October’s Jobs Report

I used to post on the monthly changes in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’s Labor Situation Report but I gave up when I came to the conclusion that the adjustments the BLS were making far outweighed the actual measured differences. That’s truth of October’s report too but there’s enough of an improvement that actual improvements in the base numbers cannot be discounted.

President Biden certainly isn’t discounting them:

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Today is another great day for our economic recovery. America is getting back to work. Our economy is starting to work for more Americans.

Thanks to the economic plan we’ve put through in Congress earlier this year and a successful vaccine deployment, America continues to add jobs at a record pace.

In this historically strong recovery, unemployment rate has fallen again today down to 4.6 percent. This included a substantial drop in unemployment for Hispanics, which was much needed.

Our economy is on the move. This morning, we learned that in October, our economy created 531,000 jobs — well above expectations.

nor is Eli Rosenberg in his piece in the Washington Post:

The growth in October came after worrying signs from September, when it appeared that problems reopening schools and child-care centers would wreak major havoc on millions of households. Some economists had become worried that the labor market’s recovery might become too uneven, particularly as many workplaces remain impacted by closures or uncertain hours.

But some 251,000 women over 20 reentered the labor force in October, and 138,000 took jobs after an outflow the month before, a very positive sign.

And the overall snapshot of the labor market is starting to look better: After shedding more than 20 million jobs in March and April of 2020, the U.S. economy has regained all but 4 million of them. The number of job openings remain near record highs, and scores of people are returning to work, with the country averaging roughly 580,000 new jobs added per month this year.

“It’s a strong jobs number for the month and changed the picture of the recent understanding of the labor market,” said Aaron Sojourner, a labor economist at the University of Minnesota. “The previous reports had seemed so low, but actually growth has been steadier than we understood. It’s progress and indicates the labor market is recovering at a better pace than we knew.”

nor are the editors of the Wall Street Journal although, as you might expect, their explanation is somewhat different from that of the president or Mr. Rosenberg:

The Labor Department’s September survey occurred a week after the enhanced benefits expired, so it didn’t capture the expiration’s impact on employment. Many people also continued to receive benefits for weeks afterwards due to claims backlogs.

So it’s notable that job growth picked up in industries in which employers said jobless benefits were making it harder to hire. Nursing homes experienced their first month of job growth (12,000) since January 2020. Another 16,000 jobs were added in home healthcare, the biggest increase since June 2020.

The labor market nonetheless remains very tight. Labor participation has hardly budged since summer 2020 and at 61.6% is still 1.7 percentage-points lower than in February 2020. Payrolls remain 4.2 million below the level of February 2020.

Low pay isn’t the problem, as employers are raising wages to attract workers. Average private hourly earnings are up 4.9% year-over-year, and 12.4% among production-level workers in leisure and hospitality. But many employers still can’t find workers.

Like most things I think the improvement is likely multi-factorial, with an improving economic outlook, seasonal variations, the elapsing of the federal (and state and local) benefits, changes in restrictions on business operations due to COVID-19, and who knows what all else playing roles.

What were the most important factors behind the improvement and how do we know?

9 comments… add one
  • Drew Link

    It is, of course, multi-factorial. Clearly people see the end of benefits coming and are positioning themselves accordingly. No one knows how important this factor is, but I’d wager its bigger than people expect.

    As for the pure politics, Biden certainly can and should tout the numbers. They were substantially up. But I’d be careful. As I noted in a previous comment, vaccine mandates and the cash flow problems (to the point of liquidity issues) driven by supply chain problems are having a drag on GDP performance. Next comes labor demand.

  • steve Link

    Good news on covid front so we shouldn’t be able to blame covid much longer.

    https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/pfizer-s-good-news-world-s-good-news

    Steve

  • Jan Link

    Follow the money should be the title to both Pfizer, and earlier Merck, copycat drugs of ivermectin. The mechanisms of all three drugs are very similar, except for price and some say proven effectiveness. The Merck drug, for instance, costs $700 per treatment, while ivermectin is around $27, with a stellar tract record of success with few side effects.

    During this past summer doctors were starting to write prescriptions for ivermectin with positive outcomes. Countries like India and Argentina were also literally zeroing out covid with their ivermectin protocols. This is when Merck came out against ivermectin, with onerous warnings, putting a lid on
    Doctors and pharmacies from writing or fulfilling prescriptions for it, making it nearly impossible to purchase. Now everyone knows why Merck put a thumb’s down on ivermectin, in anticipation of cleaning up on their own “new” more expensive product. Pfizer is just as culpable and greedy, in trying to make money from a virus, when other antivirals already existed that could have saved lives and extinguished covid much sooner.

  • Re: labor demand issues

    There is something that I’m not sure I have successfully communicated. I think there are some things we should do more of, some things we should do less of, and some things we shouldn’t do at all.

    Things we should do more of: things with low labor intensity, e.g. manufacturing of commodity food additives. I suspect the issue there is environmental. All the more reason we should be doing it here.

    Things we should be doing less of: commodity production with intense low-skill labor component.

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    Let me respond with another question. Why are employers hiring so aggressively considering supply chain issues / inflation?

    Let’s use Amazon as an example. Amazon is now the 2nd largest private employer in the US, so its sheer size makes it reflective of the economy as a whole. It plans to hire 150000 seasonal workers for the holidays. Meanwhile, it announced in that its projected operating profit for Q4 is $0-3 billion — a significant decrease from $7 billion from Q4 last year. Two other stats came, Amazon is projecting $4 billion in costs due to labor / supply chain / inflation; and its retail business is losing money again (AWS is subsidizing the rest of the business). Still the stock is near a record high, so no real pressure to stop growing aggressively.

    Or take the automakers. They are selling 10-30% less cars then in 2019, and less than last year. Yet no layoffs (through a lot of plant shutdowns), and record profits because the selling price of cars has increased more then the decreased production.

    Is this a sustainable state of affair? The ongoing assumption is the supply chain issues / inflation is transitory (now defined as ending around mid-2022); and it resolves with production increasing to its traditional level while demand at these elevated prices stay. The current state sustained longer then thought and it could resolve the way experts think it will.

  • TastyBits Link

    The economy is f*cked. You cannot shut down production and the supply chain for two years and just start it up like nothing happened. It is no different than shutting down all traffic in LA for two hours. It will take hours to get traffic back to normal.

    Between outsourcing and JIT, each downstream producer cannot start until its suppliers can begin production. Then, it is likely there will be a deflation event, and the 2008 Financial Crisis will seem like a party. With production slowed and cash-flow halted, it will be devastating, and no amount of government money will fix it.

    Party Like It’s 1999

  • I think that I may have a bit more confidence in the agility of the private sector than you, TastyBits. Where I will agree with you is that it’s a lot harder for politicians to sell the notion that we need to produce more and consume less than it is that production doesn’t matter and we should consume more. Consequently, they won’t do it.

  • TastyBits Link

    The confluence of government debt, QEn, financial leveraging, stock valuations, production, energy prices, increased regulations, government mandates, etc. is a serious threat. Individually, the private sector may be able to adapt, but combined, they are a witches brew.

    The system is far too reliant upon trust. JIT trusts that each link in the supply chain will perform as contracted. The stock market trusts that there are liquid buyers for every share traded. The financial industry trusts that the debt they trade will perform positively. Politicians trust that their meddling will have no negative effects.

    Everybody trusts that the system will work as promised, but a broken link or two can cause a cascading catastrophe. I think we are in a dangerous place, and our vulnerability or perceived vulnerability create a very unwelcome and dangerous geo-political situation.

    Unfortunately, politicians do not understand that you cannot consume what is not produced.

  • The system is far too reliant upon trust.

    I have posted on that very subject. There’s an additional unappreciated risk: the system is dependent on a cultural agreement that does not exist. When asked “will X be here on Monday?” the answer you will receive depends not just on whether X will be there on Monday but on the culture of the person you’re asking. Members of some cultures will simply never tell you “no”. It’s considered impolite. For members of other cultures it depends on who you are whether they answer truthfully or not. Members of yet other cultures will only answer truthfully if they do not think it will reflect badly on them. “Yes” simply does not necessarily mean “yes”.

Leave a Comment