on nonfarm payrolls; the data appear in the "B" tables,
marked ESTABLISHMENT DATA. BLS collects these data each month from the payroll
records of a sample of nonagricultural business establishments. Each month
the CES program surveys about 145,000 businesses and government agencies,
representing approximately 697,000 individual worksites, in order to provide
detailed industry data on employment, hours, and earnings of workers on nonfarm
payrolls. The active sample includes approximately one-third of all nonfarm
payroll jobs.

...

For example, the confidence interval for the monthly change in total nonfarm
employment from the establishment survey is on the order of plus or minus 110,000.
Suppose the estimate of nonfarm employment increases by 50,000 from one month to
the next. The 90-percent confidence interval on the monthly change would range from
-60,000 to +160,000 (50,000 +/- 110,000). These figures do not mean that the sample
results are off by these magnitudes, but rather that there is about a 90-percent
chance that the true over-the-month change lies within this interval. Since this
range includes values of less than zero, we could not say with confidence that
nonfarm employment had, in fact, increased that month. If, however, the reported
nonfarm employment rise was 250,000, then all of the values within the 90-percent
confidence interval would be greater than zero. In this case, it is likely (at
least a 90-percent chance) that nonfarm employment had, in fact, risen that month.
At an unemployment rate of around 6.0 percent, the 90-percent confidence interval
for the monthly change in unemployment as measured by the household survey is
about +/- 300,000, and for the monthly change in the unemployment rate it is about
+/- 0.2 percentage point.

But the household survey collects a lot of labor force statistics that aren't in the establishment survey, such as the specific status of people including the jobless. The establishments wouldn't have information on the jobless. The technical note goes into that too.

Aside -- error found:

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

(NOTE: On May 8, 2020, BLS discovered errors in national estimates for seasonally adjusted all
employees in professional and technical services, professional and business services, private
service- providing, service-providing, total private, and total nonfarm. The corrected total
nonfarm estimate is approximately 37,000 lower than initially reported. Estimates in the LABSTAT
database have been corrected for February, March and April 2020. BLS will make corrections to other
release products next week.)

[sandensea]

47. Which is funny, b/c they usually use the Population Survey as the metric for emp/unemp data

You can see it in all the old Statistical Abstract of the U.S. series, which was sadly discontinued some years ago (https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2011/compendia/statab/131ed/2012-statab.pdf - see PDF page 441, which would be pg. 377 in the book).

And it figures, since the data is more complete than the Establishment Survey.

Sounds like they were looking for some way to avoid saying "lowest level since June 1999."

Would wan't to make a certain someone mad, would we?

[progree]

48. The BLS always presented it this way -- the Establishment Survey data for the number of jobs, and

the household survey for the unemployment rate, labor force participation rate, and many other statistics. At least as long as I've been following this stuff closely, which is at least back to 2012 for sure (I read at least the BLS summary and gathered many statistics every month), and for many years before that. If you find something in archive.org that contradicts that, please let me know. Likewise the media. So they didn't just decide this month to highlight the Establishment Survey's jobs data as "some way to avoid saying 'lowest level since June 1999.' ".

As far as comprehensiveness, I think I've already covered the sample sizes and the 90% confidence intervals of the two surveys.

Edit: Here's some more from an old post where I compared the volatility of the two, and the wild swings month-to-month in the Household Survey as compared to the Establishment Survey: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1935196

Population Survey as the metric for emp/unemp data

-- true. Like I say, the business establishments don't know who is jobless and why. That's why the Household Survey calls households.

The Establishment Survey and the Household Survey ask different questions of different entities and while there is some overlap, there is some uniqueness also. The Establishment Survey on a monthly basis also gets into specifics of the industries the jobs are in (e.g. healthcare, hospitality, manufacturing etc.), which the Household Survey doesn't. Likewise, they Establishment Survey asks about wages on a monthly basis (to come up with average hourly earnings and average weekly earnings). Also average weekly hours.

[sandensea]

49. They were still cherry-picking. It's the lowest since 1999, not '2011'

Cheeto no doubt demanded the headline be massaged.

And you know how he likes his massages - though usually from hookers, not statisticians.

[progree]

50. I don't think so. But again, if you can find something in the past

where they highlight the Household Survey's Employment as the measure of the number of jobs instead of the Establishment Survey's, instead of the other way around, I'll be very interested, as well any rationale they give for preferring it, instead of the other way around. And the Establishment Survey's number is the lowest since 2011, not 1999. They presented the information in the two surveys the way they always do -- highlighting the Establishment Survey's number as the count of jobs, while burying the Household Survey's Employment number in the middle of the 5th paragraph as just another of many statistics produced in that report. Edit: Or not even including it at all in the introductory paragraphs.

Edit: I looked at 4 previous jobs reports ( May 2013, March 2016, June 2017, May 2019), and in their introductory paragraphs, they don't even mention the Household Survey's employment. So as far as I know this (April 2020) is the first time they include it at all in their introductory paragraphs.

They were still cherry-picking

I will acknowledge, on the Household Survey, it is interesting that they did mention that the Labor Force Participation Rate and the Employment to Population Ratio (two metrics that the Establishment Survey has no equivalent metric for) are the lowest in many decades, but didn't make any similar comment about "Total employment". But their comment that the employment to population ratio is the lowest in the history of the series, which goes all the way back to 1948, I think, is a very devastating comment.

The labor force participation rate decreased by 2.5 percentage points over the month to 60.2 percent, the lowest rate since January 1973 (when it was 60.0 percent). Total employment, as measured by the household survey, fell by 22.4 million to 133.4 million ((the lowest since June 1999 is not mentioned. But it appears this is the first time they've even mentioned the Household Survey's Employment in the introductory paragraphs. All very interesting --Progree)). The employment-population ratio, at 51.3 percent, dropped by 8.7 percentage points over the month. This is the lowest rate and largest over-the month decline in the history of the series (seasonally adjusted data are available back to January 1948). (See table A-1.)

Bonus: employment to population ratio:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

Lowest seems to be 54.9% in October 1949, until now (51.3%)

[sandensea]

52. I just gave it to you: The Statistical Abstract of the U.S. (as far back as you like)

The good people at the Census Bureau were kind enough to upload all back issues: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/time-series/statistical_abstracts.html .

In the 'Labor Force, Employment, and Earnings' chapters of any of those from recent decades, the first table most of them posted was (naturally) the one on Civilian Employment.

Very first table in the chapter.

They always used the Population/Household Survey. Why? Because it's more complete, with a consistent inclusion of a few more million jobs than the Establishment Survey you're referring to.

When presidents crow about how "since taking office x million jobs have been created..." that's the table their speechwriters are taking the data from.

And with good reason: it's more complete.

[progree]

53. Then the survey size is of no importance? What the BLS reports on the sample size of the

Last edited Sat May 9, 2020, 04:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Household Survey (which is conducted by the Census Bureau, BTW) is total bullshit? Does the Statistical Abstract have monthly figures?

Anyway, I haven't read any commentator anywhere, ever, that says the small monthly Household Survey is a better indicator of the changes in jobs than the Establishment Survey. We do have your opinion, however. I have mine. When I find some authoritative source that agrees with you, I will take notice. But in all my years of reading commentary from economists, I've never seen such.

Maybe you can do some research for us on why everyone (media, pundits, economists) reports on the Establishment Survey for the job count numbers in thousands (and if they mention the Household Survey numbers, it's just a mention or a footnote). Except you. Maybe you are onto something. Maybe big. Maybe breaking. I don't have all the answers.

You might have missed my late edit in #48

Here's some more from an old post where I compared the volatility of the two, and the wild swings month-to-month in the Household Survey as compared to the Establishment Survey: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1935196

Here are the monthly changes in the Employed from the Household Survey, in thousands:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000
2016: 503 510 258 -273 30 32 456 109 271 -24 146 63
2017: -30 447 472 156 -233 245 345 -74 906 -484 57
January and February data are affected by changes in population controls.

Notice how it bounces around -- not surprising with statistical sampling error alone being +/- 300,000 (for the unemployed -- I don't know what it is for the employed ). Do you really think the number of employed really bounces around like that from month to month? I don't. I don't think any economist does either.

Ignoring monthly changes in January and February, the population controls adjustment months, and leaving out the two outliers: -484,000 and +906,000, it bounces around between about -250,000 and +500,000

This is the non-farm employee count from the Establishment Survey, in thousands
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001

2016: 126 237 225 153 43 297 291 176 249 124 164 155
2017: 216 232 50 207 145 210 138 208 38 244(P) 228(P)
(P): Preliminary

With the much larger sample size of the Establishment Survey, and again throwing out the two outliers: +38,000 and +297,000, the monthly changes are much smoother, varying between about +40,000 and +290,000

Late edit 405p ET - the 2012 Statistical Abstract includes both the Population / Household Survey numbers and the Establishment Survey numbers, albeit in that order. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.

[progree]

54. "When presidents crow about how "since taking office x million jobs have been created..."

Last edited Sat May 9, 2020, 03:39 PM - Edit history (2)

No, they are always talking about the Establishment Survey job count numbers because that's what I compare their statements to when they make them. And when I've checked the White House Council of Economic Advisers job count statements, they are also referring to the Establishment Survey numbers https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/economy-jobs/

Here's the first paragraph of the lead article:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/aprils-job-losses-show-many-workers-still-connected-employers/

Over the past weeks, Americans’ efforts to slow COVID-19’s spread have helped flatten the curve. As a result of this action, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) April Employment Situation report shows that nonfarm payroll employment fell by 20.5 million and the unemployment rate (U-3) jumped 10.3 percentage points to 14.7 percent. Both of these monthly changes are the largest in the series’ histories, as never before has the United States halted large portions of its economic activity.

I don't see any mention of the Household Survey's Employed anywhere in the report.

Show me any examples of the Trump / White House leading off with that, as opposed to the Establishment Survey numbers.

Edited to add another example from March 6 -- the first 2 paragraphs of which are
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/job-creation-exceeds-expectations-women-workers-see-gains-2/

The U.S. labor market continues to build on its impressive gains over the past three years of the Trump Administration. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ monthly Employment Situation release, nonfarm payroll employment increased by 273,000 in February—adding nearly 100,000 more jobs than market expectations.

Additionally, preliminary payroll growth estimates for January and December were revised upward by a total of 85,000 jobs, bringing the monthly average over the past three months to 243,000 new jobs. To put these gains in context, in only two months, the U.S. economy has added 105,000 more jobs than the Congressional Budget Office projected would be created over the entirety of calendar year 2020 (441,000) in its final pre-2016 election forecast.

No mention of the Household Survey's Employed there either. (full disclosure: it increased by only 45,000 in that month LNS12000000 )

[progree]

55. Interesting, nothing is available online after 2012, or at all?

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/time-series/statistical_abstracts.html .

The U.S. Census Bureau terminated the collection of data for the Statistical Compendia program effective October 1, 2011.

[progree]

56. Interesting - the 2012 Statistical Abstract includes the Establishment Survey beginning

on p. 406 (page 470 in the PDF file) Table 630, albeit after the Population Survey / Household Survey numbers that you pointed to on page 377 (page 441 in the PDF file).

https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2011/compendia/statab/131ed/2012-statab.pdf

[Atticus]

2. Are we tired of winning yet? nt

[Gothmog]

3. These are horrible numbers

Last edited Fri May 8, 2020, 12:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Bengus81]

29. And the DOW is up 300 points?!? They seeing a lot of good in 20M losing their jobs?

Maybe still up because Trump wants to give business yet another tax cut on what they match on FICA.

[progree]

32. The usual: "not as bad as expected", "the market is forward looking" blah blah

Also some China-US good news was touted pre-market.

https://www.marketwatch.com/economy-politics/calendar

Nonfarm payrolls: expected: -22.1 M, actual: -20.5 M

Unemployment rate: expected: 15.2%, actual: 14.7%

The median forecasts that MarketWatch publishes each week in the economic calendar come from the forecasts of the 15 economists who have scored the highest in our contest over the past 12 months, as well as the forecasts of the most recent winner of the Forecaster of the Month contest. The economists in our consensus forecast:

blah blah

I don't know whether the marketwatch's polled economists is representative of what was expected by investors.

[Bengus81]

35. Yep....highest unemployment since the Great Depression but Wall St. says..eh,could have been worse!!

Fucking insanity. This SHAM DOW has been rising for about two weeks, I'm looking for about a 1,000 point haircut one day real soon when some of those genius's figure out just how bad it really is.

[Laelth]

33. Investors expected the numbers to be worse. n/t

-Laelth

[progree]

34. We've been reading all day Thursday that 33 million have filed unemployment claims, and the week

before that that 30 million have done so (cumulative over the past 6-7 weeks). And estimates of unemployment rates near 20%. So a drop of 20.5 million payroll jobs and an unemployment rate of 14.7% might have come as a relief to some.

Fewer are factoring in that the survey weeks that produce these reports were in April 12-18 for the household survey (unemployment rate) and for the pay period that included April 12 (nonfarm payroll jobs) -- both more than 3 weeks ago

[Bengus81]

57. Quick....tell investors that the BLS is looking at unemployment numbers of 35% in June

When they come in at 25% Wall St can party down and go on a buying spree. Play this BS up all they want but there is a 1000-1500 point drop in one day coming soon, very soon.

[progree]

58. I agree, there will come a point when "horrible but not as bad as expected" no longer works n/t

[denem]

5. In line with expectations (15%) ?

[sandensea]

9. The highest since 1935

That would be including FDR's work programs, which he ordered to be counted as unemployed at the time (something no GOPee president would do - not that they would have a works program).

Excluding those ranks, this would still be the highest figure since 1940.

Thank you for posting these historic, if troubling, news. Here's to better days.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

11. Links to charts and graphs from the BLS Twitter account:

Last edited Sat Dec 4, 2021, 09:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Nonfarm payroll employment falls 20.5 million in April; unemployment rate rises to 14.7% http://go.usa.gov/vrK #JobsReport #BLSdata

Link to tweet

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on The Employment Situation for April 2020 https://go.usa.gov/xv7Kq #JobsReport #BLSdata

Link to tweet

See our interactive graphics on today’s #JobsReport http://go.usa.gov/cn5B4 #BLSdata #DataViz

Link to tweet

Understanding BLS Unemployment Statistics

#JobsReport #BLSdata

Link to tweet

More charts and analysis on the April nonfarm payroll employment numbers http://go.usa.gov/4UqY #JobsReport #BLSdata

Link to tweet

[sop]

12. Anyone remember Trump claiming unemployment was "20 or even 30 percent" in 2016?

You know, back when Obama was president and the actual number was around 5%, but Trump claimed the government data was "fake." Give it another month and Trump will be claiming his own numbers are "fake."

[bucolic_frolic]

14. HEY GOP ECONOMISTS WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE!

HOW ARE YOUR BUSINESSES DOING WITHOUT LABOR AND WITHOUT CUSTOMERS?

[gab13by13]

23. Actually it's small business that is going to suffer,

Our taxpayer dollars(borrowed) The Fed, and central banks have pumped trillions of dollars into Wall Street, into corporations. Plus Trump has bailed out Big Farma and the airline industry and wants to bail out the fossil fuel industry. I wouldn't be surprised if the stock market was up today, honestly.
I find it amazing that the market has gone up this week, almost as if consumer spending doesn't matter because of all the bail outs.

[bucolic_frolic]

25. Don't defuse the post by changing the subject

It is a post about economic theory, not about small business.

[gab13by13]

27. My post is about supply side trickle down economics,

and the market gaining today backs me up. Do you have a reason why the market is up today?

[FBaggins]

24. Easy enough for them to answer

"About as well as labor is doing without the businesses"

Current events tell us nothing about LTV

[UpInArms]

15. Coronavirus costs the U.S. 20.5 million jobs in April, unemployment soars to 14.7%

The numbers: The coronavirus pandemic destroyed a massive 20.5 million jobs in April, driving the unemployment rate to a post Word War Two high of X% as the United States faced its biggest economic crisis in almost a century.

The devastating trail of job losses was heaviest at retailers, restaurants, hotels and manufacturers, but every major industry suffered. The health-care sector even lost 1.4 million jobs amid the worst health crisis in American history, according to government figures released Friday morning.

The unemployment rate leaped to double digits from a 50-year low of just 3.5% two months ago, but the share of idled workers is almost certainly higher. A broader measure of unemployment that includes discouraged jobseekers and other people on the fringes of the labor market skyrocketed to a record 22.8%.

In seven weeks since the virus shut down much of the U.S. economy, more than 33 million people have applied for unemployment benefits. The numbers are still growing by several million a week.

... snip ...
Although the government didn’t keep records back then, economic historians estimate unemployment peaked at 25% in 1933.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/coronavirus-costs-the-us-205-million-jobs-in-april-unemployment-soars-to-147-2020-05-08?mod=mw_latestnews

[Gothmog]

16. The new Herbert Hoover is trump

Link to tweet

?s=20

[mahatmakanejeeves]

17. Additional information:

Last edited Fri May 8, 2020, 07:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Thu Apr 9, 2020: DU has a thread on the BLS payroll employment report, almost always on the first Friday of the month

There are several ways to calculate unemployment. Here's the report for March:

Nonfarm payroll employment falls by 701,000 in March; unemployment rate rises to 4.4%

There might be more here too:

Mon Feb 10, 2020: The mind-numbing rant, based on a version posted on the first Friday in September 2016:

{snip}

[center]How Do You Define Unemployment?
The Large Print Giveth, and the Fine Print Taketh Away.[/center]

Long ago, a DUer pointed out that, if I'm going to post the link to the press release, I should include the link to all the tables that provide additional ways of examining the data. Specifically, I should post a link to Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization. Table A-15 includes those who are not considered unemployed, on the grounds that they have become discouraged about the prospects of finding a job and have given up looking. Here is that link:

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Also, hat tip, Recursion: How the Government Measures Unemployment

[font color="red"]New material, added August 8, 2016:[/font]

This appeared at the top of page A2 in the Wednesday, July 27, 2016, print edition of The Wall Street Journal. as "Jobless Picture is Open to Interpretation."

Jobless Picture is Open to Interpretation

Gauges used to measure unemployment vary in how they define who is out of work {print: "Political campaigns clash over different ways of measuring unemployment"}



By Josh Zumbrun
[e-mail]
@JoshZumbrun

July 26, 2016 7:56 p.m. ET

Because political campaigns can rise and fall on the health of the economy, spats often flare over the gauges used to measure growth and unemployment.

The latest dust-up, raised by the campaign of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, focuses on the monthly employment numbers. A long streak of hiring has nudged the jobless rate down to 4.9%. ... Donald Trump Jr., the nominee’s son, recently criticized the official statistics as “artificial numbers…massaged to make the existing economy look good.”

The nominee himself has said unemployment is far higher than the Labor Department’s headline 4.9% rate would suggest, part of his message that the economy is in a dire state. After he won the New Hampshire primary in February, Mr. Trump called the official jobless figures “phony” and said the real number could be as high as 42%.

This isn’t the first time people have cast aspersions on the jobs numbers in an election year, but the Trump claim is also part of a larger discussion over how best to assess the health of the labor market.

The following link to Barron's might not work for everyone. See progree's tips. From the July 20, 2015, issue of Barron's:

Refresher Course: Inside the Jobless Numbers

Are we undercounting the unemployment numbers—or overcounting? How the BLS gathers and calculates the numbers, and why it matters.

By Gene Epstein
July 18, 2015

The unemployment rate has never been the object of as much attention from the markets and the media as it is now, sparked by the keen interest taken in its monthly fluctuations by policy makers at the Federal Reserve.

Despite the heightened focus, there are a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions about how the rate is calculated. Some people assume the Bureau of Labor Statistics compiles the rate from the unemployment-insurance rolls. On that basis, they fault the BLS for undercounting the unemployed. But that’s just one myth among many about this cornerstone measure of economic pain and labor-market slack.

To estimate the unemployment rate, the BLS actually relies on the monthly Current Population Survey conducted for it by the Census Bureau. While the data are highly imperfect in their own way, we think the Federal Reserve is right to view the official unemployment rate as the best available information, while also keeping its eye on ancillary measures of “labor underutilization.”

In fact, a close look at BLS methods suggests that, if anything, the official unemployment rate may be overcounting rather than undercounting the unemployed.

[font color="red"]New material:[/font] In August 2015, DUers whatthehey and progree got into a 1995 report from economists John E. Bregger and Steven E. Haugen. The .pdf is unfortunately an image and thus challenging as a source of quotes. Trying to find it in a format that does make for easy copying, I was led to this:

Alternative Unemployment Rates: Their Meaning and Their Measure March 12, 2014

{snip}

[denem]

18. Reference week, April 12th through April 18th.

[machoneman]

20. That will be the next data he will hide or modify to suit his reelection. They're not quite...

foolish enough to fake the rise in unemployment. Instead, watch in only 1 month how quickly they will phony-up a steep, rapid decline in unemployment and herald the decline as people rapidly going back to work as he, and not the governors, lifted the self-quarantine orders. governors.

We here know however that only a large scale shift in public opinion (is it safe to go back? or, I must since i'm broke) will cause workers to go back and, of course, lower the unemployment rate. And this is why a 2nd round of direct payments to we rabble will not occur as keeping us broke is a dystopian way of forcing us back to work. Sad indeed!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

21. Additional links:

It used to be that you could get free access to articles in The Wall Street Journal. by going in through TWSJ.'s Twitter account or the Twitter accounts of the authors:

How to get around the paywall to read articles in The Wall Street Journal.:

For free access to articles in The Wall Street Journal., trying going in through the authors' Twitter feeds:

This trick doesn't seem to work anymore, but you might be able to get in if they've slipped up. Here are those accounts:

* * * * *

The Wall Street Journal.: @WSJ
https://twitter.com/wsj

Wall Street Journal

Breaking news and features from the WSJ.

* * * * *

Ben Leubsdorf: @BenLeubsdorf
https://twitter.com/BenLeubsdorf

I cover the economy at @WSJ. @ConMonitorNews, @AP, @the_herald alum. DC native. Hyperactive news omnivore. Also I like burritos. [e-mail]

* * * * *

Josh Zumbrun: ‎@JoshZumbrun
https://twitter.com/JoshZumbrun

National economics correspondent for the Wall Street Journal. Covering the world's usual state of greed and disorder, confusion and apathy. [e-mail]

* * * * *

Nick Timiraos: @NickTimiraos
https://twitter.com/NickTimiraos

National economics correspondent, The Wall Street Journal

Please look at the tweets, as Nick Timiraos likes to slice and dice the data every which way. Also, link to the "11 charts " article from his Twitter feed to get past TWSJ.'s paywall.

* * * * *

Jeffrey Sparshott: @jeffsparshott
https://twitter.com/jeffsparshott

[e-mail]
* * * * *

Paul Vigna: @paulvigna
https://twitter.com/paulvigna

Markets, bitcoin, and the zombie apocalypse.

* * * * *

Eric Morath: @EricMorath
https://twitter.com/EricMorath

[e-mail]

I'm a Wall Street Journal economy reporter, dad, husband and Spartan for life. [e-mail]

Washington DC

blogs.wsj.com/economics/

* * * * *

Sarah Chaney: ‎@sechaney
https://twitter.com/sechaney

Economy Reporter at The Wall Street Journal. Tar Heel. [e-mail]

* * * * *

[mahatmakanejeeves]

22. Links to earlier reports:

Good morning, all.

Friday, April 3, 2020: Links to earlier reports:

Wednesday, March 4, 2020: Links to earlier reports:

Friday, February 7, 2020: Links to earlier reports:

Thursday, January 9, 2020: Links to earlier reports:

Updated from this post of Friday, December 6, 2019: Good morning. Links to earlier reports:

-- -- -- -- -- --

[center]Past Performance is Not a Guarantee of Future Results.[/center]

Nonetheless, what is important is not this month's results, but the trend. Let’s look at some earlier numbers:

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in April 2020:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Decreased by 20,236,000 Jobs in April

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in March 2020:

Nonfarm payroll employment falls by 701,000 in March; unemployment rate rises to 4.4%

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in March 2020:

Private-sector employment decreased by 27,000 from February to March, on a seasonally adjusted basis

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in February 2020:

The U.S. labor market showed strength in February, adding 273,000 jobs

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in February 2020:

U.S. adds 183,000 private-sector jobs in February, ADP says

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in January 2020:

The economy added 225,000 jobs in January, showing continued strength

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in January 2020:

ADP says 291,000 private-sector jobs created in January, largest gain in 4 years

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in December 2019:

Economy adds 145,000 jobs in December as unemployment rate remains at 3.5 percent

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in December 2019:

U.S. private sector adds the most jobs in eight months

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in November 2019:

Labor market remained strong in November as U.S. economy added 266,000 jobs

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in November 2019:

U.S. private sector job growth slows down sharply in November: ADP

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in October 2019:

U.S. economy added 128,000 jobs in October as GM strike displaced workers; jobless rate ticks up

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in September 2019:

U.S. economy added just 136,000 jobs in September, in fresh sign economy is cooling

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in September 2019:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 135,000 Jobs in September

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in August 2019:

U.S. economy adds just 130,000 jobs in August amid worries

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in August 2019:

Survey: Businesses added a solid 195,000 jobs in August

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in July 2019:

U.S. Added 164,000 Jobs in July; Unemployment Rate at 3.7 Percent

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in July 2019:

ADP says 156,000 private-sector jobs added created in July

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in June 2019:

Hiring rebounds as U.S. economy adds 224,000 jobs in June;unemployment rate inched up to 3.7 percent

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in June 2019:

U.S. private sector hiring picks up less than expected in June: ADP

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in May 2019:

The U.S. economy added only 75,000 jobs in May amid bite from Trump's trade war

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in May 2019:

ADP private-sector job growth tumbles to a 9-year low in May

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in April 2019:

UPDATE: U.S. unemployment fell to 3.6 percent, lowest since 1969

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in April 2019:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 275,000 Jobs in April

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in March 2019:

UPDATE: U.S. added 196,000 jobs in March as economy shows signs of spring bounce

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in March 2019:

Private sector hiring falls to 18-month low, and manufacturing sheds jobs, ADP says

[progree]

28. Not as bad as expected, according to MarketWatch's 15 economists. S&P 500 up 1.19%, Dow up 1.36%

Last edited Fri May 8, 2020, 11:08 AM - Edit history (1)

(325 points) at 1035a ET. Also some China-US good news was touted pre-market.

https://www.marketwatch.com/economy-politics/calendar

Nonfarm payrolls: expected: -22.1 M, actual: -20.5 M

Unemployment rate: expected: 15.2%, actual: 14.7%

The median forecasts that MarketWatch publishes each week in the economic calendar come from the forecasts of the 15 economists who have scored the highest in our contest over the past 12 months, as well as the forecasts of the most recent winner of the Forecaster of the Month contest. The economists in our consensus forecast:

blah blah

[mathematic]

30. We'll probably never see the peak unemployment number in a jobs report

Construction and manufacturing are getting back to work in most places in time for May's survey. Peak unemployment was probably the last week of April or maybe the first week of May.

[progree]

31. Unemployment rate may be almost 5% higher than the reported 14.7%, says BLS in so many words:

Excerpting from Mahatmakanejeeve's #1 post above, which is straight from the BLS:

In the household survey, individuals are classified as employed, unemployed, or not in the labor
force based on their answers to a series of questions about their activities during the survey
reference week (April 12th through April 18th). Workers who indicate they were not working during
the entire survey reference week and expect to be recalled to their jobs should be classified as
unemployed on temporary layoff. In April, there was an extremely large increase in the number of
persons classified as unemployed on temporary layoff.

However, there was also a large increase in the number of workers who were classified as employed
but absent from work. As was the case in March, special instructions sent to household survey
interviewers called for all employed persons absent from work due to coronavirus-related business
closures to be classified as unemployed on temporary layoff. However, it is apparent that not all
such workers were so classified.

If the workers who were recorded as employed but absent from work due to "other reasons" (over
and above the number absent for other reasons in a typical April) had been classified as unemployed
on temporary layoff, the overall unemployment rate would have been almost 5 percentage points higher
than reported (on a not seasonally adjusted basis). However, according to usual practice, the data
from the household survey are accepted as recorded. To maintain data integrity, no ad hoc actions
are taken to reclassify survey responses.

5% on top of 14.7% puts it in round-off territory of 20%.

Remembering too that the survey week, April 12-18, is more than 3 weeks ago ... there's been a lot of layoffs since then according to the weekly unemployment claims reports.

Edited to add:

Why the unemployment rate could be 5 percentage points higher, Ethan Wolff-Mann, Yahoo Finance, May 8, 2020
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-the-unemployment-rate-could-be-5-percentage-points-higher-135352226.html

for a more "newsie" report of the same thing.

[maddogesq]

36. As always, look at the U6.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

This is Depression-era kinda stuff.

Hate to say it again, but the economic structure was sick before the first COVID case ever hit our shores.

[progree]

39. Here's the graph of the U-6 unemployment rate -- the broadest measure that BLS produces

Last edited Fri May 8, 2020, 04:25 PM - Edit history (4)

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709

It is often called the under-employment rate because it includes part-timers who say they want full-time jobs. Another way that it differs from the official unemployment rate (U-3) is that U-6 counts jobless people who have looked for work in the past 12 months, while U-3 counts those who have looked for work in the past 4 weeks.

Here it is from the beginning of the series in 1994 (these graphs have a way of disappearing in a few hours or days) :


   ^--Edit: DAMN, that sure didn't take long to disappear. I don't know why it does, Grrrr. A few years ago, it used to last the entire month until the next monthly update.

Well, here's one starting at 1995 (strangely, the one started at 1994 didn't show the graph, even at the BLS site, even though it did earlier). Let's see how long this one lasts:



What I'm seeing on the graph is that it spikes up to just a little over 15%, but the table below it says 22.8% in April 2020. Anyway well over what it was at the Great Recession peak ( 17.2% ).

The low point, 6.7% in December 2019, is also the low point for the series ( in April 2000 it bottomed out at 6.9%, the other time period when it was almost that low )

[TXPaganBanker]

37. So, according to math...

If 20.5 million is 14.7% unemployment, yesterday's 33.5 million would make the unemployment rate currently 24.0%. Donny, you're only ONE POINT away from breaking the record!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

38. Winning Baby!!!!

[steve2470]

40. wait for Trump to accuse the BLS of being the dreaded "deep state" conspiracists and....

then he tries to abolish or at least pollute that office with his own flunkies.

[Cryptoad]

41. BLS cooking the books again for the Emperor

[usregimechange]

45. "I will be the greatest jobs president that God has ever created," Trump, June 16th, 2015.

[progree]

51. Lowest employment-to-population ratio in the history of the series (which goes back to 1948)

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The labor force participation rate decreased by 2.5 percentage points over the month to 60.2 percent, the lowest rate since January 1973 (when it was 60.0 percent). Total employment, as measured by the household survey, fell by 22.4 million to 133.4 million. The employment-population ratio, at 51.3 percent, dropped by 8.7 percentage points over the month. This is the lowest rate and largest over-the month decline in the history of the series (seasonally adjusted data are available back to January 1948). (See table A-1.)

Labor force participation rate:

. . . http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Employment to population ratio:

. . . http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
. . . Lowest seems to be 54.9% in October 1949, until now (51.3%)

Of course the unemployment rate is also the lowest in the history of its series, also going back to 1948, but everyone knows that (Trump beats Reagan, the previous post-WWII record holder who peaked out at 10.8%):

In April, the unemployment rate increased by 10.3 percentage points to 14.7 percent. This is the highest rate and
the largest over-the-month increase in the history of the series (seasonally adjusted data are available back to
January 1948).

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000