Unemployment Rate Drops, but How Significant?

Posted on by

The US unemployment rate dropped by a quite large 0.4% points in November, from the previous 9.0% to 8.6%, according to the December 2 release of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.   But the drop did not generate much excitement among analysts.  Why?

While at first glance, such a drop would generally be viewed as quite positive, an analysis of the underlying numbers suggests caution.  The estimated number of unemployed fell by 594,000, to a total of 13,303,000.  A fall of 594,000 is major.  However, the estimated increase in the number of employed was only 278,000.  Why the difference?  The reason was an estimated reduction in the size of the civilian labor force of 315,000.  Hence only a bit less than half (47%) of the fall in unemployment came from more workers being employed.  A bit more than half (53%) came from workers leaving the labor force.

Workers may leave the labor force for many reasons, including retirement, but also because they may be unemployed and see little prospect in getting a reasonable job.  Furthermore, the labor force will normally grow (rather than contract) over time as the population grows, but month to month it can vary.  In recent years it has been unusually flat or even falling in the face of high unemployment and hence poor job prospects for many.  Older baby boomers may also be dropping out of the labor force and taking early retirement.

In addition, it is not clear that the estimated increase in the number of employed, of 278,000 in the month, is accurate.  In the same December 2 release, the BLS stated that the number of employed in the month was only 120,000.  Why the difference?  The reason is that both are estimates obtained from surveys, and the figures come from two different surveys.  The 278,000 figure that accompanied the unemployment estimates comes from a survey of households.  The 120,000 figure comes from a survey of establishments (generally firms, but including governmental entities and other employers).

Over time the figures will on average be close to each other, but they can differ in any given month.  Coming from surveys, they are both subject to sampling errors, where it should be kept in mind that both of these figures are the relatively small differences between two estimates (for October and November) of the much larger number of total workers employed in that period.  Furthermore, the timing of the surveys within the month will differ.  Finally, there are some definitional differences, although such differences probably do not affect too much the estimates of the change in employment levels between the two periods.  The household survey asks whether the person has been employed in any occupation during the period.  The establishment survey surveys employers of non-farm workers.  Hence the household survey will include (and the establishment survey will not) those employed on farms, the self-employed, unpaid family workers, private household workers, and those on unpaid leave from work.  The establishment survey, on the other hand, will count each worker, and hence a worker with two jobs will be counted twice.  There are some other small differences as well.

The difference between the two estimates, of 278,000 more employed vs. 120,000 more employed, is large.  The estimates are also preliminary and hence subject to change.  Observers will therefore be looking at the trends over the next few months to see which estimate was likely the more accurate.

Employment Growth Continues, But at Too Low a Rate

Posted on by

The monthly change in employment figures continue to show growth in total employment, although at rates that remain too low for a reasonable recovery.  Total non-farm employment, both private sector and government, grew by 120,000 in November, based on the Establishment Survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  This total of 120,000 reflected an increase of 140,000 in private employment, offset by a decline in 20,000 in government employment (primarily state and local governments, which account for 87% of government employment in the US).

The 120,000 figure is too low.  Based on employment growth seen during recent periods of growth in the US, the figure would need to be roughly 200 to 250,000 per month for a sustained period for unemployment to decline on a sustainable basis.

The decline in government employment is hurting this.  If government employment were growing at a more historically normal rate of 20,000 per month rather than falling by 20,000 per month, total employment would growth in November would have been 160,000 by this direct effect alone.  That would by itself have accounted for about half the increase one would need to get to the lower end of the 200 to 250,000 band one needs (160,000 is half way between 120,000 and 200,000).  Furthermore, once one recognizes that there will be multiplier effects as well from such increased direct government employment in this economy (with its still very high unemployment), then with a multiplier of only just one (i.e. one additional private job for every additional government job, due to the resulting demand for goods and services from the new government workers), one would have gotten all the way to the 200 to 250,000 band.  And with a not unreasonable multiplier of two, one would be at 240,000, near the top end of this band.  That is, a major reason for the sluggish growth in employment in the US is the cut-backs being forced by conservative politicians on our government.  And they say they are forcing these cut-backs in the interest of “job creation”.

It is also of interest to look at the monthly employment figures in the longer term context.  Obama is being repeatedly blamed by Republican politicians for the high unemployment in the US, but the graph above clearly shows the turn-around that began precisely at his inauguration in January 2009.  At that point, the economy was in free-fall.  This first decelerated, and then, from the summer of 2009, the economy started to grow.  The turnaround and subsequent growth was a result of a large number of government programs rapidly put in place (including, to be fair, programs put in place at the end of the Bush Administration, such as TARP).  Note that the bump in government employment in the spring of 2010 was due to temporary workers hired for the decennial population census, where these jobs then were finished a few months later.  Indeed, the figures do not show a significant number of net new government jobs created in 2009 or since as a result of the stimulus package of Obama.  Government employment has in fact declined since Obama took office.  At most, the stimulus programs reduced the number of government job losses that might otherwise have taken place.

In sum, employment turned around dramatically in January 2009, when Obama took office, and there has been positive overall job growth since early 2010.  But job growth needs to be higher for unemployment to decline to acceptable levels, and it has proven difficult to do this in the face of a contracting government sector.

New Home Sales Remain Abysmal, But The Potential Should Be Recognized

Posted on by

New home sale figures for October, recently released, remain abysmally low at just 307,000 sales at an annual rate.  They have fluctuated within only a narrow range over the past year, with no clear trend and no signs to be encouraged by.  What is more interesting is the longer term context.

New home sales in the US fluctuate a good deal, but around a rising trend of 1.0% a year (calculated from a regression over the 1980 to 2010 data).  They reached a fairly stable level of approximately 900,000 housing units a year between 1998 and 2001.  But there was then a bubble between 2002 and 2006, reaching a peak of almost 1,300,000 in 2005, and then crashing to a bit over 300,000 in 2010 and 2011, where it now seems to have leveled off.

Only 300,000 new home sales a year is abysmal and a major drag on the economy.  It is only one-third of the 900,000 level of the early part of the last decade, and less than one-quarter of the levels reached in the bubble years.  But it should also be noted that people need homes, and that that need grows over time due to population growth.  The trend 1.0% growth found in the data is consistent with this.  And with new home construction now far below trend, it will be a significant spur to the economy if and when housing construction recovers.  Brad DeLong has made a similar point in his blog a number of times.  Here is one such post.

Keeping things simple and conservative, let’s assume that new home sales will, for the purposes here and over periods of time, on average equal the number of new homes constructed.  All are eventually sold, with very few exceptions.  And while there are figures available for new housing starts, these are consistently higher than sales for reasons that are not clear, but may reflect homes never completed.  Using the 900,000 units sold a year between 1998 and 2001 as a reasonable norm, and for simplicity not even allow for a rising trend in this figure, one can calculate the excess over the bubble years 2002 to 2006 (the area in blue in the graph) and then the shortfall that has developed over 2007 to 2011 and continues (the area in red).  Based on the figures underlying the graph, the excess during the bubble was 1.1 million units, while the shortfall in the subsequent bust through 2011 was 2.2 million units.  There is therefore now a net shortfall in housing supply of 1.1 million, as the excess over 2002 to 2006 has been more than worked off.  And as long as new home sales and construction remain at only 300,000 a year, that shortfall (relative to a 900,000 per year norm) will be growing by 600,000 housing units a year.

This suggests that a major pent-up demand for homes has built up.  It has not been resolved due to continued problems in the housing market and especially in the housing finance market, with many mortgages underwater and hence do not move, mortgages that remain hard to get by potential new buyers, an overhang of houses not sold, and a foreclosure process that has not worked well.  The market remains close to frozen.

But if these housing market problems could be resolved, so that construction could revert to its previous norms, the stimulus to the economy would be huge.  Assuming simply a return to construction of 900,000 units a year (and hence ignoring what would likely be an overshooting of this for a few years to make up for the net shortfall of recent years), implies construction of an additional 600,000 units a year.  At the average new home price of $221,800 in 2010, the aggregate value of such homes would be $133 billion per year.  This is just short of 1% of GDP.  Most of this would add to GDP as there is some, but only limited, “leakage” through some inputs that are imported (housing lumber, fuel for trucks, etc.).

But there will also be indirect multiplier effects, especially in the current depressed economy.  A reasonable estimate of the multiplier on housing construction would be 2 to 3.  A return of new home construction to previous levels would therefore add 2 to 3% of GDP. With actual GDP currently about 5% below potential GDP (estimate for end 2011 by the Congressional Budget Office, page 12), such an addition from housing construction would bring the economy about half-way back to where it needs to be.  But this will not happen until the market for homes and for home mortgage financing begins to function reasonably well.