The Current Employment Rate

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/how-work-is-rebounding-or-not-globally/?src=recpb

***************

"Millions saw the apple fall, but Newton was the only one who asked why." (Bernard Baruch)

***************

I think it's great that the Fed has a goal of continuing low interest rates (or whatever they call it) until the unemployment rate gets down to 6.5%. I've never seen the Fed connect that way with a real employment number before (that doesn't mean they haven't).

Edward Lazear, who was the chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers (2006-2009), and is a Hoover Institution fellow, and is a professor at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, says in a June 5 article for the Wall Street Journal: "At the present slow pace of job growth, it will require more than a decade to get back to full employment defined by prerecession standards."

His point is that watching the unemployment rate is not the best guide to the strength of the labor market: "Instead, the Fed and the rest of us should be watching the employment rate." First because the better measure of a strong labor market is the proportion of the population that is working, not the proportion that isn't: "In 2006, 63.4% of the working-age population was employed. That percentage declined to a low of 58.2% in July 2011 and now stands at 58.6%. By this measure, the labor market's health has barely changed over the past three years."

Second, the headline unemployment rate, what the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls "U3," uses as the numerator the number of individuals who are actively seeking work but do not have jobs. That's OK, as far as it goes, but there is another more relevant number that covers a larger portion of the population: the "U6." The U6 counts those marginally attached to the workforce, "...including the unemployed who dropped out of the labor market and are not actively seeking work because they are discouraged, as well as those working part time because they cannot find full-time work."

Lazear: "Every time the unemployment rate changes, analysts and reporters try to determine whether unemployment changed because people are actually working or because people dropped out of the labor market entirely, reducing the number actually seeking work. The employment rate - that is, the employment-to-population ratio - eliminates this issue by going straight to the bottom line, measuring the proportion of potential workers who are actually working."

So, while the unemployment rate has fallen over the past three plus years, the employment-to-population ratio has stayed almost constant at about 58.5%. So, we're not gaining any ground on where we were in 2006 (63.4%). Why create any more jobs than you need to if you have exceptional manufacturing productivity by producing more with fewer people?

What About the Rest of the World?

Annie Lowrey has looked at a major report from the International Labor Organization published on Monday of this week on employment around the world. As she says, "The study paints a picture of a world struggling to create jobs in the wake of a global recession, with developing economies enjoying stronger growth and a better jobs picture than developed economies..."

Some points:

* The global employment rate of 55.7% is still nearly a percentage point lower than it was before the crisis. The world needs about 31 million jobs to make up the gap.
* Globally, there are about 200 million -- 200 million -- unemployed people.
* For developing economies, employment rates will return to their precrisis levels around 2015. For advanced economies, it will take until after 2017. For some countries, the crisis never ended (Cyprus, Greece, Portugal and Spain).
* For developed countries, a better job market has often gone hand-in-hand with worse jobs. More people are being hired, but those jobs are often part time, low paying or temporary. This is not true for the U.S. The U.S. has fewer jobs, but those jobs are, on balance, of higher quality.
* The American middle class is shrinking. And, it has been for three decades. The share of adults living in middle-income households has fallen from 61% in 1970 to 51% in 2010.

Overall, the futurists (and the good ones take everything into account) see the U.S. taking off again by the end of this decade. Between now and then, who knows?