Payroll employment increases by 255,000 in July; unemployment rate unchanged at 4.9%

[progree]

11. Over the past month, over the past year, and since February 2010

Here are some summary tables of the key July 2016 jobs reports statistics from the Establishment Survey and the Household Survey released on August 5, 2016.

A narrative "Detailed Discussion" section follows these tables.

In the below tables, all "%" ones are percentage point changes, *not* percent increases or decreases. FOR EXAMPLE, when you see something like this:

+0.1% Unemployment rate

It means that the unemployment rate increased by 0.1 percentage points (this EXAMPLE is from March 2016 when the unemployment rate rose from 4.9% to 5.0%).

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#CEF6FE;"]Before each item, (vv) indicates very bad, (v ) indicates bad, (0 ) indicates neutral, (^ ) indicates good, (^^) indicates very good

[font color=blue]OVER THE LAST MONTH[/font]:
== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ==
(^^) +255,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment ( CES0000000001 )

== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (warning: this survey's monthly change figures are very statistically noisy) ==
(^^) 407,000 Labor Force (employed + jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)

(^^) +420,000 Employed. Fantastic! But note the big difference
` ` ` with the +255,000 increase in payroll employment. Go figure. (The latter is far
` ` ` less volatile due to a much larger sample). Note also in last month's report that
` ` ` that Employed increased by only +67,000 (despite a +287,000 increase in payroll employment)
` ` ` For the last 2 months, Employed has averaged +243,000/month, roughly in line with the payroll
` ` ` employment increase

(^ ) -13,000 Unemployed (jobless people who have looked for work sometime in the last 4 weeks)

(^ ) +0.1% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (it's at 59.7%)

(^ ) +0.1% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (it's at 62.8%)
` ` ` But it is only 0.4% above a multi-decade low of 62.4% reached in September 2015.
` ` ` OTOH, that 0.4% increase in this tough statistic in 11 months is really nice

(0 ) +0.0% Unemployment rate (it's at 4.9%). Is Unemployed (as defined above) / Labor Force [N864.HM].
` ` ` Caused by a large increase in the number of people seeking jobs in the last 4 weeks,
` ` ` offset by about as many (actually a few more) finding employment

(v ) +0.1% U-6 unemployment rate (it's at 9.7%) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709

(v ) +0.1% "U-7" unemployment rate: Counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job,
` ` ` no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want
` ` ` full time work (it's at 11.9%)
` ` ` Its sad to see both broader measures of unemployment -- U-6 and U-7 -- notch upward
` ` ` But note last month U-6 went down by 0.1% and U-7 went down by a big 0.3%

(vv) +194,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
` ` ` In last month's report it went DOWN by 231,000. Again illustrating the month-to-month
` ` ` volatility of Household Survey statistics.

(v ) +97,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
` ` ` In last month's report it DEcreased by a gigantic 587,000 (but remember: volatitlity, volatility).

(v ) +150,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9). I rated it a "v" (one bad) because there was an
` ` ` increase in part time workers, and (see above), 97,000 of those were involuntary part-timers

(^^) +306,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9). That's great for a month. And in last month's report
` ` ` it increased by an even larger 451,000. (But in the 2 months before that, it decreased by a combined
` ` ` 312,000. For a 4-month average of +111,000/month, which is more than OK.)

^--Monthly change figures in the Household Survey are probably best ignored due to volatility caused by statistical noise. That's true in both "bad" months and in "good" months

The "U-7" unemployment rate is a creation of Paul Solman of the PBS Newshour, not a BLS number. The above number is one I calculated, because he doesn't update his number every month, and when he does, it is about a day after the jobs report comes out. My number has consistently matched his within 0.1 percentage points (and mine has always been a bit higher). The "U-7" unemployment rate counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job, no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want full time work

For more background on the U-7 number, see: "If you count everyone who says they want a job, even if they have made no effort to find one in many years" at http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439#post2

[font color = magenta]See "Detailed Discussion" section below for a narrative discussion of the above statistics over the past month, the past year, and since the jobs recovery began in March 2010[/font]

[font color=blue]OVER THE LAST YEAR (last 12 months)[/font]:
==== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ====
+2,447,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+1.34% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is 11 months thru June because no CPI data for July yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ========
+2,172,000 Labor Force
+2,651,000 Employed
-479,000 Unemployed
+0.4% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate
+0.2% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate)
-0.4% Unemployment rate
-0.7% U-6 unemployment rate (fabulous. it includes anyone that looked for work even once in the past year)
-0.8% "U-7" unemployment rate: Counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job,
` ` ` no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want
` ` ` full time work
-218,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
-360,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
+387,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+2,251,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

The reason there's no data for July yet for the inflation-adjusted Weekly Earnings is because the CPI inflation adjustment number for July is not yet available.

All the "over the last year" numbers are really good numbers except the Labor Force Participation Rate, although ticking up a notch this past 12 months (good direction, though tiny) is at 62.8%, which is only 0.4 percentage points above a multi-decade low. (Though I'm happy that it has improved by 0.4 percentage points in just 11 months). Interesting though that there was a 0.4% percentage point increase in the Employment To Population Ratio. So we have the labor force participation rate increasing by only 0.2% in the past 12 months, while the employment to population ratio has a decent increase of 0.4%. The Population being talked about is the civilian non-institutional population age 16 and over, yes, including all elderly people, even centenarians .

Seems to me that there is too much discussion in the media of the Labor Force Participation Rate -- aka the Labor Force to Population Ratio -- (the employed plus the jobless people who have looked for work in the last 4 weeks, all divided by the population), and not enough attention to what seemingly matters more -- the Employment to Population Ratio. Why aren't we celebrating the increase in the percentage of the population that is employed (the employment to population ratio)-- a figure that has been slowly moving up since the job market bottom, despite the growing wave of baby boomer retirements?

(As always, the population being talked about is the civilian non-institutional population age 16 and over, including the elderly, even centenarians).

[font color=blue]SINCE THE PAYROLL EMPLOYMENT RECOVERY BEGAN -- Last 77 months thru July 31, 2016: 7'16 - 2'10[/font]:
(This is the period from when continuous growth of payroll employment began, thru July 31, 2016)
==== ESTABLISHMENT SURVEY ====
+14,799,000 Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, CES0000000001)
+5.22% INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers ( CES0500000031 )
......... the weekly earnings percentage is thru April 2016 because no CPI data for May yet
==== HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ====
+5,593,000 Labor Force
+12,936,000 Employed
-7,343,000 Unemployed
+1.2% Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate (woo hoo!)
-2.1% LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) (ughh)
-4.9% Unemployment rate
-7.3% U-6 unemployment rate
-7.0% "U-7" unemployment rate: Counts EVERY jobless person who SAYS they want a job,
` ` ` no matter how long it has been since they looked for work, plus part-timers who want
` ` ` full time work
-212,000 Not in Labor Force, Wants Job LNS15026639
-2,996,000 Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons)
-32,000 Part-Time Workers (Table A-9)
+13,114,000 Full-Time Workers (Table A-9)

[font color=blue]Part-Time Workers Who Want Full Time Jobs, as % of All Employed[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]Jul'15 Apr'16 Jun'16 Jul'16
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"]4.2% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9%
[closes the light blue highlight tag begun b4 the 1st table]

Umm, but aren't most of the new jobs part-time? (umm, no)

A graph of part-time and full-time workers (from June 2009 through November 2015)


CLARIFICATION: in the above, these are part-time workers and full-time workers, not part-time jobs and full-time jobs.

This excellent post from early July 2015 show two perspectives of the trends in part-time workers and full-time workers (not part-time jobs and full-time jobs). Thanks mahatmakanejeeves
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141134306#post12

What kind of Wages?

INFLATION-ADJUSTED Average Weekly Earnings Of Production And Nonsupervisory Employees, Total Private, 1982-84 Dollars
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031


Again, the above are INFLATION-ADJUSTED earnings

Here is the nominal, i.e. not-inflation-adjusted version of the above:
Weekly: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000030
Hourly: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000008

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#CEF6FE;"]See "Detailed Discussion" section below for a narrative discussion of the above statistics over the past month, the past year, and since the jobs recovery began in March 2010

The links to the data above
# Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey, http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
# INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisory Workers http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031
# Labor Force http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000
# Employed http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000
# Unemployed http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13000000
# Employment-To-Population Ratio aka Employment Rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
# LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
# Unemployment rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
# U-6 unemployment rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709
# NILF-WJ -- Not in Labor Force, Wants Job http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15026639
# Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12032194
# Part-Time Workers (Table A-9) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12600000
# Full-Time Workers (Table A-9) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12500000

########################################################################
FFI on the most recent jobs report, straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age (household survey) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

Several graphs of the key economic stats -- http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps_charts.pdf

The whole enchilada -- including all 16 "A" tables (the household survey) and all 9 "B" tables (the establishment survey) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

[font color = brown] ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A-1 and other tables can be found at the all-tables full jobs report at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf, or gotten one-at-a-time from the bottom section of http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm . For example, Table A-9 alone is at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm )
----------------------------------------------------------------------[/font]

BLS Commissioner's Statement on The Employment Situation http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jec.nr0.htm

The Council of Economic Advisors' Take on the Jobs Report
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/08/05/employment-situation-july . (find this at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/blog or http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea
and look for the last "The Employment Situation in" post). Or Google what's in between the {}'s: {site:whitehouse.gov employment situation in July}

Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner's Corner: http://beta.bls.gov/labs/blogs/ Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BLS_gov

mahatmakanejeeves thread - very comprehensive OP each month when the jobs report comes out, as well as additional material he posts to the thread in the following hours. Watch the OP for edits too. And the thread for more material http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141542997

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color: #ffa !important;"][font size=4 color=blue]Detailed Discussion[/font]

8/5/16 -

A great jobs report this month -- 255,000 net new nonfarm payroll employment in July. May and June were revised up by a combined 18,000. So we have 273,000 more payroll employees than we did in last month's report ( 255 + 18 = 273 ). This on top of a +292,000 gain in June. We needed it, since the preceding 2 months, April and May, added only a combined 168,000 jobs (May was especially pathetic at just +24,000 jobs). For the year so far (7 months through July 31) the average has been a very healthy +186,000 jobs/month

The Household Survey shows an employment increase of a huge 420,000. This makes up for the rather weak +67,000 employment gain in June. The two months combine to an average of 243,000/month.

The labor force went up by a huge 407,000. These are the number of people who are employed, plus the number of people looking for work in the past 4 weeks. Since 420,000 people became employed, 13,000 fewer people were left looking. That's all great news. (The labor force also gained a huge 414,000 in June. But April and May were negative. For the past 4 months, the labor force only gained by 1,000).

(For a longer perspective, the Labor Force has grown by a healthy 2,172,000 over the past 12 months). The labor force is essentially the sum of the employed plus jobless people who looked for work in the past 4 weeks.

The unemployment rate was flat in July, remaining at 4.9%. The reasons are given above -- a huge number started looking for work in the past 4 weeks (thus becoming officially unemployed), but a slighly larger number became employed, thus reducing the number of unemployed. On net, the unemployment count went down by 13,000 -- good, but not enough to notch down the unemployment rate.

The number of part-time workers wanting full-time work increased by 97,000, which is not good. (But in June it decreased by a massive 587,000, which is great. But in April it increased by a super-massive 468,000. And so it goes, volatility volatility volatility and statistical noise). Over the past 12 months, there has been a decline of 360,000 in this number.

The number of full time workers surged by 306,000 in July, while the number of part-time workers increased by 150,000. The former is good, the latter - an increase in part-time workers of 150,000 is not good, particularly since 97,000 of those were involuntary part-time (see above paragraph).

Over the past year, full-time workers increased by 2,251,000, and part-time workers decreased by 387,000, while involuntary part-times decreased by 360,000. (All three are very good numbers).

And since the job market bottom of February 2010, full-time workers increased by 13,114,000, and part-time workers decreased by 32,000, and involuntary part-time workers decreased by 2,996,000.

The broader measures of unemployment -- U-6 and U-7 -- both increased by 0.1%. I'm sorry to see these increase, if even just a notch. U-6 is now at 9.7%, and U-7 is now at 11.9%. But over the past year, U-6 has declined by 0.7%, and U-7 has declined by 0.8%.

(Both U-6 and U-7 count part-timers wanting full-time work as unemployed. As for what U-7 is, that's a creation of Paul Solman of the PBS Newshour that counts every jobless person who SAYS they want work as unemployed, no matter how long it has been since they last looked for work. Plus part-timers wanting full-time work are also counted as unemployed.)