The June 2012 BLS unemployment report is another abysmal jobs report. Total nonfarm payroll jobs gained were only 80,000. May's payrolls were revised up, from 69,000 to 77,000. April job gains were revised down, again, from 77,000 to only 68,000. The below graph shows the monthly change in nonfarm payrolls employment.
June shows only 84,000 private sector jobs gained while government payrolls shrank another -4,000. In addition, at least 25,200 of those private jobs were temporary.
The start of the great recession was declared by the NBER to be December 2007. The United States is now down -4.894 million jobs from December 2007, 4 years and 6 months ago.
The below graph is a running tally of how many official jobs are permanently lost, from the establishment survey, since the official start of this past recession. Increased population growth, implies the United States needs to create at least 10 million jobs or self-employment, using the population survey statistics. This estimate assume a 62.7% civilian non-institutional population to employment ratio, as it was in December 2007. This implies an additional 5 million jobs were needed over a 54 month time period beyond the ones already lost. This is just taking into account increased population against the payroll jobs gap, the actual number of jobs needed is much higher, in part because payrolls, CES, and population, CPS, are two separate data surveys from the BLS.
Another problem with the employment market is the gross number of part-time jobs generally. There is a huge number of people who need full-time jobs with benefits who can't get decent jobs. Those forced in part time jobs increased by 112 thousand. Of the 142,415,000 employed as reported from the current population survey, there are still 8.21 million of the 27,039,000 part-timers working low hours because they cannot get full time jobs. That's a hell of a lot of people stuck in part-time jobs who need full-time work.
The official unemployment rate stayed the same as last month, 8.2%, with 12,749,000 officially unemployed.
U-6 is a broader measure of unemployment and includes the official unemployed, people stuck in part-time jobs and a subgroup not counted in the labor force but are available for work and looked in the last 12 months. Believe this or not, U-6 still leaves out some people wanting a job who are not considered part of the labor force. U-6 ticked up 0.1 percentage points to 14.9%.
The labor participation rate, remained the same, 63.8%. If we go back to December 2007, the labor participation rate was 66%. The highest civilian labor participation rate was in January 2000, at 67.3%. What a low labor participation rate means is there are over 5.35 million people not be accounted for in the official unemployment rate, in other words counted as employed or unemployed, many who probably need a job and can't find one, in comparison to 2007. That's in addition to the official 12.75 million unemployed.
The employment to population ratio is now 58.6%, the same as from last month. In January 2008 the employment to population ratio was 62.9%. You have to go back to the severe recession of 1983, October to find such low ratios, but in the 1983 case, the low ratios were short lived. The low employment to population ratios clearly show people dropping out of the labor count as well. We can see this by the cliff dive employment to population ratio during 2008-2010. There is no way magically, suddenly, a huge increase of population volunteered to drop out of the labor force, turned 65 at once, or magically all went to school. These are mostly people plain out of a job. The cliff dive in employment to population ratio represents about 10.5 million people, which is around the same amount of jobs really needed to keep up with population growth calculated above. There is no way roughly an additional 5.5 million people more people retired or went off to school in the space of two years as amplified by the drop in labor participation rates for those between ages 25-54, the prime working years.
These numbers are important because the official unemployment rate is a ratio, a percentage during a limited time period to calculate the number of people actively looking for a job and counted. Many people are not counted in the official unemployment statistics. Truth is America has more potential workers and less jobs in this so called recovery than any other period past the Great Depression.
How did the U.S. only add 80,000 jobs yet the unemployment rate stayed the same? The BLS employment report is actually two separate surveys. The jobs number comes from the CES, or establishment survey where the unemployment ratios comes from a different survey, the CPS, otherwise known as the Household survey. The unemployment rate is a ratio of those officially unemployed to those officially counted as part of the labor force.
More people were considered part of the labor force in June. Those not in the labor force increased by 34,000 while overall non-institutional population rose by 189,000. The civilian labor force increased by 156,000, whereas those officially unemployed increased by 29,000. Yet those officially employed also increased by 128,000. In other words, the monthly changes were not enough to affect the overall unemployment ratios.
Going off of the monthly changes of the CPS survey is statistically risky. The monthly changes are highly noisy. We'll have more details overviewing this month's unemployment report in later posts, including looking at labor participation rates by age bracket, duration of employment and ratios of people stuck in part-time jobs when they need full-time work and finally a look at the CPS data, taking larger time periods of change.
For more information on how the BLS tabulates non-farm payroll jobs, see this article, Under the Hood of the Employment report.
Here is last month's overview, some graphs revised.
Dismal - but the politicians go on living + spewing platitudes
It's truly tragic because every day all the politicians just posture and delay improving anything, spew out the same crappy lines, but keep on raking in dough and living their lives while shadowstats continues to show 22%+ real unemployment using old measures. Oh look, MSM says Mitt "The son of an ultimate insider/powerplayer" Romney was on a jetski, so Obama must care about the unemployed more (huh?). Oh look, MSM tells me Obama's family is partying globally while raising funds from banksters so Romney must care about the unemployed more. Gosh, which one cares more, heads or tails, such massive difference (sarc)?
Meanwhile, every day another job is lost due to NAFTA, or CAFTA, or the new TPP, another family will go homeless, or another unemployed + overqualified vet or other American will kill themselves. But the money and speaking fees will be lined up, the politicians will take another paid-in-full vacation, and they couldn't give less of a [fill-in-the-blank]. They have no incentive to change anything, absolutely none. Obama and every single Dem will become ludicrously wealthy after they leave office no matter what, and the same for every Republican. Meanwhile, tens of millions of more Americans simply count less and less. Meanwhile LIBOR scandal shows the rich keep getting richer and don't care about the unwashed masses. Maybe the French and Russians in years past had no other choice to get the "elites" attention. At this point, do our elites really care about us besides spinning fairy tales on the MSM? Doesn't look like it.
"real" unemployment rate, EP's version, check back
We'll be putting up a graph of directly calculated "alternative" unemployment rate. I cannot confirm shadowstats, as stated many times, for he does not tell exactly what he is counting and from where. That's HUGE and if I cannot validate someone's methods, then why should I believe those statistics are valid?
Seriously, that's a huge deal to not explain one's assumptions, data points, methods.
That said, our own "alternative" unemployment rate is typically between 18-19%. Coming soon but one thing we do is calculate this directly from the BLS data and by definitions.
I hope to put up much more over the weekend on jobs generally. I don't want to announce what kind of numbers I'm after in case I cannot really find enough to put forth some valid stats, but this will be "all about jobs" in terms of articles.