Envisioning Employment: Employment Situation March 2008
Today’s Employment Situation Report again showed declining employment with both the Household and Establishment data clearly indicating recessionary conditions.For March, total non-farm payrolls declined 80,000 from February while employment results from the Household survey declined 24,000 yielding an unemployment rate of 5.1%.
Additionally, along with the weak results seen in March comes further downward revisions to January and February resulting in 207,000 private non-farm jobs being shed this year.
The report also confirmed continued and even peaking below trend growth overall and substantial declines in sectors directly related to residential real estate and construction.
The following chart combines both the “residential building” and “residential specialty trade contractors” into one payroll series and then plotting the data since 2002.
Notice that, in aggregate, these payrolls, having peaked in March 2006 and declined 12.82% or 442,900 jobs since then, appear to be headed lower.
Also note that independently, “residential building” has lost 14.23% of its payrolls or 145,000 jobs since it peaked during September 2006 and that “residential specialty trade contractors” have lost 12.48% of its payrolls or 304,000 jobs since it peaked during February 2006.
Note that I carefully selected sectors that showed either an obvious expansion-to-contraction trend OR a flattening-to-contraction trend and that ALL sectors have both a historical and logical relationship to residential housing as well as recent industry press releases disclosing declining profits as a result of the housing bust.
Combining these series into an aggregate of payrolls “directly impacted” by the housing boom and bust cycle and plotting it, along with the S&P/Case-Shiller Composite Home Price Index (click on chart below for larger version) since 1997 provides some pretty solid evidence that a relationship exists.
To get a sense of the relative intensity of the pullback to the “directly impacted” payrolls by plotting both the percentage of overall private non-farm payrolls that the “directly impacted” aggregate represents as well as the contributions it is making to the rate of change of the underlying total private non-farm payrolls.
Plotting the ratio of overall and private non-farm payroll as well as the payroll of various business sectors to overall non-institutional population (above 16 years old and not in jail or “juvee”), the last eight years seem to pose more questions than answers.
The payroll-population ratio concept simply provides a mechanism for better isolating the changes to payroll rosters by calculating the percentage of population that is employed in a given sector at any given time.
In the following chart (click for larger version) you can see the ratio of overall non-farm payroll and private non-farm payroll to non-institutional population from 1948 overlaid with all U.S. recessions in that period.
During the 2001 recession (and to a far lesser extent in 1990), although there where large declines to the ratio during the official recession period, the economy seemed to be able resume growth while the ratio continued to slide or stayed well below the peak of the prior expansion.
This is an interesting situation in that, although increases in population have been steady and could have replenished the literal number of jobs lost during the downdraft of 2000-2003, the latest expansion of payrolls has not been strong.
The following chart (click for larger version), on the other hand, the payroll ratio related to construction has remained above even the peak set in the 90s expansion but now seems to be coming down.
Of course these lost jobs could shift to some other part of the labor force but the point is, the current ratio appears poised to drop and with it will inevitably go many construction jobs.
Labels: Bernanke, economy recession, Federal Reserve, housing bubble, job loss, unemployment
Copyright © 2009
PaperEconomy Blog - www.papereconomy.com
All Rights Reserved
Disclaimer
PaperEconomy Blog - www.papereconomy.com
All Rights Reserved
Disclaimer








5 Comments:
It's interesting how the percentage of people working in non-farm jobs has increased (about 43% in 1948, about 63% in 2000). I suppose this is due to fewer farm jobs and more women working. It looks like it is leveling off right now and might even be dipping. Not sure why it's dipping, tho it could be more retirees as a percent of the population. That's probably not the whole story.
By
Dagger, at 1:07 PM
Dagger,
Yea I think it is the working couples and the like but the "jobless recovery" section is what I'm watching closely.
It appears to me to be fairly unprecedented and seems to indicate that the post dot-com recession recovery was not very strong.
There seems to be a general consensus that since jobs didn't really come back after the last recession, they wont decline very much during this recession but I think that that may be a wrong idea.
All of the patterns/trends I watch are consistent with typical recessionary job loss so in that event, these charts will look REALLY unprecedented.
Something is afoot which we have yet to see (and record) in our modern economy.
It may be that we have entered an prolonged era of really weak growth.
The S&P/500 essentially says the same thing which would be really obvious if it should slump another 5-10%.
By
SoldAtTheTop, at 1:41 PM
Hmm, a jobless recovery. How could that happen?
Well, it could be more jobs are going to illegal workers and are thus not being counted. But I doubt it.
Or there could be growth in some other under-counted segment, like self-employed people? (Or back robbers ;-)
I already mentioned retirees, but if people are retiring earlier that would mean fewer workers. This could happen if retirees are feeling rich because their houses are worth so much, or their stocks have done so well.
These are all on the labor supply side, which is nicer than having the problem on the demand side.
And it does look like the problem is on the demand side, since demand is dipping with recessions and then not recovering.
By
Dagger, at 3:08 PM
Thank you for this blog post
By
MoneyBlog, at 7:44 AM
Employment indicators are a very strong dipstick of the economy. Anyone ignoring these numbers is a fool and should see this as a warning sign of troubles yet to come.
Warm Regards,
Rob
http://www.battlecall.com
By
Rob Lawrence, at 7:13 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home