Display:
I'll simply note that 166,000 new jobs is below the average for the 8 Clinton years, and would have been a pretty weak month last decade. It's barely enough to keep up with natural population growth.

and yet it's labelled a "surge" by the breathless business media...

How standards have changed.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 at 12:00:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A funny data point in that article:


The average U.S. work week was unchanged at 33.8 hours.

Maybe the USA needs a 35-hour week so that Americans are incited to work a bit more than their current lazy habits?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 at 12:02:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The 33.8 hour work week must be the average of PT (wage) and FTE (salaried) employees, sample surveyed. The reality of uncompensated labor is hardly documented; that would upset hyperactive productivity calculations.

What I wanted to note though was this other discrepancy in NFP monthly statistic: Current Population Survey (CPS), published by BLS also, showed a loss of 250,000 jobs and a decrease in the Civilian labor force of 211k.

That is interesting beside the increasing statistical significance of counting "marginally attached" employment in the labor force who are "not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey."

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 at 07:52:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Significantly below the Clinton average.  I believe the Clinton average was 280k per month, which implies about thirteen million jobs even after deducting labor market growth.  Bush's growth has been, if I remember correctly, about 180k per month, besting natural growth by only about 40k.

I think you could certainly argue that 166k is not bad given the state of things, but when you have a number like that spread over the business cycle, it's pretty weak.  Now, in fairness, Bush didn't need as much growth in the recovery to get back to something near the NRU, since the peak unemployment rate after the '01 crash was roughly two full percentage points lower than the peak in the recession of the early-1990s (6% vs 8%).  And the extremely low unemployment rate under Clinton probably implies that we dealt with an unnatural expansion in labor supply back then -- e.g., the elderly reentering the market seeking the higher wages a tight supply would afford them, dropping back out once the contraction arrived and more normal levels returned.

But it's been very weak, nonetheless, and I suspect that's why wage growth has been so pathetic throughout this expansion.  I'd guess we've basically made up in the expansion what we lost on employment during the contraction over the last several years.  Even taking out the Clinton years and comparing Junior with Reagan, Carter, Daddy, etc, this has been pretty sad.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 at 12:46:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
an unnatural expansion in labor supply back then

Putting my economist's hat back on for a moment, I should state that as, not "unnatural," but rather irregular.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 at 03:29:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That expansion in labor supply would also be consistent with the high number of people who dropped out of the labor market during the slowdown.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 at 03:32:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series