Updated November 2014
I have posted on this subject before but I'd like to revisit the concept of America's real unemployment rate, the rate that reflects the situation for millions of American workers.
I have posted on this subject before but I'd like to revisit the concept of America's real unemployment rate, the rate that reflects the situation for millions of American workers.
Let's open with two
definitions and two graphs. First, here is the definition for U-3
unemployment, the unemployment statistic that most of us find in the mainstream
media:
U-3 unemployment is
defined as the percentage of the total workforce that do not currently have a
job, have actively looked for work in the past four weeks (prior to the survey)
and are currently available for work. This measure also includes workers
that were temporarily laid off and are waiting to be called back to work
Here's a graph showing what has happened to
U-3 since 1980:
September's rate of 5.9 percent is the lowest level that U-3 unemployment has been since the
beginning of the Great Recession but is still well above the average inter-recessional unemployment rate going back to 1990.
As many of you know,
there is another measure of workforce participation that measures a broader
spectrum of unemployment termed U-6. Here is a definition for U-6
unemployment:
U-6 unemployment includes
unemployed workers that are included in the U-3 statistics plus workers that
are marginally attached to the workforce (i.e. they want a job and have looked
for work without success sometime in the past 12 months but have not found
employment) plus workers that want full-time work but have only worked part-time
because the economy has not created sufficient full-time work (i.e. they are underemployed).
Here is a graph showing
both U-3 in blue and U-6 in red:
As you can easily see,
there is a vast spread between the two measures of unemployment, a spread that
has been far higher since the end of the Great Recession that it was during the
period from 1994 to 2008 as shown on this graph which subtracts U-3 from U-6:
This means that there are
far more marginally attached workers and workers that are employed part-time
for economic reasons since the end of the last recession than there were prior
to the onset of the Great Recession.
If we look at a chart
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that supplies us with all six measures of
labor underutilization, here's what we find for September 2014:
It is quite apparent how
widely the measures of unemployment vary, depending on who is included and who
is excluded. In large part, by using U-3 as the headline rate, the
unemployment picture looks far healthier than it really is.
But, even the broader
measures of unemployment lie U-6 don't tell the whole story. Research by the
Economic Policy Institute (EPI) adds another dimension to the unemployment
picture; workers who are missing. These potential workers are neither
employed nor are they actively seeking work but would be looking for work or
working if job opportunities were stronger. Because jobless workers are
only counted if they are actively seeking work, these missing workers are not
reflected in any calculation of unemployment.
Here is a graph showing
the number of missing workers since 2006:
EPI calculations show
that there were 6.32 million missing workers in September 2014, the highest level since the Great Recession.
Here's what would happen
to the official unemployment rate (U-3) if these missing workers were included
in the Bureau of Labor Statistics data:
In September 2014, rather than
the 5.9 percent headline U-3 unemployment rate, if we add in missing workers,
the unemployment rate jumps to 9.6 percent as shown on the dark blue line. On top of that, if we were to
add in the workers that are marginally attached to the workforce plus the
workers that are working part-time for economic reasons as included in the broader U-6 measure, you can see that we
would have a real world unemployment rate in excess of 15 percent.
It is also interesting to note that the gap between the headline unemployment rate and the unemployment rate including missing workers has grown over the past eight years as shown on this graph:
It is also interesting to note that the gap between the headline unemployment rate and the unemployment rate including missing workers has grown over the past eight years as shown on this graph:
Who are these missing
workers? There are 1.95 million missing male workers between the ages of
25 and 54 and 1.45 million missing female workers in the same age range.
These 3.4 million missing workers are in the prime working age range;
this means that when these unemployed Americans do find work, they will have to make
up for the wages that they have lost while unemployed and discouraged.
The likely result is that they will have to work far longer than what was
once considered the normal retirement age and they will have greater difficulty
paying for advanced education for their children, for consumer goods and for
homes.
The monthly unemployment
data release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is, at best, misleading.
The rigidity of the data collection process has made it appear as though
the United States economy is well on the mend when, in fact, millions of
Americans who live on Main Street and who are classified as missing workers can
testify that such is not the case. Millions of formerly hard-working
Americans now find themselves in the unenviable situation of being tossed aside
and forgotten.
I dont think this will improve anytime soon. But one thing I do see happening is that modest housing prices will be forced to decline in order to be purchased. Simple research by surfing sites like zillow show the huge difference between asking price and sold price. You can ask for any amount but to sell you have to find a buyer. So for the average American this might not be a bad thing long term, as long as the housing prices come down to make sense for the small earnings the average American is now earning.
ReplyDelete