Unemployment rate declines to 4.6% in November; payroll employment increases by 178,000

[progree]

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

Last edited Fri Dec 2, 2016, 04:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Here are some summary tables of the key November 2016 jobs reports statistics from the Establishment Survey and the Household Survey released on December 2, 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 ) +178,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment ( CES0000000001 )
` ` ` With the 2,000 downard revisions of the previous 2 months
` ` ` combined, it is +176,000 higher than in the previous job report

== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (warning: this survey's monthly change figures are very statistically noisy) ==
(F ) -226,000 Labor Force (employed + jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)
` ` ` That's bad. And in October it went down by 195,000. But in September it went up by 444,000.
` ` ` (As always, household survey statistics are wildly volatile from month to month).
` ` ` Over the past year, the Labor Force has increased by 2.1 million, thanks to the 2.6 million
` ` ` increase in the Employed. I'd be more upset this month about the 226,000 drop in the Labor
` ` ` Force, were it not for the 36,000 drop in the Not In Labor Force, Wants Job Now statistic
` ` ` I am also heartened by the improvement in the broader measures of unemployment -- U6 and U7
` ` ` (below)

(A ) +160,000 Employed. For once it rougly matches the nonfarm payroll employment number above
` ` ` Note that it is up 471,000 in the past 3 months, and 2.6 million in the past 12 months

(A ) -387,000 Unemployed (jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)
` ` ` About half found jobs, and about half dropped out of the labor force. The latter is bad, but
` ` ` see below

(C ) -0.0% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (it's at 59.7%)
` ` ` However, it's up 0.3% over the past 12 months, despite boomer retirements.

(D ) -0.1% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (it's at 62.7%)
` ` ` It is only 0.3% above a multi-decade low of 62.4% reached in September 2015.
` ` ` OTOH, that 0.3% increase in this tough statistic in 14 months is really nice

(A ) -0.3% Unemployment rate (it's at 4.7%). Is Unemployed (as defined above) / Labor Force [N864.HM].
` ` ` About half found jobs, and about half dropped out of the labor force. The latter is bad, but
` ` ` see below where there was a 36,000 drop in the Not In Labor Force, Wants Job Now statistic
` ` ` So the drop in the labor force THIS MONTH is not beccause of increase in despairing job-needy
` ` ` and job-wanting people giving up on the job search. Also note below the big improvements
` ` ` in the broader U-6 and U-7 figures.

(A ) -0.2% U-6 unemployment rate (it's at 9.3%) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709
` ` ` This drop is nice! And on top of a 0.2% decline in October. U-6 is the BLS's broadest
` ` ` measure of unemployment -- it includes all who sought work sometime, even just once, in the
` ` ` past 12 months. And it includes part-timers who say they want full time work. It is
` ` ` down 0.6% in the past 12 months

(A+) -0.4% "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 the broadest meaure of unemployment imaginable. (U-7 is now
` ` ` at 11.5%). WOW, a 0.4% drop in this statistic.

(A ) -36,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639. Interesing given the 226,000
` ` ` drop in the Labor Force.

(A ) -220,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)

(C ) +118,000 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 220,000, which is double plus good fantastic

(F ) +9,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9), awful. The righties and their DU allies will
` ` ` undoubtedly make an enormous hoo-hah out of this -- 178,000 net new payroll jobs
` ` ` but only 9,000 were full-time workers. And they will try to make it sound like
` ` ` this is the story of the Obama administration (i.e. that
` ` ` most new jobs are part-time). But that's not true.
` ` ` In the last 12 months, full-time workers increased by an average of 175,000/month
` ` ` Since the job market bottom in February 2010, there has been a 218,000 increase
` ` ` in part-time workers and a 13,424,000 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]
[div class="excerpt" style="background-color: #ffa !important;"]
[font color=blue]OVER THE LAST YEAR (last 12 months)[/font]:
==== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ====
+2,253,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+0.65% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is 11 months thru October because no CPI data for November yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ========
+2,119,000 Labor Force = Employed + jobless people who looked for work in the past 4 weeks
+2,641,000 Employed
-524,000 Unemployed (jobless people who looked for work in the past 4 weeks)
+0.3% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate
+0.2% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate)
-0.4% Unemployment rate
-0.6% U-6 unemployment rate (fabulous. it includes anyone that looked for work even once in the past year)
-0.6% "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
+239,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
-416,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
+513,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+2,103,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

The reason there's no data for November yet for the inflation-adjusted Weekly Earnings is because the CPI inflation adjustment number for November 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 62.7%, which is only 0.3 percentage points above a multi-decade low. (Though I'm happy that this tough statistic has improved by 0.3 percentage points in just 14 months).

Interesting though that there was a 0.3 percentage point increase in the Employment To Population Ratio in the past 12 months, and a 1.5 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 0.3% from its multi-decade low, while the employment to population ratio has a much more substantial 1.5% 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 239,000 increase in "not in labor force, wants job" statistic. These are jobless people who have not looked for work in the past 4 weeks, thus they are classified as "not in the labor force". And additionally they tell the survey-taker that they want a job (even if they haven't looked for one in years). Given the other good employment statistics over the past year (particularly the "U-7" unemployment rate -- see above), I'm guessing that this increase is largely because of an increase in the number of people who are considering working who previously just thought it was too far-fetched to even aspire to getting a job.
[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#CEFEEE;"]
[font color=blue]SINCE THE PAYROLL EMPLOYMENT RECOVERY BEGAN -- Last 81 months thru November 30, 2016: 11'16 - 2'10[/font]:
(This is the period from when continuous growth of payroll employment began, thru November 30, 2016)
==== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ====
+15,479,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+5.29% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is thru October 2016 because no CPI data for November yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ====
+5,792,000 Labor Force
+13,504,000 Employed
-7,713,000 Unemployed (jobless people who have looked for work in the past 4 weeks)
+1.2% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (woo hoo!)
-2.2% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (ughh)
-5.2% Unemployment rate
-7.7% U-6 unemployment rate
-7.4% "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
-222,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
-3,267,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
+218,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+13,424,000 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;"]Nov'15 Aug'16 Oct'16 Nov'16
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] 4.1% 4.0% 3.9% 3.7%
[closes the light green highlight tag begun b4 the last 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/2016/12/02/employment-situation-november (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 November}

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/10141629568

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

12/2/16 -

I'm going to make the narrative short this month. Most of what's worth noting is in the commentary that is with the tables above.

The 178,000 increase in payroll jobs is quite good.

Very nice was the big 0.3 percentage point drop in the official unemployment rate, to 4.6%.

But disheartening was that about half the improvement in the unemployment rate was due to 226,000 fewer people in the labor force. (Though this is a volatile statistic from month to month. For the past year, the labor force has increased by 2.1 million).

The "OVER THE LAST MONTH" tables above also have the good numbers for the month -- besides the payroll jobs numbers and the 0.3% drop in the official unemployment rate -- another good number was the 0.2 percentage point drop in the broadest BLS measure of the unemployment rate -- U-6. And an especially good number was the even larger 0.4% drop in Solman's "U-7" unemployment rate (which counts EVERYONE who SAYS they want a job, no matter how long its been since they looked for work).

See also the Council of Economic Advisors' Take on the Jobs Report at https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/12/02/employment-situation-november , particularly the positive remarks on how new state minimum wage increases have contributed to wage increases with no discernible impact on employment. Also, the number of unemployed per job opening has reached about the same level as it was in the peak of the 2000s job expansion.