Do you want to be able to talk knowledgeably at fancy dinner parties with the ruling class about employment in America? Sure you do! So here are just a few simple graphs from our pals at the St. Louis Fed with a longer view—going back to either 2000 or to the early 90s, depending on data available—that explaining the trending in employment, hiring, unemployment and workforce participation in America. Above: what they call the "U6" number. That's the combined percentage of unemployed and underemployed, essentially.
Now let's look at job openings, at actual hires and at layoffs since the year 2000, in that order. These are all fairly good trends at the moment!
And what's the actual hard "unemployment rate" among civilians, as a percentage?
And the actual number of new people just recently seeking unemployment assistance.
Finally, this is the "civilian labor force participation rate." That expresses the percentage of employed and unemployed people in the group of people who could be employed in the country—so that excludes students, the retired, the young, the imprisoned, etc.
There! Now you're just as informed as a plutocrat!
What's with all the crazy spikes in the last graph? Seasonal employment?
Also, I know we need to zoom in to see details, but it would also be helpful to see some graphs with an y axis that goes down to 0 once in a while...
@jfruh : Since the LFP counts availability of workers rather than availability of jobs, that cycle you see reflects seasonal availability of workers (students on vacation = potential workers looking for jobs).
[begin stats nerd transmission]
Beyond the seasonal cycle in the LFP, check out that general downward trend. What you're seeing is people becoming "less available to the workforce" as a whole.
Most analyses ascribe that trend to two main reasons. The first is that lack of jobs is causing a lack of people looking for jobs : unemployed people who are too discouraged to look for work or new students putting off their entry into the job market don't count as "available" for the LFP.
Second, you see changing demographics pushing down the LFP : more of the population is older, and more young people are students. A larger % of old people = a larger % of retired people, and retirees don't count as "available" because they're not looking for work. (interestingly, without the recent trend for older people to stay in the labor force longer, you'd see more of a downward pressure on the LFP from this aging population) And remember those students putting off their entry into the workforce? Since an increasing percentage of young people are students now, that means a multiplier of that trend. I've seen combined demographic effects estimated at about 30% of the LFP's downward movement.
Anyway, here's a good overview of short- and long-term trending in the LFP, if you're interested.
[end stats nerd transmission]
@jfruh : Oh, here's another good one if you're really that interested, which eh.
@Gef the Talking Mongoose I just typed a long technical reply to this and then deleted it because IT'S FRIDAY NIGHT.
@stuffisthings : You probably could have just gone with "dude, you are so not an expert on this" and I would have agreed and you could have had the whole night off! But it's the thought that counts, so thanks.
TOTAL HIRES in 2005 look like Batman.
@freetzy no shit that is a real technical analysis pattern
Speaking of fancy dinner parties, now that the Iraq War is over, do we have a new "BUT WHAT ABOUT ZE KURDS???" conversational escape hatch?
@boyofdestiny - how about the mining concessions in Afganistan going to China?
Yes, but what does it MEAN?
It's not the facts but the meaning of the facts. (The facts have no meaning.)
I heard this on the radio like 3 hours ago and was totally expecting a Choire post about 5 minutes after that. Man he is slacking with those holiday blues.
Any way we could get this as a Venn diagram? Those are the only graphs things I (choose to) understand.
@C_Webb Circles are pretty!
But where's the Real Jobs Adjusted Unemployment? i don't want to accidentally count film critics.
@deepomega couldn't scale it properly
WHERE IS THE JOB CREATORS GRAPH?
@Lockheed Ventura I think we left it in the golden helicopter.
Wow - unemployment dipped below 4% around 2000? That's hard to believe even if I remember it well enough.