Category Archives: Econ Data

The Dynamics of the Job Market: The Decline Started in 2006, with a Partial Recovery Under Obama

Posted on by

The most closely watched jobs number reported each month, aside from perhaps the unemployment rate, is the figure normally referred to as “new jobs created”.   For example, on January 6, news reports on the Bureau of Labor Statistics release that day stated that “200,000 new jobs were created” in December.  But many people may not fully realize that that number is a net figure, and the news reports often speak as if it is all new hiring.  Actually, around 4 million people are being hired each month right now in the US, while close to that number are also leaving their jobs for various reasons (mostly quits to take some job elsewhere).  It is the net figure between these two that is the 200,000.

To understand what is going on in the labor market, it is important to disentangle the figures.  The graph above shows the numbers since January 2006 (and up to November 2011, the most recent figure available) on total private sector hires each month, total private sector separations for whatever reason (this will be broken down below in this post), and the net between the two.  One could also include government employment, but I have left it out to focus on the private sector labor market dynamics.  Government employment is much smaller (government employment is less than 17% of total employment in the US, and 87% of government employment is with state and local governments).  It is also generally more stable and has been, other than a blip due to temporary hiring at the time of the 2010 census.  And government employment has been trending downward during the Obama period (mostly due to falls in state and local government employment, as I discussed in a December 6 post).

The first interesting point to note is how much churn there is in the labor market.  This is not commonly appreciated in the discussion surrounding the monthly figure on “new jobs”.  Hiring is always going on, and people are always leaving their jobs for various reasons (whether quitting to take a new job elsewhere, or retiring, or being laid off, in both good times and bad – this will be reviewed below).  This churn is high.  For example, over the twelve months leading to November 2011, 48.6 million people were hired, while 47.2 million left their job for whatever reason, leaving a net job growth of 1.4 million (these figures include government).

And such hiring continues in both good times and bad.  Hiring fell from around 5 million a month before the downturn, only to around 3 1/2 million per month in the worst of the economic collapse in 2008 / 2009.  The unemployment rate peaked at over 10%, but even in this period, new hiring was being done at around two-thirds the rate it was before.  Yet many Republican critics asserted that “no one” was being hired due to Obama’s regulatory policies.  In fact, the fall in hiring largely came before Obama entered office, stabilized within a few months of his inaugeration, and since has risen, although not by enough.

With this break-down, it is also interesting to see that the deterioration in the labor market began as early as 2006, when private new hiring began to slow.  Housing prices had also reached their peak in 2006, and then began to fall.  While the collapse in the economy was in full swing only in 2008, in the last year of the Bush Administration, the deterioration in conditions had in fact started two years earlier.

With new hiring starting to slow from 2006, the number of people leaving their jobs for whatever reason (“total separations” in the graph) started to slow in 2007.  As labor market conditions deteriorated in 2007 with the lower new hiring, fewer people would choose to quit.  They did not have a new job to go to.  With both hiring and quits down together, net jobs (hiring less separations) generally remained positive in 2007.  But by 2008, new hiring was falling fast, and while total separations also fell, hiring was now less than separations, so net jobs fell fast.

Things then began to turn around within a few months of Obama taking office, due to his stimulus and other policies.  New hiring stabilized at about 3 1/2 million per month, while total separations continued to fall.  Fewer people were being laid off than they were when Obama took office (see below).  Net job losses stabilized (the trough was March 2009) and then began to improve.  While Republicans continue to assert that Obama’s policies have harmed job creation, the turnaround occurred exactly as soon as his policies could start to have an effect.  And the job situation has continued to improve since then, although not by enough given the depth of the hole the economy was in when Obama took office.

As noted above, the Total Separations figure is the total separations due to people quitting voluntarily (normally to take a better job elsewhere), people being involuntarily discharged either due to layoffs or due to poor performance, and other separations (mostly due to retirement).  The figures since 2006 are shown below:

It is interesting that while involuntary discharges and layoffs rose with the 2008 economic collapse, the increase was all in the second half of 2008, and was from 1.7 million per month in “normal” times, to a peak of just 2.4 million per month.  That is, there are always involuntary discharges and layoffs for various reasons, but in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression it increased by less than half.  And since the end of 2009, monthly discharges and layoffs have been lower than they were prior to the downturn in 2006 and 2007.  One cannot say that Obama’s policies have led to more workers being laid off.

As noted above, quits started to fall in 2007, as labor market conditions started to deteriorate with the fall in new hiring.  They reached a trough in late 2009 / early 2010, and since have risen a bit, as labor market conditions began to improve.  But they remain well below what they were in 2006, as labor market conditions, while better than in 2008/2009, still remain poor, with 8 1/2% unemployment.  But people still do quit, at a rate of about 1.8 million per month, vs. quits of close to 3 million per month at the peak of the housing bubble.

Labor market conditions remain weak, with unemployment far too high.  It is unfortunate that political pressures are keeping the Obama administration from doing more to bring unemployment down, and indeed are forcing measures (such as cuts in fiscal spending) which are making the situation worse than it would otherwise be.  But the labor market turned around within a few months of Obama taking office, and has improved since.  There is still much more that needs to be done to bring down unemployment, but the charge that Obama’s policies are the cause of the high unemployment, is simply not backed by the facts.

Why Have Productivity and Profits Gone Up During Obama’s Term?

Posted on by

In the post immediately preceding this one (see directly below, or here), I noted that a glance at the economic data makes clear that productivity and profitability have both increased under Obama.  Hence, the argument made by Mitt Romney and the other Republican candidates that onerous regulations imposed by Obama are the cause of disappointing job and output growth, is simply not correct.  If new regulations were such a problem, one would have expected productivity and especially profitability to have suffered, and yet both have improved.  Indeed, profitability has sky-rocketed.

For convenience, here is the basic graph again:

But this naturally then also raises the question of why productivity and especially profitability have gone up by so much under Obama.  Indeed, some might wonder whether Obama’s administration has deliberately favored profits at the expense of wages.

While a full analysis cannot be done here, I find no reason to jump to such a conclusion.  The path of profits is what one would expect over the last few years, with the sharp collapse in output at the end of the Bush Administration and then only a slow recovery with unemployment staying high.  There is the separate issue of the longer term trends, where profits have been growing as a share of National Income since about 1980 (for the last decade, see here, and for the underlying data and the longer term see the BEA data at here).  But the fluctuations over the last few years can be well understood in terms of the short term dynamics of the economic collapse and subsequent slow recovery.

Specifically, profits fell sharply in the economic downturn at the end of the Bush Administration, and started to to fall (per unit of production) as far back as 2006.  It is worth noting that housing prices peaked in the first half of 2006, and the economy began to slow after that.  A collapse in profits when the economy collapsed is as one would expect.

In response to the economic downturn, the Federal Reserve Board cut interest rates, ultimately to historically low levels of essentially zero for rates on risk-free assets.  Coupled with other aggressive Fed measures, as well as the TARP program to stabilize the banks (launched by Bush) and then the Obama stimulus program, the collapse was halted and the economy then started to grow in the middle of 2009.  Profitability then recovered.

The business response to the downturn was to lay off workers, as they always do in a downturn, and then later they invested in new machinery and equipment.  The investment was spurred in part by the low interest rates following from the Fed policies, and indeed the recovery in non-residential private fixed investment was surprisingly strong (see here).  Both these actions increased labor productivity, as shown in the diagram above.

But aggregate demand growth remained sluggish, despite the growth in private investment.   The downturn was due primarily to the bursting of the housing price bubble that the Bush Administration regulators had allowed to build up (or at least made no attempt to limit).  As housing prices collapsed, home owners became poorer and many ended up with mortgages that were larger than the now lower values of their homes.  Stock prices also fell, hurting retirement and savings accounts.  Coupled also with worries generated by high unemployment, households hunkered down to consume less and try to save more.  Private consumption stagnated.  And after the Obama stimulus plan was passed (helping to stop the free-fall in output and to turn around the economy), political pressures from the Republican Party and especially the Tea Party wing made it impossible for government to maintain a high enough demand to fill in the still large gap in aggregate national demand.

As a consequence, the recovery in growth was limited and unemployment has stayed high.    This has kept wages largely flat.  But labor productivity rose due to the large early lay-offs and later the growth in business investment.  With wages flat but labor productivity higher, unit labor costs fell.

In addition, there are non-labor costs (not shown in the diagram) which also fell.  The main component of such costs that fell was interest payments, which the Fed reduced to the maximum extent it could to try to spur the economy.

With both unit labor costs and non-labor costs down, profits rose and rose sharply.

Regulations Under Obama Cannot Be Blamed: Productivity and Profits Have Gone Up

Posted on by


The Republican Presidential candidates, and especially Mitt Romney, have repeatedly asserted that burdensome regulations imposed by the Obama Administration are to blame for the disappointing performance of the economy during the recovery, and especially the disappointing job performance.  The evidence points to the opposite:  productivity has in fact performed quite well and profitability has sky-rocketed.  If regulations were a problem, one would have expected productivity to have declined and profitability to have suffered, and they haven’t.

The disappointing performance of the economy in recent years can rather be attributed to slow growth in aggregate demand.  Households have had to scale back consumption after the housing bubble burst, while conservative fiscal policies forced by a Republican Congress have not allowed government expenditures to fill in the resulting gap.

The chart above shows how labor productivity, unit labor costs, and unit profits have performed in recent years (for non-financial corporations), each indexed so that the 2005 average equals 100.  Labor productivity (in green in the chart) is the amount of output produced per unit of labor.  It was basically flat prior to Obama taking office, rising by just 2.2% total in those four years, but then jumped by 8.6% total in the subsequent 2 1/2 years.  If regulations imposed by Obama were a major hindrance, productivity would not have gone up like this.

But while labor productivity improved, labor compensation (not shown in the chart to reduce clutter) was basically flat.  Indeed, hourly wages in real terms have declined slightly since Obama took office (by 0.8% total).  This is consistent with a slack labor market, with high unemployment depressing wages.  With higher productivity and wages not increasing, the result was falling unit labor costs (labor costs per unit of output), as shown in blue in the chart.

What did shoot up after Obama took office was unit profits (profits per unit of output, in red in the chart).  This is much more volatile, but it is interesting to note that it peaked in the third quarter of 2006 and then fell sharply well before Obama took office.  If someone is to be “blamed” for this, it would have to be Bush.  Unit profits then reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009, as the recession came to an end, and then skyrocketed by over 75% up to the third quarter of 2011 (the most recent data available).  This is of course all consistent with what has been observed at the level of the aggregate National Income accounts, which was reviewed in an earlier post (see here) on this blog.

Mitt Romney and the other Republican candidates assert that burdensome regulations under Obama have stifled the ability of business to make a profit, and with that, businesses have been unwilling to employ more workers.  But productivity has improved and profitability has soared.  The evidence simply does not support their assertions.