The May jobs report was worse than most analysts (including me) had expected. We are now seeing a lot of columns asking how bad was it? My answer is pretty bad.

First, to get an obvious source of overstated weakness out of the way, we lost 35,000 jobs in the communications sector due to the Verizon strike. Those jobs will come back in the June report. If we add that number in we get 73,000. That’s better, but hardly a great report.

Furthermore, this bad report wasn’t hugely out of the line with the reports from the prior two months, both of which were revised down with the May release. The average for these two months was 154,500. Taken together, the three reports provide solid evidence that the rate of job growth has slowed sharply from the 200,000 plus rate of the prior two years.

We get a similar story if we look at total hours. Since December, the index of average weekly hours has risen at less than a 0.7 percent annual rate. This compares to a 2.0 percent rate over the prior year. (The index has actually been slightly negative if we use January, 2016 as the start point.)

We can also look to other items in the report that are to some extent independent of the establishment jobs numbers. For example, we can look to the employment diffusion indexes, which show the percentage of industries in which employers expect to add workers over a given period. All of these have fallen sharply in recent months.

The Labor Department reported that the economy created just 38,000 new jobs in May, the weakest job growth since September of 2010, when it lost 52,000 jobs. In addition, the jobs numbers for the prior two months were revised down by 59,000, bringing the average for the last three months to just 116,000.

The household survey showed a drop of 0.3 percentage points in the unemployment rate, but this is not especially good news. The decline was almost entirely due to people leaving the labor force. The employment-to-population ratio [EPOP] was unchanged at 59.7 percent, 0.2 percentage points below the the peak for the recovery. In addition, the number of people involuntarily working part-time jumped by 468,000.

June 3, 2016 (Jobs Byte)

June 3, 2016

June 3, 2016

June 3, 2016

Roger Cohen tells us it does. In a column drafted in Vietnam, he tells us that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is all about shoring up East Asian countries in their resistance to China. 

That's an interesting thought. After all, the hardest battles at the end were about getting longer and stronger patent-related protections for the pharmaceutical industry. It's not obvious how that helps us gain solidarity among the people of the region against China.

There is much else in the deal that doesn't obviously help us vis-a-vis China. For example, the Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism, which institutionalizes the far-right wing legal doctrine of regulatory takings (we have to compensate foreign investors for any law or regulation that reduces their expected profits), doesn't seem like the sort of thing that advances an anti-China coalition.

Nor is it obvious why we would not have had stronger rules of origin requirements. As the TPP is written, China will be able to hugely increase the amount of goods it can export to the United States tariffs free by having them assembled into products in one of the TPP countries. This is not to argue that we should be looking to construct a trade deal to marginalize China, but if that were the point, the TPP would probably not be that deal.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has gotten some attention in the past week for the publication of an unusual article in its quarterly magazine, Finance and Development. The article's title, “Neoliberalism: Oversold?” itself is a shocker, since the i

No, I'm not about to become a charter member of the Robert Samuelson fan club, but he does get the basic story right in his column this morning. The robots are not taking our jobs, or at least not at an especially rapid pace. As Samuelson correctly points out, robots are just a form of productivity growth and productivity growth has been very slow in recent years. This is 180 degrees at odds with the robots taking our jobs story.

In fact, we should want more robots taking our jobs. That would allow more rapid wage growth and/or longer vacations and more leisure, assuming of course that the Federal Reserve Board did not deliberately slow the economy to create more unemployment.

There are a couple of other points worth mentioning on this piece. Samuelson is dismissive of the potential impact of self-driving cars. He tells readers:

"Consider. An opinion survey by Brandon Schoettle and Michael Sivak at the University of Michigan found that only 16 percent of respondents wanted self-driving vehicles; 39 percent preferred “partially self-driving” and 46 percent wanted no “self-driving” features. Safety is one anxiety. Cost may be another. Presumably, car prices would be higher, reflecting the costs of software, sensors and electronics. Will drivers pay the premium, especially when today’s cars last longer than ever? (The average age of today’s vehicles is 11 years, up from five years in 1969, reports the Transportation Department)."

This one completely misses the potential of self-driving cars. If cars are remotely driven, there is no need to own your own car. You can summon a car to meet your specific needs at the time you need it. In other words, if it's just a short trip by yourself, you would presumably summon a small car that uses very little gas (or electricity). If you're going on a longer trip with friends or family, you would summon a bigger car that would allow everyone to be comfortable. Not owning a car could lead to enormous savings, in addition to not needing parking spaces or garage space to house your car.

It's not surprising that people grabbed for a quick survey would not have a clear idea of the potential of this technology. It's unlikely any of us can fully grasp the potential of major innovations. I remember Paul Krugman dismissing the value of the iPad when it first came out. I say this not to trash Krugman, but to point out that even a very insightful economist, who had time to reflect on the topic, had no clue as to use of this new product. Anyhow, put me down as a big optimist on self-driving vehicles.

According to many economists, the economy is at or near its full employment level of output; see, for example, the San Francisco Federal Reserve President’s recent comments. Those of us who dispute this contention point to data points like the unusually h

Mark WeisbrotelEconomista.es, 1 de junio, 2016

The 2008 recession caused job losses across the board, but it was especially hard for young Americans. The annual employment rate for 20–24 year-olds declined 8.1 percentage points between 2007 and 2010; for 25–29 year-olds, employment fell 6.0 percentage points through 2011. As of 2015, employment was still down 4.6 percentage points for the former group and 3.1 percentage points for the latter.

By contrast, employment among seniors did not fall during the recession — it actually increased. Between 2006 and 2015, there was not a single year in which employment fell for Americans age 65 and over. Employment in this age group is up 2.7 percentage points since 2007 and is up 3.2 percentage points since 2006.