Share

Rate of Job Loss Slows Moderately, Unemployment Rate Rises to 8.9 Percent

by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
The economy lost another 539,000 jobs in April. (Photo: Reuters)

    Previously reported job loss has been revised upward by an average of 86,200 in the last five months.

    The economy lost another 539,000 jobs in April, down from an average of 680,000 over the prior five months. The unemployment rate rose to 8.9 percent, in spite of the fact that the household survey actually showed an increase in employment of 120,000. On an age-adjusted basis, the current unemployment rate would be equivalent to about 10.5 percent in 1982, almost the same as the peak level hit in that year.

    The biggest factor behind the slowdown was an increase of 66,000 jobs in the federal government, mostly due to the 2010 census. Private sector employment declined by 611,000 in April, which is still an improvement over the 680,000 average job loss for the prior five months. This improvement is explained almost entirely by slower rates of job loss in construction, manufacturing, and employment services.

    Construction lost 110,000 jobs in April, compared to an average 121,000 loss over the prior five months. With manufacturing the numbers are 149,000 compared with 180,000, and with employment services the April job loss was 68,900 compared with an average 87,200 over the prior five months. The basic story in all three sectors is that they are running out of jobs to lose. This is most clear in the case of employment services, where the number of jobs is down by 32.8 percent from its pre-recession peak in December of 2006.

    When making comparisons with prior months, it is important to remember that there has been a consistent pattern of sharp upward revisions to job loss numbers in subsequent reports. The number of jobs lost in February and in March was revised up by 66,000 in this report. On average, the initially reported job loss for the last five months has been revised upward by 86,200 in subsequent reports. If the April job loss is subsequently revised upward by a comparable number, then the rate of job decline, apart from the census workers, will be the same as the average for the prior five months.

    If this proves to be the case, then the accelerated job loss in sectors like retail trade (especially car dealers) and financial services, and slower job growth in health care, will offset the slower rate of job loss in other sectors. It is also worth noting that the jobs imputed for new firms not included in this release continues to outpace the rate from 2008. There were 226,000 jobs imputed for new firms in April of 2009 compared with just 176,000 for April of 2008. Given the health of the economy in 2009 compared with 2008, this seems unlikely.

    The surprising increase in employment shown in the household survey was concentrated among older women. The number of employed women between the ages of 45 to 54 increased by 106,000, or 0.7 percent. The number of employed women over the age of 55 increased by 99,000, or 0.8 percent. This is a striking rate of employment growth in a steep downturn, if it holds up in subsequent months.

    The flip side is that the employment picture for men continues to deteriorate, with the unemployment rate for adult men rising by 0.6 percentage points to 9.4 percent. The rate for women is 7.1 percent. The unemployment rates for men and women had been almost equal before the downturn.

    Most of the other data in the household survey looks bleak. The percentage of unemployment attributable to voluntary job leavers, a measure of confidence in the labor market, fell to 6.5 percent, equal to the low hit in November of 1982. The share of the long-term unemployed stands at 27.2 percent, the highest on record. This raises the prospect of millions of unemployed exceeding their period of extended benefits.

    While optimists will be inclined to find "green shoots" in this report, on a close examination there is not much good news here. There appears to be some decline in the rate of private sector job loss, but this will largely disappear if the revisions follow the same pattern as in prior months. Furthermore, the slowdown in wage growth (almost zero in April) suggests that workers' purchasing power will be falling in the months ahead.

Creative Commons License
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

  

»


Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. He previously worked as a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at Bucknell University. He is a regular Truthout columnist and a member of Truthout's Board of Advisers.

Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

The problem with the

The problem with the "official" U3 unemployment rate is that it does not tell the truth. Prior to 1983 the US government used at differnet method to estimate unemployment similar to the barely mentioned U6 method. The government now uses what is called U3 The U6 method reveals far worse scenario, the real unemployment rate reached 15.8% in April. The U-6 unemployment rate is considered to be the true unemployment number. The U-6 unemployment rate includes the following people that the U-3 number (which is the "official" number) doesn't: 1. People who want full-time work but have to take part-time jobs due to "economic" reasons. 2. Discouraged workers, meaning those who have given up on finding full-time work due to "job-market related reasons". A discouraged worker might be a stock broker who has given up on finding a job for now because the industry is in such bad shape. 3. Marginally attached workers, who are those who want a full-time job, have looked for full-time work recently but are currently "neither working nor actively looking for work". 4.The self employed whose income has been reduced or have closed down their business. The U-6 unemployment number, as mentioned, currently sits near 16%. The U-3 unemployment number has risen from 7.2% in December of 2008, while the U-6 number has risen from 13.5% in December.

Economic malaise and

Economic malaise and catastrophe for the American worker or household is an incidental, expendable 'write off' for the economy of the American oligarchy, be they of liberal or conservative disposition. The travesty of the recent give away to finance capital is all telling.In the event of a truly severe crisis, victimized Americans will resume their sycophancy to their plutocratic masters, even going so far as to underwrite out right fascism. If not, the private mercenary armies– now being created by corporate capital–will be there to meet them, having been joined by the U.S. military, domestic police forces, and even by the predator drone.That such abjection exists in America has been proven in the total lack of outrage and paucity of resistance against the current financial thievery.

Say Dean, How easy is it for

Say Dean, How easy is it for the government to fake the numbers?

The "official" numbers also

The "official" numbers also do not include a million unemployed independent contractors, a million who work(ed) for cash, a million imprisoned non-violent drug offenders, and a million US military personnel who would be civilians if we weren't occupying a couple of countries while maintaining our imperial planetary full spectrum dominance strategy. Plus, the government lies profusely. So toss in another 5 million unreported unemployed just to be safe...

Government statistics don't

Government statistics don't tell the truth for one reason: If they told the truth, they'd have to spend more money. For example, Social Security and disability payments get cost of living raises. Generally that's been 1 and 1/2% annually, but we've seen expenses shoot up 15-40% a year. I've read numerous sites that say the unemployment numbers are probably double what's admitted. Just because the panic on Wall Street is lessened doesn't mean things are better on Main Street. America is now a banana republic and 90% of us are broke.

It is entirely misleading to

It is entirely misleading to quote jobless numbers when they do not include people who are no longer receiving unemployment benefits or those "underemployed" and working at minimum wage jobs with no medical insurance. People are losing their jobs and their health and their homes and Congress is still playing games reminiscent of the days of President Hoover's administration after the crash of 1929. President Obama is not providing the tough leadership of a FDR, but then I doubt anyone of the timid members of either party has the balls and the integrity to do any better.

I have friends who are

I have friends who are looking for work. I try to help them find any job they could qualify for online. The listings are few and far between. Almost everyone I know is underemployed and has no health insurance. I know they don't show up on the statistics because they are not recently laid off. They just piece together whatever kind of work they can find even if its a job that only lasts a couple months just to keep their bills paid.

Lot of jobless on the street

Lot of jobless on the street wanting to work. If you receive another piece of this next insane stimulus package, please make a chunky donation to a well run regional food bank and/or shelter. We have to keep our people fed, warm and not without hope.

Interesting statistic about

Interesting statistic about older women getting hired, since I am an older woman having difficulty finding work. Seems like everyone who gets the jobs are young, beauty-filled, and charged with cheerleader-like enthusiasm. And the doors of plenty are shut tight to us. Where are older women getting hired?

The U.S. Labor Department's

The U.S. Labor Department's formula for counting the number of unemployed Americans conveniently leaves out all those who don't find jobs before their unemployment runs out and all those who must take part-time, low paying jobs in place of their previous employment. In other words, U.S. unemployment statistics are fraudulent. We must demand honest statistics!