Employment Growth: Positive, but Still Sluggish

Posted on by

US employment, monthly change, private and government, December 2005 to September 2012

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released this morning its regular monthly report on employment and unemployment.  There will be one more such report on Friday, November 2, but this will be just a few days prior to the November 6 election.  The current report will likely be more heavily scrutinized, and commented upon, in the period leading up to the election.

The report indicates that while employment growth in the US remains positive, it remains sluggish.  The estimate is that total employment rose by 114,000, of which 104,000 were private jobs, and 10,000 were government jobs.  While positive, this is less than the estimated 200,000 to 250,000 new jobs required each month which this blog has indicated  in an earlier post needs to be sustained for unemployment to fall on a consistent basis.

This estimate of 114,000 new jobs is less than the revised estimates of net new jobs created in July and August.  All the estimates are preliminary for the most recent two months, as the BLS revises the estimates as new numbers come in through the regular reporting system.  The July and August net new jobs estimates were revised upwards to 181,000 in July (from an estimate of 141,000 last month) and to 142,000 in August (from an estimate of 96,000 last month), for a net addition of 86,000 jobs over these two months over what was estimated before.

Almost all of the revisions were in the figures on government jobs, to growth of 18,000 in July (versus a decline of 21,000 estimated before) and growth of 45,000 in August (versus a decline of 7,000 estimated before).  But government jobs remain depressed:  Despite the recent growth, as of September 2012 there were 575,000 fewer government jobs than when Obama took office in January 2009 (mostly at the state and local level, as they account for 87% of government jobs in the US).  As this blog has noted before, if government jobs had been allowed to grow in the downturn following the 2008 collapse as they had in previous downturns (including in particular when Reagan was in office) or as they had when Bush, Jr., was in office, we would now be at, or close to, full employment.

Despite the disappointing growth in total jobs in September (of just 114,000), it is interesting and encouraging that the estimated unemployment rate fell sharply, to 7.8% from the previous 8.1%.  How could this be?  It is important to remember that the estimated employment figure comes from a survey of about 140,000 business establishments (including government agencies and non-profit entities), while the unemployment estimate comes from a separate survey of 60,000 households.  There are significant differences between the two surveys, both statistical and conceptual.  Statistically, they are both estimates taken from samples.  Conceptually, they measure different things:  The household survey asks the household if they (and other household members) are employed, including as self-employed, as unpaid family labor, as private household workers, or in farm work.  The business survey excludes farm workers, and the others (the self-employed, etc.) will be excluded as well as they are not employed in business establishments.  But if a person has two jobs, the business survey will count them as holding two different jobs, while the household survey will merely record them once, as employed.

Bearing this in mind, it is still interesting that the household survey estimated that the number of employed jumped by 873,000 in September (the biggest such jump since 2003), while the business survey only estimated an additional 114,000 were employed.  Analysts generally discount the employment estimate from the household survey, as it is subject to greater statistical fluctuation (due not only to the smaller sample size, but more importantly since the business establishments surveyed will have many workers generally, while households will generally have only one or two workers).  The household estimates bounce around a good deal more.

But still, a jump of 873,000 employed in one month is a lot.  In part, this was a bounce back from estimated negative growth in the number employed in the household survey in July and August (of -195,000 in July and -119,000 in August).  It also suggests that the creeping up of the unemployment rate in recent months (from 8.1% in April, rising to 8.3% in July) may have been an aberration.  The 7.8% rate of September indicates a return to the previous trend.  And the 7.8% figure may have some political significance as that was the unemployment rate in January 2009 when Obama took office, although rising rapidly at that time until the stimulus program and other measures were able to turn it around.

There are also indications that the recent employment estimates from the business establishment survey may have been low.  First, there was a BLS announcement on September 27 that the preliminary estimate in its regular annual re-benchmarking analysis was that employment in March 2012 was 386,000 higher than previously estimated.  This will be further analyzed still, and the employment figures shown above do not yet reflect this new estimate for the benchmark.  Re-estimated figures for 2011 and 2012 will be provided, as they always are, when the January 2013 employment report is issued on the first Friday of February.  With the new benchmark estimate, they will show that employment levels, as well as employment growth, has been considerably higher in the latter part of 2011 and into 2012 than is being currently estimated.

Second, one can compare the estimates on the growth in the number of employed from the household survey to the number of employed from the business survey.  As noted above, the two surveys measure slightly different concepts.  But over time one would expect that they will move together, with the ratio of one to the other close to constant, although with month to month volatility.

A reasonable time span to look at would be the averages over a year, such as between September 2011 and September 2012.  Over this time period, the household survey indicated employment grew by an average of 238,900 per month, while the business survey indicated employment growth of just 150,500 per month.  Once the new, higher, benchmark is incorporated into the business survey employment figures, the employment growth estimate from the business survey will move towards the higher figure suggested by the household survey.

One can also calculate what employment growth as measured in the business survey would have been in September 2012, if the ratio of employment as estimated in the household survey to employment as estimated in the business survey (keeping in mind they are measuring somewhat different things), was the same in September 2012 as it had been in September 2011.  If it were, one can calculate that employment growth as estimated by the business survey would have been an average of 223,400 per month over that period.

There are therefore indications that employment growth over the past year has been stronger than the current estimates from the business survey indicate.  It looks like employment growth over the last year might have averaged between 200,000 and 250,000 per month.  As noted above, growth in such a range is consistent with a falling (although slowly falling) rate of unemployment.  And the unemployment rate did indeed fall slowly over this period, from 9.0% in September 2011 to 7.8% in September 2012, or an average of 0.1% point per month.

There is therefore some evidence that employment growth in 2011 and so far in 2012 has been somewhat higher than currently estimated.  It has been high enough to lead to a fall in the unemployment rate to the current 7.8%.  But this progress is still disappointingly slow, as drag from cuts in fiscal expenditures (including for government employment) has held back the economy.

What Mitt Romney Believes, Part 1: Campaign Contributions From Corporates are OK, but Not From Public Sector Unions

Posted on by

Mitt Romney in an interview with Brian Williams of NBC News on September 25, 2012:

“We have a very unusual system in this country. It’s not just related to teachers unions. It relates more broadly. But people are able to give — in the case of the Democratic Party, I don’t mean to be terribly partisan, but I kind of am — in case of the Democratic Party, the largest contributors to the Democratic Party are the teachers unions, the federal teachers unions.

And so, if they can elect someone, then that person is supposed to be representing the public vis-a-vis the teachers union, but actually most of the money came from the teachers union. It’s an extraordinary conflict of interest. That’s something I think is a problem and should be addressed.”

In a television interview with NBC News, Mitt Romney said it is “an extraordinary conflict of interest” and a “problem” that “should be addressed”, that teachers unions specifically, and public sector unions more generally, negotiate contracts with government officials that they may have provided campaign contributions for.

One could indeed argue that there is a conflict of interest.  But why limit this to public sector unions?  There is also a conflict of interest when aerospace giants like Boeing and Lockheed provide campaign contributions and then negotiate contracts worth tens of billions of dollars a year with the public officials they helped elect.  The same is true of the oil and gas companies, who negotiate oil and gas leases on federal land, and indeed almost any corporate interest one can imagine, as all negotiate contracts or regulations or tax treatment with government officials.  Yet Romney does not appear to recognize that this represents conflicts of interest as well.

The same is true of the multi-million dollar campaign contributions being made to the Republican campaign from billionaires such as Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers, and others.  Sheldon Adelson, a casino mogul, is worth over $20 billion, has contributed already over $70 million to Republican campaigns in this electoral cycle and has said he would contribute up to $100 million (or “whatever it takes”) before it is over.  Yet he would stand to gain far more if Romney is elected and gets his tax proposals passed.  An analysis published by the Center for American Progress Action Fund estimates that Adelson would see his tax bill cut by over $2 billion in the near term (mostly from Romney’s pledge to exempt from US taxation any corporate profits earned overseas), with a further reduction of almost $9 billion later due to repeal of the estate tax, which his heirs will benefit from.

All large corporate entities and the super-wealthy will have a conflict of interest when they provide significant campaign contributions to political candidates.  If they win, the politicians will later decide on policies that affect their campaign contributors.  The only way to avoid this will be to limit campaign contributions to registered voters, with a modest ceiling on the maximum they can give.

Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court, with its current Republican majority, has ruled that it is unconstitutional to limit the right of corporate entities (as well as unions and individuals) to contribute whatever they wish to political campaigns.  Yet it is not clear why corporations are treated the same as individuals.  Individuals can vote, while corporations can not (at least not yet).  Corporations are never mentioned in the US Constitution, and are legal constructs providing limited liability and other benefits that are important for the organization of economic production.

Why such a legal construct should have the same right as individuals to influence elections through their campaign contributions is not clear.  If Mitt Romney is in fact opposed to campaign contributions from entities with a “conflict of interest”, he would be opposed to such corporate contributions as well.  But of course he is not.

New Housing Starts, While Better, Are Still Depressed

Posted on by

US housing starts, private single family homes, January 1980 to August 2012The US Census Bureau released this morning its regular monthly report on US housing starts.  News reports were positive, noting that housing starts are rising and are now well above where they were.  Starts on private single family homes in August grew by 27% over what they were a year ago to a pace of 535,000 (at a seasonally adjusted annual rate), while starts on all private housing units, including multi-family units such as apartments, grew by 29% over the year ago figure to a pace of 750,000.

Such growth rates are substantial.  But looking at the figures over a longer period than just a year shows that the increases, while welcome, are not as strong as they would appear.  The housing market remains depressed, with housing construction still far below what a more normal level might be, and even further below where it was during the 2002 to 2006 housing bubble.  The graph above puts the recent figures in the longer term context.

The graph shows how new private housing starts (monthly, but at seasonally adjusted annual rates) have moved since 1980.  Housing starts can be volatile, but they have never been so volatile (going back to 1980) as the recent boom and collapse.  The housing bubble started to build in early 2002, and new starts reached an annualized (and seasonally adjusted) peak of over 1.8 million new units in January 2006.  They then fell steadily, and the collapse in the housing market was the major underlying cause of the overall economic collapse in 2008, in the last year of the Bush Administration.  They reached a trough of 358,000 in January 2009, the month Obama was inaugurated, a fall of 80% from the peak.  Since then they have increased, to 535,000 last month, but remain far below what they had been.

A recovery to the previous bubble peak would be unwarranted (on a sustained basis), as it was the build-up of an excess supply of housing which led to the bubble collapsing.  But the American population continues to grow and needs housing, and it is clear that the current pace of construction is insufficient (based on historical patterns).  Prior to 2002, new housing starts was on an upward trend, but at a moderate pace.  But to keep things simple and conservative, one can take as a reasonable floor of where housing starts need to be as the average in 2001, when 1.27 million units were started.

Based on this conservative benchmark, the new housing starts of 535,000 single family homes in August 2012 would need to increase by a factor of  almost 2 1/2 to return to a more normal level.  While this is better than where it was last year in August (when it would have had to triple to reach the benchmark), it still has a long way to go.

But as has been noted previously in this blog (see the posts here and here), the shortfall in home construction since the collapse of the bubble indicates suggests a substantial potential, once housing begins to recover.  (Note that these earlier blog posts focused on new home sales, while the current post focuses on the broader concept of new home starts.  The starts figure includes starts of home units that would not only be sold, but also those which would eventually be rented, whether by original intention or because the new home could not be sold, plus homes which were built by or for a specific owner.)  The need for new homes remains, as the population continues to grow.  In the short-run, families double up, or adult children continue to live with their parents, as was discussed in the blog posts cited above.  But as soon as they are able, these people want to buy their own homes.

Based on a 1.27 million units per year norm, the graph above shows the excess of new homes (shaded in blue) between 2002 and late 2006, and then the deficiency (shaded in red) since then to now.  Based on this norm, the excess of housing started during the bubble totaled 1.3 million units over the full period.  This excess has now been more than worked off.  The cumulative shortfall (shaded in red) comes to 3.9 million units, or triple the previous excess.  Stated another way, there is now a shortfall of a net 2.6 million single family housing units.  There will be pressure to catch up on this once the economy, and the housing market, begins to recover.

Such a catch-up on the accumulated short-fall in new home construction of recent years could serve as a significant stimulus to the economy, as was discussed in the blog posts cited above.  Other commentators, such as Paul Krugman recently, have noted this as well.  But while such a stimulus to demand would be welcome, one needs also to recognize that fiscal drag has been quantitatively more important than the collapse in residential construction in explaining the lack of a strong recovery from the 2008 collapse.  This was discussed in a posting on this blog from last March.  Residential construction is only 2.4% of GDP currently, down from over 6% of GDP at the peak of the bubble, and about 4% of GDP in more normal times.  Government consumption and investment (as in the GDP accounts) is about 20% of GDP, and total government spending (including transfer payments, such as for Social Security or Medicare) is 36% of GDP.  Government is a much larger share of the economy than is residential construction.  Because of this, reversing the fiscal drag resulting from the scaling back of government expenditures in recent years (particularly at the state and local level) and allowing it to grow as it had during the Reagan years, would add more to the economy than a recovery in housing, welcome as a recovery in housing would be.  Numbers are provided in the March post cited above.

In summary, while there have been recent positive signs, housing construction remains depressed.  However, because housing construction has been so depressed for so long, there is now a shortfall in housing units relative to what is needed for a growing population.  Hence a recovery in new home construction should be expected as the economy begins to recover, and could lead to a doubling or tripling of new home construction from where it is now.  This would be a welcome stimulus to the economy.  But welcome as this would be, allowing government expenditures to recover would make an even larger contribution.