Monthly Bet
Monthly jobs report comes out tomorrow. Consensus forecast is -600K. As usual I'll go with the under bet, predicting even more lost jobs.
-Atrios 15:30
Then
Unders Win
-539K jobs. Unemployment jumps to 8.9%.
-Atrios 10:01
Small comfort that the decline in employment was less than expected.
18 comments:
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm
The Bush-Obama experience in monthly job loss has been,
- 710 x 100 months = - 71,000 jobs lost in all;
enough job creation to keep up with civilian work force growth would have meant,
140,500 x 100 = 14.1 million jobs created in 100 months;
the Clinton experience was,
240,300 x 96 = 23.1 million jobs created in 96 months.
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm
January 9, 2009
Employment Growth Summary, 1992-2009
(Thousands) *
December 1992 ( 109,415)
December 2000 ( 132,485)
December 2008 ( 135,074)
April 2009 ( 132,414)
Clinton ( 23,070) (+ 21.1%) Total jobs created
Bush-Obama (- 71) (- 0.1%) Total jobs lost
(Actual averages)
Clinton ( 240,313) Monthly jobs created
Bush-Obama (- 710) Monthly jobs lost
* Establishment data, seasonally adjusted.
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm
January 9, 2009
Total Nonfarm Private Employment, 1992-2009
(Thousands) *
December 1992 ( 90,537)
December 2000 (111,681)
December 2008 (112,542)
April 2009 (109,801)
Clinton ( 21,144) (+ 23.4%) Total private jobs created
Bush-Obama (- 1,880) (- 1.7%) Total private jobs lost
(Actual averages)
Clinton ( 220,250) Monthly private jobs created
Bush-Obama (- 18,800) Monthly private jobs lost
* Establishment data, seasonally adjusted.
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm
January 9, 2009
Total Nonfarm Government Employment, 1992-2009
(Thousands) *
December 1992 ( 18,878)
December 2000 ( 20,804)
December 2008 ( 22,532)
April 2009 ( 22,613)
Clinton ( 1,926) (+ 10.2%) Total government jobs created
Bush-Obama ( 1,809) (+ 8.7%)
(Actual averages)
Clinton ( 20,063) Monthly government jobs created
Bush-Obama ( 18,090)
* Establishment data, seasonally adjusted.
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm
April 10, 2009
Employment Loss & Growth Summary
December 2007 - April 2009
Total Nonfarm Private Employment Loss = (- 5,982,000)
Total Nonfarm Government Employment Growth = (+ 244,000)
Total Employment Loss = (- 5,738,000)
What has happened beyond the financial crisis is that the lengthy but continually relatively weak Bush expansion is gone. We have gone 100 months with no job creation overall, but we have lost 1.88 million private sector jobs over the last 100 months. The only job creation through these Bush-Obama 100 months has been in government, or enough job creation in government to leave us about where we were in December 2000.
The employment-population ratio ratio for men is the lowest recorded since 1948 when records begin, women are holding relatively better as they have been through the recession. Why women are faring relatively better may be largely due to more women in government positions, possibly to simply being less costly to private employers, but why is not clear.
The unemployment rate for African-American men which was as low as 6.0% during the Clinton Presidency is now a startling 17.2%, for women the rate has gone from 5.5% to 11.5%. The employment-population ration for African-American men is the lowest recorded since record keeping began in 1972 and is only a little higher than that for women. *
* These figures are for women and men over 20 years of age, so especially needing to be working.
What is not being noticed or at least reported is the extend to which men are bearing the burnt of the recession in terms of employment far more than women, in a way not found in any earlier recession since the Depression. Unemployment rates for men are far higher than women, and in more cases are higher than at any time since 1948 when such record keeping begins. Employment-population ratios are correspondingly generally lower for men than at any time since 1948. African-American men are in particular being severely effected by the recession.
How serious the relative recession difficulty of men has become should be clearer when considering that women are quickly catching men in overall employment, but women still earn considerably less than men in general so that men are faring relatively worse than in any recession since the Depression and loss of a man's income does not in general mean the income will be replaced in a household by a woman's.
I do not understand why this should be the case, but it would seem important and discouraging.
Try thinking, rather than merely being flip.
Here we would seem to have a proper sense, as Alan Greenspan came to understand and stress, as to how the American economy both became increasingly more resilient after 1980 and the nature of the business cycle changed from an inventory to an employment cycle. The current recession has been worsened by a financial crisis that investment markets have pretty much discounted now, but the recession from the beginning was not of inventory accumulation but month on month of job losses.
Should Greenspan have been right about the business cycle, job creation will be decidedly slow in coming and even if the recession formally ends soon the sense that we are in a recession will remain for far too many.
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm
http://wwwdev.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html
April 10, 2009
Recessions and Employment Cycles, 1948-2009
Private employment has declined for 16 months since the 16 month recession of 2007, from December 2007 to April 2009.
Private employment declined for 32 months around the 8 month recession of 2001, from December 2000 to August 2003.
Private employment declined for 23 months around the 8 month recession of 1990, from March 1990 to February 1992.
Private employment declined for 17 months around the 16 month recession of 1981, from July 1981 to December 1982.
Private employment declined for 4 months around the 6 month recession of 1980, from March 1980 to July 1980.
Private employment declined for 12 months around the 16 month recession of 1973, from June 1974 to June 1975.
What the final unemployment rate will be seems of fairly limited importance, for what we have done already is eliminate all job creation for more than 8 years or for precisely 100 months. We have lost jobs for 100 months * when we should have been creating 140,500 jobs a month. We are then about 14.1 million jobs short of where we should be to be healthy as an economy, and there will obviously be more jobs losses to come. Workers have been leaving for workforce in various ways or the unemployment rate would be higher already. The problem is job loss, and possibly loss of wages and benefits for employed workers as well, as Paul Krugman worries about.
* 71,000 jobs lost in all, and 1.88 million private sector jobs.
So that we know:
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/05/obama-shells.html
May 10, 2009
Obama shells
"Life as 8-year-old Razia knew it ended one March morning when a shell her father says was fired by Western troops exploded into their house, enveloping her head and neck in a blazing chemical." *
* http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090508/twl-uk-afghanistan-phosphorus-exclusive-bd5ae06.html
-- As'ad AbuKhalil
[America is using white phosphorus shells in Afghanistan, as Israel used such shells in Gaza, even as America used Napalm in Vietnam. What have we come to?]
Total private worker compensation from January through March was a mere 0.2% and the trend was down. Reasonable productivity gains will make this compensation level deflationary. Nominal hourly wages essentially stopped increasing in April 2009, while weekly wages stopped increasing in August 2008.
General deflation is distinctly possible, and earning losses more so, either making recovery more difficult.
Christina Romer finds 2.5% general growth necessary for employment growth, and while I would argue for a higher necessary rate, or a sustained 2.5% growth before employment grows given recent business cycle experience, we can look to more job losses.
Workers over 55 by the way have a far higher unemployment rate than during the Reagan recession of 1981, higher than at any time since 1948 when record keeping begins. Why though, and what does this mean in terms of investment wealth loss through the bear stock and housing markets?
Should I understand our employment experience through the lengthy Bush expansion and since then this is already the most serious recession since the Depression, but possibly the seriousness is less evident than in the recession of 1981 or even several recessions since 1945 because of relatively more women working.
The bear stock market compounding loss of work especially for older workers should be considered, because the bear market has meant 10 years of losses now. These last 10 years have marked easily the poorest stock market decade since the Depression, and bonds were continually recommended against against by quite a few analysts before 1999 and since even though bonds have been especially fine investments.
Wealth has been lost in homes as well as in stocks, adding to the wealth problem older workers may well confront from here.
So consumption will not likely stimulate general growth from here, and investment as Romer suggests will have to do. Domestic investment however was notably slow growing through the Bush expansion, and I wonder if the President's green stimulus will add sufficiently to green investment.
So, we have lost 1.88 million private sector jobs over 100 months, with more losses likely, and no clear sense of what this means and seemingly little emphasis on getting the jobs back let alone making up for not creating 14.1 million jobs in all these last 100 months.
The loss of private sector jobs for April was 611,000 and interestingly enough every month when revisions are made to the job loss figures in the months before the revisions show a worsening situation. I wonder why though all the revisions have been showing a worsening through this recession.
Looking even to hours worked through a week, there has been a slow loss through the recession with no turn in April.
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab5.htm
January 9, 2009
Part Time for Economic Reasons, 2007-2009
(Percent change year over year) *
2007
Dec ( 10.7) Recession begins
2008
Jan ( 12.8)
Feb ( 15.8)
Mar ( 15.1)
Apr ( 20.7)
May ( 18.0)
Jun ( 27.3)
Jul ( 34.0)
Aug ( 27.9)
Sep ( 38.1)
Oct ( 55.6)
Nov ( 63.1)
Dec ( 73.3)
2009
Jan ( 65.4)
Feb ( 76.4)
Mar ( 83.3)
Apr ( 70.0)
* Persons at work 1-34 hours, employment age 16 and over; seasonally adjusted.
Well this is a long thread. The only topic of my post was Black's inconsistent use of the word "under" and "unders" to refer to lower and to closer to 0. I did not express any view on the severity of the recession. Obviously it's extremely severe.
Post a Comment