According to the New York Times (and who can argue with that venerable publication and its high journalistic standards?) the U.S. economy needs to add about 150,000 jobs per month just to keep up with the growth in the working-age population. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/business/economy/job-growth-falters-badly-clouding-hope-for-recovery.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&ref=business.
According to the U.S. Board of Labor Statistics (and who can argue with them, either?), about 165,000 non-farm jobs were added in April, 2013. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf.
So we're starting to climb out of the pit, right? We added a net 15,000 new jobs last month! Well...
Strangely enough, according the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are more than 2 million fewer employed people now than there were in 2007. Since we'd have to have added nearly 4 million more in order to keep up with population growth over the last 6 years (and obviously didn't), it looks like we're about 6 million jobs in the hole, plus however many jobs we were already short in 2007. No wonder it still feels like hard times, even though those stock indexes are setting records. But... the good news is that even though there are more unemployed people, the "unemployment rate" is falling! Down to 7.5% now! High Five!
The reason that the "unemployment rate" can fall even though the number of unemployed people is increasing is that not everybody who's not working is counted as "unemployed." See, once somebody gets disgusted and gives up looking for work, they're no longer counted as part of the "labor force," so even though they're not working, they're no longer "unemployed." And if they give up and retire early, they're not "unemployed," either. And if you're a teenager or a recent graduate, you might be out there looking for work, but you're not entitled to unemployment benefits, so who's going to notice?
Another thing... the Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are about 8 million of the "employed" who are actually "underemployed," meaning that they're working part time, without benefits for the most part, and would rather work full time. Unless by some wild coincidence these 8 million are all people I personally know, this statistic must be understated.
But there is some "good" news, which again comes to us through the venerable New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/business/college-graduates-fare-well-in-jobs-market-even-through-recession.html?_r=0 . Seems that although more people overall are unemployed, more 4-year college graduates have been able to find at least some kind of work, albeit in many cases it is the work that used to be done by those with only some college... or no college at all. A particularly depressing example was in the news lately: a McDonald's restaurant in Massachusetts boasts that every single one of its employees is a college graduate. http://www.examiner.com/article/mcdonald-s-requiring-college-degree-plus-experience-for-cashier-positions . Jumping back to the Times, seems that employers have figured out that in hard times they can be choosier concerning whom they employ, much to the detriment of the 68% of "civilian, non-institutional population over 25-- that is, the group of people who are not inmates of penal and mental facilities or residents of homes for the disabled or aged and who are not on active military duty" who do not have a college degree.
Oh, and I guess it's to the detriment of those college graduates with an average of $27,000 in student debt who are swabbing the decks at McDonald's, too.
After emerging from this swirling cloud of statistics, what is it that we still think we know? Well, for one thing, I know why I hate statistics. They sound scientific and important, but each number, taken alone, is practically meaningless. Statistics can be easily manipulated-- e.g., by carefully choosing the numbers you reference, you can prove that the stock market-- or terrorism-- or skin cancer correlates with the phases of the moon. And you can also convince people that the "economy" is improving even though, viewed from a slightly different angle, the economic outlook for the vast majority of the "working age" population is pretty bleak, indeed. Maybe it would be a good idea, the next time you read or listen to a story about the "economy," to ask yourself what the story was really saying... if it was really saying anything at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment