Skip to comments.The 3.9% Unemployment Rate Doesn't Mean A Tight Labor Market (Hold the Celebration)
Posted on 05/07/2018 8:20:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
You have to go all the way back to December 2000 to find the last time the unemployment rate was as low as April's 3.9%. But hold the standing ovation. The labor market isn't as bright, or as tight, as it might seem.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that the economy added 164,000 jobs in April, and the unemployment level dropped to 3.9%. It was 4.8% when President Trump took office.
Since Trump took office, the economy has added a total of 2.7 million jobs, and since his tax cuts took effect we've seen an average 200,000 new jobs each month. Initial jobless claims are at decades long lows as well.
That's unquestionably good news.
The report also finds, however, that wages rose slightly less than expected in April with hourly earnings climbing at a 2.6% annualized rate.
That's led some economists to start "scratching their heads," as one report put it, over why wages aren't climbing faster in what appears to be an extremely tight labor market.
"It really defies the law of supply and demand," Amy Glaser, senior vice president at Adecco Staffing, told CNBC.
But look at the rest of the jobs report as well as historical jobs data and the mystery pretty much disappears. The job market isn't nearly as tight as it seems based only on the official unemployment number.
Remember, the unemployment rate comes from a separate survey than the one used to count jobs created. The former is based on a monthly survey of 60,000 households by the Census Bureau. The latter by a survey of about 149,000 businesses and government agencies by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
If you compare today's numbers to December 2000, the picture is even more striking.
The labor force participation rate in Dec. 2000 was 67%. Today it is just 62.8%.
The employment-to-population ratio then was 64.4%. Now it's 60.3%.
The population not in the labor force they don't have jobs and aren't looking has climbed a stunning 25.3 million over those years.
I didn’t think they cared about the ‘labor participation rate’.
They didn’t during Odumbsh!t’s term
How many people have retired since 2000?
They don’t have jobs and aren’t looking.
slackers living on democrat hand outs plantation owners smile.
RE: I didnt think they cared about the labor participation rate.
They didnt during Odumbsh!ts term
Investors Business Daily is one of the more CONSISTENT news sources when it comes to this. They have been harping about the Labor For Participation Rate since as far as I can remember ( even before Obama was elected President ).
“The report also finds, however, that wages rose slightly less than expected in April with hourly earnings climbing at a 2.6% annualized rate.”
If wages were rising more than expected the experts would be warning of inflation.
“The population not in the labor force they don’t have jobs and aren’t looking has climbed a stunning 25.3 million over those years. “
Thanks to Obunghole, “whose only real creation, other than taking a daily dump” was making bums out of people by making welfare more available.
RE: How many people have retired since 2000?
We really SHOULD NOT BE COUNTING those who have retired ( those who are 62 and up, i.e., those who qualify for Social Security ).
What is of concern are those ages 18 to 55.
RE: If wages were rising more than expected the experts would be warning of inflation.
Well, that is the reason why the Feds are RAISING INTEREST RATES.
Well, it’s vitally important when a Republican is in office.
Why is this a "stunning" figure? The population not in the labor force includes tens of millions of retirees. That population is growing simply as a matter of course, as Baby Boomers retire and exit the work force permanently.
This is why the labor participation rate is one of the most useless figures published by the U.S. Department of Labor.
“You have to go all the way back to December 2000 to find the last time the unemployment rate was as low as April’s 3.9%. But hold the standing ovation. The labor market isn’t as bright, or as tight, as it might seem.”
the leftist fake stream media never heard of the U6 labor numbers during the eight years of obama’s economic destruction, but suddenly they discover it for Trump ... anything to not have to publish good news about Trump ...
My job puts me in manufacturing facilities nearly every day of the week. It is a rare facility around here that doesn’t have a sign outside seeking to hire CNC machinists and welders. If there is no sign, it’s usually the first comment/question out of the plant manager’s mouth when we sit down to talk. Of course, I realize that is anecdotal and also only a regional/occupational situation. Your observation about labor force participation certainly is the proverbial 800# gorilla in the room.
RE: Why is this a “stunning” figure? The population not in the labor force includes tens of millions of retirees.
We really should not be counting retirees. I’d like to know if they have a statistic that filters those who are retired out of the picture. THAT will give us a true indicator of those who are actively looking for work and not finding it ( i.e., how dire or how good the job market is ).
RE: the leftist fake stream media never heard of the U6 labor numbers during the eight years of obamas economic destruction, but suddenly they discover it for Trump ... anything to not have to publish good news about Trump ...
I would not include Investor Business Daily as among those in the leftist media.
They have been supporters of Trump’s economic agenda and their IBD/TIPP poll was probably the most accurate 2016 Presidential poll of all ( when a lot were predicting a Hillary victory ).
Investors Business Daily is one of the more CONSISTENT news sources when it comes to labor participation rates. They have been harping about the Labor Force Participation Rate since as far as I can remember ( even before Obama was elected President ).
There were about 32 million people collecting Social Security retirement benefits in 2000, and about 45 million in 2017. There's 13 million new retirees right there, and that doesn't even include the people over the age of 62 who are eligible to collect SS but elect not to start yet.
Partisan Media Shills try to sneak stuff in.
Did anybody actually ASK people who were unemployed for a long time if they gave up......or did the government just claim they did because it would be too embarrassing to count them?
I think we all know the answer. Trump is doing a great job reviving the economy but we havent fully recovered from the Great Recession yet. There was utterly no recovery under Obama.
I grew up wit 4% being good.
>>That’s led some economists to start “scratching their heads,” as one report put it, over why wages aren’t climbing faster in what appears to be an extremely tight labor market.
Stop scratching your heads, economists. The Market Fundamentalists control everything and the governments fiat currency needs a parking place, so it doesnt go to people who buy things they need.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.