4.6% Unemployment is actually 5.5%

Tuesday, September 11, 2007 | 06:49 AM

Because of the office move (broadband gets hooked up today tomorrow), I have been a few days behind in tearing apart major releases. Yesterday, we gave the business to last week's Back-to-School sales data, which was weaker than it appeared.

We previously noted the many different ways BLS measures and reports unemployment (A Closer Look at Unemployment).

Today, we are going to identify an "issue" with the Unemployment Rate and Non Farm Payrolls -- specifically, a look at the "official" U3 labor utilization rate, aka the 4.6% Unemployment Rate.

This Employment rate is expressed as a percentage. Its a simple fraction, with the number of employed as the numerator (the number on the top of the fraction) and the civilian labor pool as the denominator (bottom of the fraction).

This gives you a percentage; subtract that percentage from 100 and you get the Unemployment Rate. It looks something like this: 

Ue_rate_4

The Civilian labor force for August 2007 = 152,891;  The Employed = 145,794. Put them in the formula above, and you get 0.95358130956 -- approximately 95.4% Employment rate, and an Unemployment rate of 4.6%. The "Not Seasonally Adjusted" numbers generate approximately the same data: 0.953828513352 

As we have seen in the past, there are two ways the Unemployment Rate can go lower, or stay. The "good" way is when more people get jobs. Then, the numerator goes or stays higher, and the percentage of unemployed goes lower.

The bad way is for the denominator to go lower. We have referred to this number in the past as NILF -- Not-in-Labor-Force.

And that is precisely what happened to the Unemployment Rate in this month's NFP. The BLS Household Survey (Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age) showed that in one month, the US labor force decline 1,379,000. (July 2007 = 154,871,000; August 2007 = 153,493,000).

That's an awful lot of people who suddenly decided to "retire." Similar numbers can be seen in the July 2007 "Not in labor force" -- it ticked up from 77,087,000 to August 78,717,000). If it wasn't for this sudden drop in the labor force, the Employment rate would have been = 0.945341606886.

In  other words, a sudden and unexplained disappearance of a million plus workers from the labor pool managed to keep the Unemployment Rate almost a full percentage point below where it is more likely to be in that artificial construct called reality.

~~~

Some people will object to my not using "Seasonally Unadjusted" numbers. I have yet to figure out how these adjusting algorithms work. So let's use the year-over-year numbers -- no seasonal adjustment is necessary, as this compares an August to August. Persons "Not in labor force" declined increased from 76,702,000 in August 2006 to 78,717,000 in August 2007. That's a drop of 2,015,000 over a year's period. Some surely represent retirees, etc. But that's an awful lot of people o have dropped out of the Labor Force in a single year.

The bottom line is that the seasonal adjustments and NILFs managed to artificially subtract about a percentage point off of the Unemployment Rate. Without that adjustment, the rate would be closer to 5.5%

~~~

Disclosure: We are short Korn Ferry (KFY), the exec recruitment firm.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007 | 06:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBack (1)
de.li.cious add to de.li.cious | digg digg this! | technorati add to technorati | email email this post

bn-image

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00e54eda850c8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 4.6% Unemployment is actually 5.5%:

» Employment Population Ratio from The Big Picture
Directly on point with our last post on NILFs and the labor participation rate, David points us to this delicious econ-wonk chart (below). It shows the relationship between a declining Employment Population Ratio, and subsequent recessions: Fascinating... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 11, 2007 10:33:38 AM

Comments

I'm confused, how's the disclosure about being short KFY related to the post?

~~~

BR Staffing agency. (My attitude is, its always better to disclose than not)

Posted by: Loren | Sep 11, 2007 8:18:44 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.



Recent Posts

December 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

Archives

Complete Archives List

Blogroll

Blogroll

Category Cloud

On the Nightstand

On the Nightstand

 Subscribe in a reader

Get The Big Picture!
Enter your email address:


Read our privacy policy

Essays & Effluvia

The Apprenticed Investor

Apprenticed Investor

About Me

About Me
email me

Favorite Posts

Tools and Feeds

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

Subscribe to The Big Picture

Powered by FeedBurner

Add to Technorati Favorites

FeedBurner


My Wishlist

Worth Perusing

Worth Perusing

mp3s Spinning

MP3s Spinning

My Photo

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Odds & Ends

Site by Moxie Design Studios™

FeedBurner