Tag Archives: government employment

Employment Growth: Still Sluggish

Posted on by

Employment, Monthly Change, Dec 2005 - Jan 2013

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released its regular monthly report on employment this morning.  The report indicates that the trends seen since late 2010 have continued, with steady but modest growth in private employment, falling government employment, and a resulting growth in total employment that brings down the unemployment rate only slowly and with month to month fluctuations.  Total non-farm employment (from the Business Establishment Survey) rose by an estimated 157,000 in January, with private non-farm employment rising by 166,000 while government employment was cut by 9,000.

The figures in this report also reflect the impact of the regular annual re-benchmarking of the employment statistics.   As was discussed in an earlier posting on this blog, this re-benchmarking was expected to raise the estimates for employment in 2012, and it did.  But with revisions in the seasonally adjusted data going all the way back to 2008 (as is normal), the changes in 2012 itself were relatively modest as the base rose.  Under the earlier estimates, total non-farm employment growth in 2012 was estimated to have averaged 153,000 per month.  Under the revised figures, employment is estimated to have grown at about 181,000 per month, for an increase of 28,000 per month.  While an improvement, this still leaves monthly employment growth at less than the 200 to 250,000 per month that I had earlier noted in this blog would be needed to produce a steady and reasonably strong reduction in the unemployment rate.  But it is at least closer to what is needed.

And indeed, the unemployment rate from the separate Household Survey went up one notch to an estimated 7.9%, from 7.8% in December and November as well as September (it was an estimated 7.9% in October).  While such a small increase in the January rate is not statistically significant in itself (the numbers are all based on surveys), one can certainly say that the unemployment rate has not improved since September.

Like the Establishment Survey, the Household Survey that is used to calculate the unemployment rate (as well as labor participation and other figures) was revised to reflect new benchmarks and weights.  But unlike the Establishment Survey numbers (used for the employment estimates), the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not then go back and revise the previous estimates stemming from the Household Survey.  I do not know why.  One cannot then directly compare the January figures to those of December and earlier, to see what the changes were.

The BLS does, however, provide in a note the impact of the re-weighting on a few of the main estimates, including on the total number in the labor force, on those employed, and on those unemployed.  Taking this impact into account, the figures indicate that the number in the labor force was about unchanged in the month, while those employed (based on the Household Survey) fell by 110,000, and those unemployed rose by 117,000.  This is not good, and suggests that the unemployment rate rose (slightly) not because workers re-entered the labor force, but because workers lost jobs.  But too much should not be read into one month’s figures, particularly when the figures suggested by the Household Survey (that employment declined) contradict the figures indicated in the Establishment Survey (that employment rose).  Such contradictory moves in the month to month changes are not unusual between these two surveys, and the figures in the Establishment Survey are generally seen as more reliable for the total employment estimates.

Private employment growth is therefore continuing, and is indeed continuing at a rate that is somewhat higher than had been estimated before.  But total employment growth is being pulled down by continued cuts in government employment, and the overall rate of employment growth is not at what is needed to produce a steady and consistent decline in the rate of unemployment.  Perhaps the best that can be said is that the estimated fall in GDP in the fourth quarter of 2012 (discussed in a post on this blog yesterday) does not appear to have led to a sharp reduction in employment growth — at least not yet.

The Recovery of Private Jobs Under Obama, versus the Fall Under Bush. And the Cuts in Government Jobs Under Obama, versus the Rise Under Bush.

Posted on by

Cumulative growth of private jobs, from January 2009 to September 2012 for Obama, and from January 2001 to September 2004 for Bush

Cumulative growth of government jobs, from January 2009 to September 2012 for Obama, and from January 2001 to September 2004 for Bush

 

[Update on February 2, 2013:  A more recent analysis of these issues, with these charts now covering the full first term of Obama, is available here.]

Private jobs have grown under President Obama while they fell during the similar period of the administration of President Bush.  And government jobs have fallen during Obama’s term while they rose under Bush.  The figures above, prepared from data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows the cumulative change in the number of private and government jobs, respectively, from their inaugurations to September of the fourth year of their administrations.  This updates similar graphs and analysis posted earlier on this blog (here and here), although with a focus now on only Obama and Bush.

Obama has been heavily criticized by Republican nominee Mitt Romney and by Republicans more generally for doing a terrible job on jobs.  Their repeated theme is that the US has to return to the policies of George W. Bush of tax cuts, deregulation, and small government in order to create a “business friendly” environment in which private businessmen will then create jobs.

But as the top graph shows, private jobs have grown under Obama, in contrast to a fall under Bush.  Obama was faced with a collapsing economy when he took office, with private jobs falling by 800,000 a month as he was taking office.  He was able to turn this around within only a few months, as the stimulus package and other measures entered into effect, and jobs growth turned positive after just one year in office.  This was a strong turnaround from the sharpest downturn the US economy had faced since the Great Depression.

Since then, private job growth has continued each and every month, but at an overall pace that has been criticized.  But the pace of recovery has in fact been better than that observed under Bush, where the number of private jobs had fallen steadily for the first two and a half years into his term (and with the fall starting only after he took office, in the Spring of 2001).

Based on the current official numbers, there were about 0.5 million more private jobs in September 2012 than when Obama took office.  This already contradicts the Republican claim that Obama’s policies have been destroying jobs.  And the growth in private jobs has in fact been even higher.  The BLS recently announced their preliminary estimate that in their regular annual re-benchmarking process, the number of private jobs were 453,000 higher in March 2012 than previously estimated.  This would be an increase of 0.4% over the previous BLS estimate for private employment, and such a change is about average.  Over the eleven years of 2002 to 2012, the changes due to the annual benchmark re-estimates have ranged between 0.1% and 0.9% (in absolute terms) – sometimes positive and sometimes negative.  The BLS has not yet revised their job estimates reflecting this new benchmark; this will be done in early February 2013, when the revisions will be announced along with the January 2013 job figures.

Based on the pattern observed in the previous annual re-benchmarking exercises, the March figure is likely to change by about the amount of the benchmark change (it will not be exactly the same for a number of reasons), with changes before that reaching back into 2011 diminishing as one goes back to the previous March 2011 benchmark period, and the changes increasing as one goes forward in 2012 from the March 2012 benchmark.

Until the new analysis is done by the BLS experts and the standard models run, there is no way to say what the changes will be.  For the diagrams above, I have very simplistically simply raised each of the 2012 private job estimates by 453,000, to give one a visual sense of the magnitude of the change.  In reality, the increase will be phased in rather than jump abruptly as depicted, but it is not yet known how it will be phased in so I have not tried to show this.

Based on this simple assumption, private jobs during Obama’s term from his inauguration to September 2012 have increased by about 1.0 million.  During the similar period under Bush, private jobs fell by 1.5 million.  Yet Obama is criticized for his job growth record, while Bush is praised.

Furthermore, since the turnaround in jobs that Obama was able to achieve after just one year in office, private jobs have increased by 4.7 million based on the current official estimates, or by 5.2 million with the adjustment made for the new benchmark

While private jobs have grown under Obama (in contrast to the fall under Bush), government jobs have fallen under Obama (and grew under Bush).  Again, this contradicts the repeated Republican charge that Obama has presided over an explosion of government jobs and government spending, which is simply not true.  (Note that the temporary blip seen in the 16th month after Obama’s inauguration is the temporary hiring for the 2010 census.  After a few months, government jobs returned to their previous path of decline.)

As seen in the figure above, government jobs have fallen by 575,000 during Obama’s term up through September 2012, using the current official BLS estimates.  But the BLS benchmark revision, discussed above, estimates that there were 67,000 fewer government jobs in March 2012 than previously estimated.  Adding this as a simple adjustment, government jobs fell by 642,000 during Obama’s term in office so far.  Keep in mind that these are primarily state and local government jobs, as they account for 87% of government jobs in the US.  But federal jobs have been flat over this period with no sharp increase either, and fell if one excludes an increase in the number of Defense Department employees.

And in contrast to the fall in government jobs during Obama’s tenure, government jobs rose during the similar Bush period.  Between his inauguration in January 2001 and September 2004, government jobs rose by 800,000 under Bush.  There would be over 1.4 million additional jobs (mostly of school teachers, police, and other state and local workers) due to the direct impact alone if government jobs had been allowed to grow as they had under Bush rather than fall as they have under Obama.  With a multiplier of two, there would be 2.8 million more jobs, and unemployment would be 6.0% instead of 7.8%.  Unemployment would then be at the top end of what is generally considered to be the full employment range of unemployment (which will never be zero, due to turnover and other frictions).

The myth is therefore quite different from the reality.  Government jobs have been cut back during Obama’s term, and this has acted as a considerable drag on the economy.  If government jobs had been allowed to increase during Obama’s term by as much as they had under Bush, we would now be at, or close to, full employment  (see some further estimates at this blog posting).  Yet Republicans continue to call for further and drastic cut-backs in government, with no recognition that there have already been sharp cuts and that these cuts have held back the pace of recovery.

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.