Jobs Picture Comparison: January 2009 v. May 2012

M2RB:

Well I never pray
But tonight I'm on my knees yeah
I need to hear some sounds that recognize the pain in me, yeah
I let the melody shine, let it cleanse my mind, I feel free now
But the airways are clean and there's nobody singing to me now

This morning's jobs report for May was an abject, colossal, unmitigated, catastrophic disaster for the American economy, the millions of unemployed and underemployed, the college graduates hoping to embark upon a glowing career path, families, whose homes are underwater, and for one man, in particular, who has "focused like a laser beam" on one job: his.  That one man is President Barack Hussein Obama.

It has long been a very open secret that the Enron-style number-fudging that Señora Solis is doing over at the Department of Labour would land any of us in the private sector right next to Bernie Madoff R. Allen Stanford.  At this rate, Hilda may need to spring Bernie from prison to accomplish her one job mission -- well, other than the one creating hotlines for illegal immigrants to call to learn about their "rights":  Getting Barack Obama reelected.  Yep, only Madoff can create those kinds of numbers.

Essentially, Obama is demanding Daniel Boulud turn cow patties into Araguani Chocolate Cremeux and that is "Ce n'est tout simplement pas possible.  Comprendre?"

Before we get to the anything-but-bellissimo jobs comparison report, we have a Clean-Up In Aisle March And April to do!  

As is her way, Hilda revised her figures again this morning.  In what direction you ask?  Seriously?  In Hildy World, there is but one way and it is DOWN, BABY, DOWN!

Originally, Solis reported that 120,000 jobs were created in March.  NOT!   Try 73,000.  Just a wee mistake of -39.167 %.  Originally, she reported that employers had added 115,000 jobs in April.  NOT!   Try 77,000.  Just a wee mistake of -33.043%.

Hey!  Did someone say "War on Women"???  I've got ya a "War on Women."   Check it out:

In January 2009, the number of women employed was:  67.007m   

In May 2012, the number of women employed was:  61.894m

In January 2009, the number of unemployed women was:  4.286m

In May 2012, the number of unemployed women was:  5.028m

The percentage change in the number of women employed between January 2009 and May 2012 has been a DECREASE of 7.621%.

The percentage change in the number of women unemployed between January 2009 and May 2012 has been an INCREASE of 17.312%.

Economy added a measly 69,000 jobs added.  Whoop-dee-doo!  That's the lowest number since May 2011.   When discouraged workers are added, the unemployment rate rises to 14.8%.


Slowdown?  Yeah, I guess you could call it that.  **eyeroll**  But, can we at least get it to hurry up so that we can get rid of this imbecile?  Seriously.  Who in their bloody mind would hire and expand with Black Jesus (h/t David Axelrod) as CEO of the country?

In April, the number of actual employed persons fell by 169,000.  In May, the number of actual employed persons fell by 220,000. Another 461,000 workers fell out of the workforce...and off of the face of the earth? 

Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?

OK, onto the business of the day.....



I ran the numbers comparing January, 2009, to May, 2012:

January 2009:

Civilian non-institution population:  234.739m

Civilian labour force:  153.716m

Employed:  142.099m

Employment-population ratio: 61.3

Unemployed:  11.616m

Not in labour force:  81.023m

Not in the labour force, but who want a job now:  5.682m

Part-time, but want full-time job: 15.194m

Participation Rate:  65.5%

Average Weeks Unemployed:  19.8

Unemployment rate:  7.6%

May 2012:

Civilian non-institutional population:  242.966m

Civilian labour force:  155.007m

Employed:  142.287m

Employment-population ratio:   58.6

Unemployed:  12.720m

Not in labour force:  87.958m

Not in the labour force, but who want a job now:   6.989m

Part-time, but want full-time job:  19.393m

Participation rate:  63.86%

Average Weeks Unemployed:  44.0

Unemployment rate:  8.2%

Percentage Change:

Civilian non-institutional population:  +3.505%

Civilian labour force:  +.84%

Employed:  +0.132 %

Employment-population ratio:  -4.41%

Unemployed:   +9.5%

Not in labour force:   +8.559%

Not in the labour force, but who want a job now:   +23.002%

Part-time, but want full-time job:   +27.636%

Participation rate:  -2.504%

Average Weeks Unemployed:  +122.22%

Unemployment rate:  +7.895%

Change in Non-Farm Payrolls, January 2009 –May 2012

January 2009:

 

Total:  134.580m
Total Private:  112.041m

Goods Producing:  20.245m

Manufacturing:  12.713m

Service Providing, Private:  91.796m

Government:  22.539m

Federal Government:  2.792m

May 2012:

Total:  133.009m

Total Private:  111.040m

Goods Producing:  18.307m

Manufacturing:  11.953m

Service Providing, Private:  92.733m

Government:  21.969m

Federal Government:  2.819m

Percentage Change:

Total:  -1.167%
Total private:  -0.893 %
Goods producing:  -9.573%
Manufacturing:  -5.978%
Service providing, private: +1.021%
Government: -2.529%
Federal government: +0.967%

Hope.  Change.  Chronic unemployment.

 

From our friend, James Pethokoukis:

So what is the true state of the labor market?

– If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office—65.7% then vs. 63.8% today—the U-3 unemployment rate would be 10.9%. (Now, this doesn’t take into account the aging of the Baby Boomers, which should lower the participation rate due to rising retirements. But is that still a valid assumption given the drop in wealth since 2006?)

–  If you take into account the aging of the Baby Boomers, the participation rate should be trending lower. Indeed, it has been doing just that since 2000. Before the Great Recession, the Congressional Budget Office predicted what the participation rate would be in 2012, assuming such demographic changes. Using that number, the real unemployment rate would be 10.5%.

– Of course, the participation rate usually falls during recessions. Yet even if you discount for that and the aging issue, the real unemployment rate would be 9.5%.

– We continue to be stuck in the longest period of 8% unemployment or higher since the Great Depression, 40 consecutive months.

– And, as the above chart shows — originally from Obama economists Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein in January 2009 –the current 8.2% unemployment rate is 2.5 percentage points above where Team Obama predicted it would be right now if Congress passed his trillion-dollar stimulus plan.

–  The median duration of unemployment rebounded to 20.1 weeks in May, and 42.8% were unemployed for longer than a half year.

– Total hours worked fell 0.2% on weakness in the work week.

– Average hourly earnings rose just 0.1%. Coupled with a very stable overall inflation rate, real wages were likely flat in May.

The big question now: Does this report suggest the U.S economy is heading into recession, especially given the sharp slowdown in global economic activity from Europe to India to, perhaps most worrisome, China?

Consider this: Last year, the U.S. grew at just a 1.7% pace. Research from the Federal Reserve finds that that since 1947 when year-over-year real GDP growth falls below 2 percent, recession follows within a year 70 percent of the time. We are firmly within the Recession Red Zone.

The political implications are clear: If the White House wasn’t already in a panic about the spring swoon, it sure is now. Another Recovery Bummer. If you punch in a mild recession into the higher regarded Fair-Yale forecasting model, Mitt Romney wins 53-47 over Obama in the two-party vote share. But given the example of Jimmy Carter, who suffered a mild recession in his 1980 reelection year, the Fair model might be underestimating the damage to Obama from a double dip.

 

UPDATE 1 (10:09 AM):  From Matt McDonald over at Hamilton Place Strategies:

Last month, the President only needed the economy to add 146,000 jobs per month to get the unemployment rate below 8 percent if the labor force participation rate held steady, 250,000 if it returned to trend. With the bump in participation this month, the President now needs the economy to add 204,000 jobs per month if the labor force participation rate stays at 63.8 percent and 295,000 if the participation rate continues to rise back to trend.

Update 3 (10:20 AM): Citigroup:

Signs of extraordinary and lasting weakness in U.S. labor markets have been evident since the start of the expansion, including the severe duration of unemployment for many job seekers (see figure 3). No doubt, today’s data will strengthen arguments for additional policy support for the recovery which might be desirable for reasons including the potential for “hysteresis” (reduce skills and employability) of the long term unemployed.

 

 Update 4 (11:00 AM):  Ominous analysis from JPMorgan:

The May jobs report was disappointing and demoralizing: employment increased only 69,000 and job growth the prior month was revised down substantially to 77,000. On top of that the average workweek fell a tenth to 34.4 hours and the trend in average wage growth appears to be slowing as well — all of which adds up to very slow growth in household labor income. The unemployment rate rose a tenth to 8.2%, though to be fair that aspect of the report isn’t quite as ugly as it appears insofar as it was pushed higher by an increase in re-entrants back into the labor force. Given the steady deterioration in labor market performance over the course of the year, our outlook for decent growth in the middle quarters of the year is now looking shopworn, and we will have forecast revisions out shortly.

Update 5 (11:05 AM): IHS Global Insight:

2012 is beginning to look horribly like 2011 – initial high hopes that the recovery was kicking into high gear, subsequently dashed.  … Although there is probably now some undershooting in seasonally sensitive sectors (for example in construction) after previous overshooting, the latest figures cast doubt on whether the economy has enough momentum to achieve even the 2.2% growth rate we had expected for this year. Given the uncertainties over the Eurozone crisis, emerging market growth, the US elections and the “fiscal cliff”, there are plenty of reasons for businesses to stay cautious in their hiring plans, even if surging gasoline prices are for the moment no longer on the list of things to worry about.

 UPDATE 2 (10:13 AM): And a great jobs chart from HPS: