Last Friday’s soft employment report showed a net (seasonally adjusted) increase of 120,000 jobs. This report is an early confirmation of the idea that an unusually warm winter had distorted the upbeat employment reports we saw in January and February. The more unusual aspect of this month’s report was that although the increase in nonfarm jobs greatly undershot the estimates of employment growth, the unemployment rate managed to fall 8.1% from 8.2%.
So what can explain this apparent contradiction in the numbers? The size of the labor market, represented by the labor participation rate, fell by 342,000 people from March to April. In other words, an average of 11,400 people left the labor force every day by deciding to either retire, go back to school, or just give up.
Is the current labor participation rate a reflection of an aged society that needs to be supported by a smaller base of working people? Or rather, does the statistic reflect a complacent society that makes little effort to retool its skills or settle for lesser jobs?
According to the OECD, the effective retirement age in the US is 65. It is projected that in the neighborhood of 10,000 baby boomers turn 65 every day. However, given the state of savings and investments in this country in addition to the likelihood of future entitlement austerity, it wouldn’t seem prudent for all those boomers to retire.
My intuition tells me that many baby boomers are being forced into early retirement by companies that are more eager to hire college grads with better technical skills at less cost. That by no means indicates that younger Americans have an easy pass to a job. According to Gallop, nearly 30% of Americans aged 18-29 are “underemployed”.
I don’t believe that Americans have become complacent -- we are generally known working more hours for less pay. Rather, I believe that Americans have not had any other choice but to accept less in terms of their careers and are tired of waiting for things to turn around.
But there IS another option: higher education. And for those people inadequate to attend a normal college, there are the for-profit schools which aggressively recruit anyone who can spell their name and apply for federally secured student debt. In fact, the latter option has become so popular lately that it has helped push student debt levels to all-time highs.
Another interesting all-time high to point to is corporate profits, and corporations have achieved this new level of profitability by becoming global. Not only are they now selling to Asia, but they are also hiring there. After all, would you hire an American undergraduate engineering grad for $100,000 when you could hire a Chinese PHD engineering grad for $50,000?
After reading last week's report, Bill Gross said that “jobs are being structurally destroyed by the Chinese and robotics and sometimes Chinese robotics.” This implies that a solution is both rooted in trade policy as well as education.
It has been roughly 5 years since the global financial crisis started. Shouldn’t we accept that the state of the labor market is not transitory, but in fact a reflection of the structural shifts that are taking place in the global economic order?
But what do you guys think? Have we become complacent? Uncompetitive? How do we fix this mess? Are there any common sense policies that need to be put into place?
Did someone take your jobs?
Probably half of that decline in jobs was from people on WSO quitting there IBD gigs
Read an article last fall about the structural unemployment in the states. The general idea was that in normal recoveries the housing market leads where as this time it is languishing. This has left many people sitting on negative equity and when they could normally move to where jobs are being created instead they are stuck due to their real estate value. I tend to agree with this view as there are major industries such as healthcare in need of more people but unfortunately the American population is having a hard time moving. At the end of the day you cant really bitch about jobs disappearing if you cant get to them here or over seas because you leveraged your ass to the hilt to buy a mansion at the top. Good post OP!
I generally agree with you, but the Chinese have much more to invest in as well starting from basic infrastructure. Yes, there are basic things that need to be invested in the US as well, but the volume of investment required is much smaller.
What China does well is set goals (in the 5 year plans) and then benchmarks itself in meeting those goals. The US has no goals and has created too much uncertainty with its political squabbles.
Not everyone can be a billionaire, but pretty much anyone should be able to work their way into the middle class.
I understand structural economic change is difficult and often painful, but saying that technology "destroys" jobs is inherently biased and a very pessimistic way of looking at the world.
No offense, but if you are just now coming to the realization that we have structural unemployment, that recent technological development and the maturation of the international supply change has permanently displaced some jobs in the developed world, then you are very late to the party. But, on the upside, you are still ahead of the Federal Reserve. They still think that a few basis points of unemployment is permanent as oppose to hundreds.
Oh, and if you adjusted the labor participation rate near the 10-year average level (~66%), as opposed to simply dropping people out after a predetermined amount of time like the BLS does, then unemployment is around 11%.
There are actually two trends. The longer term trend which pushed up participation until about 10 years ago was women joining the workforce. The current trend is the migration of unskilled labor and even the outsourcing of skill labor (think R&D in India). We are currently at 1981 levels of participation, but the differences is that at that time there were much less women in the workforce.
It's not a new trend at all, but it is surprising how much momentum has continued to drive it lower and how much the trend is in fact distorting the headline employment figures. It makes me wonder when the trend will bottom out and if participation will sustainable remain this low.
Your note, while true, doesn't directly address the point I'm trying to make. Yes, the labor rate participation rate went up when women began joining the labor force en masse. However, I am discussing the decline. I am out-and-out calling the BS on the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The labor participation rate is not dropping this fast due to natural labor rate participation attrition (i.e. retirement). It is not as if women are no longer working or that some other group has dropped out of the labor market permanently. The so-called 'discouraged workers' are simply no longer being counted so the unemployment rate can remain lower. According the natural labor growth, the U.S. needs to create ~125,000 jobs per month- just so the unemployment stays flat. When the numbers come in lower than 125,000 AND the unemployment rate drops, something is awry.
We fuct.
Housing is in the gutter. Housing employed countless unskilled or semi skilled workers. These people can't find jobs paying more than 8 bucks an hour. Look at the amount of people not collecting disability.
I would imagine a significant chunk of people are working under the table now and collecting a check.
Until housing rebounds you are going to see large amounts of people check out. Something like 30% of Americans have a college education (4% unemployment rate with a 4 year degree).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States
So this is the problem we face. We need to have a ton of new jobs, mainly for unskilled or uneducated workers, paying ~15 bucks an hour with benefits. This will reduce unemployment and increase labor participation. How can we do this?
I personally would work to reduce costs and burdens on manufacturers. Costs are going up in China and there are plenty of manufacturers over there who can and would come back. We can loosen bankruptcy rules, allowing people to shed debt and move to areas with jobs (oil & gas areas). Or we can just increase taxes and pay people to sit on their ass.
End of the day it really comes down to we have large amounts of unneeded people. Maybe genetically, maybe environment, maybe they are lazy, but they do not have the skills needed nor do they seek to acquire them. So now we are stuck with them and their vote.
I wouldn’t look for unemployment to be at 2000’s lows anytime in the next decade, nor the subsequent decade. For the past 20 years, our economy has been geared largely towards sectors that don’t create wealth, chief among them:
• A bloated financial sector • Education • Law • Housing • Healthcare • Government
This was exacerbated by low savings rates, new economy fairy tales, oblivious financial regulators, and an increasing sense of entitlement among baby-boomers. In 2009, this era came to an end. Since then – and likely for the foreseeable future – we will be undergoing a huge macroeconomic bowel movement, in which uncompetitive industries “are passed” -- i.e, displaced all together or automated down to a fraction of their current size. Splash. Sploosh.
The long lasting damage from this is that you have two generations – Generation X and to a lesser degree, Millennials – who are completely ill-equipped both in attitude and skill-set for an automated, cut-throat global economy. Another generation, Baby-Boomers, serves as little more than a demographic boat anchor.
If it weren’t for two facts --other countries are even worse off and Moore’s Law will likely deliver us--I would be worried.
It boggles my mind that ppl actually still give a shit about government issued reports. I'm not necessarily saying they're outright lying, I'm just saying they game the numbers so that it reflects however they want it to (want ppl to think the economy is improving -> show lowered unemployment). I was reading some article the other idea about what goes into calculating these numbers, and lemme just tell you they are completely worthless.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
I agree. Developed nations self impose a reduced birth rate.
^I thought you were a libertarian.
I think there is a spectrum of libertarian thought. I am more of an environmentalist / not a fan of people lol.
In a pure libertarian world a form of one child policy would naturally exist anyway. Educated and well off people tend to have less than a replacement rate naturally (Europe/USA/Japan are good examples). Developing nations / lower income people tend to have higher than replacement rates.
If we made people responsible for their actions you would find either a higher infant mortality for lower income people or more poor people not having kids because of the cost.
Either way a limited reproduction policy would exist.
The birth rates described just work out that way on their own.
I have libertarian leanings, but I wouldn't call myself one nor do I follow everything they call for. And yes, they work themselves out.
http://news.discovery.com/human/population-boom-110729.html
10 Billion people. Ugg.
Maiores cumque eaque nobis praesentium voluptas ut. Consectetur consequatur est mollitia omnis repellendus non.
Suscipit earum nostrum suscipit eligendi et. Necessitatibus consequatur sequi magnam magni repudiandae. Amet consequatur optio voluptatem qui. Quis in nesciunt vitae quo doloremque ullam. Blanditiis ut nostrum magni temporibus. Corporis qui nemo dolorem aut. Ex delectus voluptas aliquid quia dolore ea.
Repudiandae earum id rem itaque. Rerum modi et magni adipisci vel explicabo. Omnis nihil odio cumque. Quia dicta in dolor cum qui nulla. Ut sit praesentium placeat sed.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Reiciendis omnis et velit voluptatem libero omnis. Nemo quis facere culpa fuga voluptas sunt est. Consequatur non iusto ut quis voluptas voluptas. Voluptas reprehenderit consequuntur ducimus dignissimos iure et sed.
Sed quas quisquam minima minus provident. Quo temporibus est quaerat consequatur itaque aut esse. Similique consequuntur vel esse sed debitis.