Connect with us

Uncategorized

The equalizing effect of strong labor markets: Explaining the disproportionate rise in the Black employment-to-population ratio

Earlier this year, the share of the adult Black population with a job—or the Black employment-to-population ratio (EPOP)—surpassed the share of the…

Published

on

Earlier this year, the share of the adult Black population with a job—or the Black employment-to-population ratio (EPOP)—surpassed the share of the adult white population with a job for the first time in modern history. While the Black EPOP has since declined somewhat, it’s worth examining the reasons behind the sharp increase in employment over the pandemic recovery and the narrowing of the gap between Black and white workers in 2023. In my analysis, I conclude the following:

  • The Black EPOP appears close to the white EPOP in recent years in part because the Black population is significantly younger (i.e., more likely to work) than the white population. After accounting for their different age distributions, Black workers have significantly lower EPOPs than white workers.
  • However, the tremendous bounceback in the labor market was a significant boon for Black workers. While Black workers suffered greater losses in the pandemic recession, the employment gap narrowed because Black workers experienced a stronger jobs recovery than white workers.

Figure A shows the employment-to-population ratio (EPOP) for Black and white workers between January 2020 and June 2023. These data come from the Current Population Survey (CPS), which is a survey of households that is subject to some volatility because of its relatively small sample size. That means more weight should be put on longer-term trends, rather than month-to-month values. Here, the trends are clear. We can see that the white EPOP was about 2.0 percentage points higher than the Black EPOP in February 2020 before the pandemic hit. In the depth of the pandemic recession, that differential grew to 3.0 percentage points. While the white EPOP bounced back a bit faster in the summer of 2020—widening the gap further—Black employment then started growing faster than white employment to such a degree that the Black EPOP surpassed the white EPOP earlier this year.

Figure A

Let’s take a step back and disentangle some demographic issues that may be related to the trends and levels of employment that we see in Figure A. Figure B displays the age distribution of both the Black and white adult populations, 16 years and older. What should be immediately apparent is that the white age distribution is significantly older than the Black age distribution. In all the age groups below 50, the Black distribution is relatively larger than the white. In fact, about 61% of the Black population is below 50 while only about 49% of the white population is below 50. This is significant because—starting at 50 years old—the older the population is, the less likely they are to work.

I should be clear I’ve changed the race categorizations slightly from what the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports and what I presented in Figure A. In the remainder of the figures in this blog post, I’m using the EPI microdata extracts from the CPS and utilize EPI’s typical mutually exclusive race/ethnic categories used throughout much of our research and data library; therefore, in this post, Black refers to Black non-Hispanic and white refers to white non-Hispanic. I’m also combining the first three months of the year, January to March 2023.1

Figure B
Figure B

Figure C displays the employment-to-population ratio by race for the same set of age groups. Regardless of race, it should be apparent that EPOPs rise through the teen years and early 20s, are highest between ages 25 and 49, and then start declining at age 50 before falling precipitously after age 59. But when we compare by race, Black EPOPs are lower than white EPOPs at nearly every age level. This is because of a long history of occupational segregation, persistent discrimination, and unequal bargaining power. Given that Black workers are younger on average and Black EPOPs are lower than white EPOPs across the age distribution, the fact that the Black EPOP appears close to the white EPOP over the last several years can in part be attributed to their younger age distribution.

Figure C
Figure C

Figure D puts the different parts of that story together, using the age distribution and EPOPs for different age groups to construct the actual EPOPs in both 2019 and 2023 (using January to March 2023 data) as well as three simulated EPOPs for 2023. The first two sets of bars on the left show actual Black and white EPOPs in 2019 and 2023.2 The Black EPOP rose between 2019 and 2023 while the white EPOP ticked down.

Now, let’s take a step back and look at the simulations. The first simulation holds constant the 2019 EPOP levels for each age group, but incorporates changes to the age distribution for Black and white adults in 2023. We see here that both the Black and white EPOPs have declined by about one percentage point since 2019. The white population is aging slightly faster than the Black population, but not significantly so. This means that the change in EPOPs between 2019 and 2023 is primarily not driven by changes in the relative age distribution between Black and white adults.

Now, let’s turn to the fourth set of bars. Here, I’ve held the 2019 age distribution constant for both groups, but I have allowed the EPOPs to change as they did between 2019 and 2023. These bars look very similar to the relationship between actual 2023 EPOPs by race. The Black EPOP has now surpassed the white EPOP when the aging population isn’t taken into account. That means that Black workers experienced a relatively stronger recovery than white workers.

Figure D
Figure D

One thing I’d note is that the strength of the recovery for Black workers cannot be attributed to a stronger recovery, in general, for younger workers. In fact, the Black EPOP grew for workers younger and older than age 50 between 2019 and 2023, so the age distribution itself is not an explanation for the faster employment growth. It may come as no surprise that the rate of growth could be faster simply because Black workers suffered greater losses in the pandemic recession, but Figure D compares the peak before the pandemic recession to today, accounting for the deep recession and recovery. In this peak-to-peak analysis, Black workers are now unexpectedly in a stronger position now than they were before the pandemic hit.

These gains are likely the result of a tight labor market spurred by policy investments during the pandemic recession. Because the historical 2:1 Black-white ratio in the unemployment rate remains fairly fixed throughout the business cycle, losses and gains are sharper for Black workers. However, tight labor markets can erode race-based gaps in employment-to-population ratios. Policy investments (e.g., unemployment insurance expansions, economic impact payments, and aid to state and local governments) created an immediate and strong bounceback from the pandemic recession, compared with the pursuit of austerity and prolonged recovery from the Great Recession.

Finally, the last set of bars tells a story about the Black-white EPOP differential, not about the change since 2019. As discussed in Figures B and C, the white age distribution is older than the Black age distribution, and EPOPs are higher for white adults than Black adults. Therefore, it’s not surprising that when the Black 2023 EPOP is reweighted to the older white age distribution, the simulated Black EPOP is much lower.

In conclusion, after accounting for their different age distributions, Black workers have significantly lower EPOPs than white workers. However, the tremendous bounceback in the labor market was a significant boon for Black workers. If that strength continues, the labor market may finally deliver sustained and equitable gains and further narrow the disparities that exist today.

Notes

1. As of this writing, EPI’s extracts are only available through March 2023 because of some changes to the BLS methodology that we are still sorting out for April and May. It is very unlikely that including those months will change the conclusions reached here, particularly since the Black EPOP has softened somewhat since then. If anything, the gaps are larger than what I’m showing here.

2. For consistency with the data available for 2023, I’m also restricting the 2019 sample for the first three months of the year so there are no concerns about seasonality.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

February Employment Situation

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000…

Published

on

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000 average over the previous 12 months. The payroll data for January and December were revised down by a total of 167,000. The private sector added 223,000 new jobs, the largest gain since May of last year.

Temporary help services employment continues a steep decline after a sharp post-pandemic rise.

Average hours of work increased from 34.2 to 34.3. The increase, along with the 223,000 private employment increase led to a hefty increase in total hours of 5.6% at an annualized rate, also the largest increase since May of last year.

The establishment report, once again, beat “expectations;” the WSJ survey of economists was 198,000. Other than the downward revisions, mentioned above, another bit of negative news was a smallish increase in wage growth, from $34.52 to $34.57.

The household survey shows that the labor force increased 150,000, a drop in employment of 184,000 and an increase in the number of unemployed persons of 334,000. The labor force participation rate held steady at 62.5, the employment to population ratio decreased from 60.2 to 60.1 and the unemployment rate increased from 3.66 to 3.86. Remember that the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed relative to the labor force (the number employed plus the number unemployed). Consequently, the unemployment rate can go up if the number of unemployed rises holding fixed the labor force, or if the labor force shrinks holding the number unemployed unchanged. An increase in the unemployment rate is not necessarily a bad thing: it may reflect a strong labor market drawing “marginally attached” individuals from outside the labor force. Indeed, there was a 96,000 decline in those workers.

Earlier in the week, the BLS announced JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data for January. There isn’t much to report here as the job openings changed little at 8.9 million, the number of hires and total separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.3 million, respectively.

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the number of job openings remains higher than the number of unemployed persons.

Also earlier in the week the BLS announced that productivity increased 3.2% in the 4th quarter with output rising 3.5% and hours of work rising 0.3%.

The bottom line is that the labor market continues its surprisingly (to some) strong performance, once again proving stronger than many had expected. This strength makes it difficult to justify any interest rate cuts soon, particularly given the recent inflation spike.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Mortgage rates fall as labor market normalizes

Jobless claims show an expanding economy. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

Published

on

Everyone was waiting to see if this week’s jobs report would send mortgage rates higher, which is what happened last month. Instead, the 10-year yield had a muted response after the headline number beat estimates, but we have negative job revisions from previous months. The Federal Reserve’s fear of wage growth spiraling out of control hasn’t materialized for over two years now and the unemployment rate ticked up to 3.9%. For now, we can say the labor market isn’t tight anymore, but it’s also not breaking.

The key labor data line in this expansion is the weekly jobless claims report. Jobless claims show an expanding economy that has not lost jobs yet. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

From the Fed: In the week ended March 2, initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits were flat, at 217,000. The four-week moving average declined slightly by 750, to 212,250


Below is an explanation of how we got here with the labor market, which all started during COVID-19.

1. I wrote the COVID-19 recovery model on April 7, 2020, and retired it on Dec. 9, 2020. By that time, the upfront recovery phase was done, and I needed to model out when we would get the jobs lost back.

2. Early in the labor market recovery, when we saw weaker job reports, I doubled and tripled down on my assertion that job openings would get to 10 million in this recovery. Job openings rose as high as to 12 million and are currently over 9 million. Even with the massive miss on a job report in May 2021, I didn’t waver.

Currently, the jobs openings, quit percentage and hires data are below pre-COVID-19 levels, which means the labor market isn’t as tight as it once was, and this is why the employment cost index has been slowing data to move along the quits percentage.  

2-US_Job_Quits_Rate-1-2

3. I wrote that we should get back all the jobs lost to COVID-19 by September of 2022. At the time this would be a speedy labor market recovery, and it happened on schedule, too

Total employment data

4. This is the key one for right now: If COVID-19 hadn’t happened, we would have between 157 million and 159 million jobs today, which would have been in line with the job growth rate in February 2020. Today, we are at 157,808,000. This is important because job growth should be cooling down now. We are more in line with where the labor market should be when averaging 140K-165K monthly. So for now, the fact that we aren’t trending between 140K-165K means we still have a bit more recovery kick left before we get down to those levels. 




From BLS: Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 275,000 in February, and the unemployment rate increased to 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, in government, in food services and drinking places, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing.

Here are the jobs that were created and lost in the previous month:

IMG_5092

In this jobs report, the unemployment rate for education levels looks like this:

  • Less than a high school diploma: 6.1%
  • High school graduate and no college: 4.2%
  • Some college or associate degree: 3.1%
  • Bachelor’s degree or higher: 2.2%
IMG_5093_320f22

Today’s report has continued the trend of the labor data beating my expectations, only because I am looking for the jobs data to slow down to a level of 140K-165K, which hasn’t happened yet. I wouldn’t categorize the labor market as being tight anymore because of the quits ratio and the hires data in the job openings report. This also shows itself in the employment cost index as well. These are key data lines for the Fed and the reason we are going to see three rate cuts this year.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January…

Published

on

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January jobs report was the "most ridiculous in recent history" but, boy, were we wrong because this morning the Biden department of goalseeked propaganda (aka BLS) published the February jobs report, and holy crap was that something else. Even Goebbels would blush. 

What happened? Let's take a closer look.

On the surface, it was (almost) another blockbuster jobs report, certainly one which nobody expected, or rather just one bank out of 76 expected. Starting at the top, the BLS reported that in February the US unexpectedly added 275K jobs, with just one research analyst (from Dai-Ichi Research) expecting a higher number.

Some context: after last month's record 4-sigma beat, today's print was "only" 3 sigma higher than estimates. Needless to say, two multiple sigma beats in a row used to only happen in the USSR... and now in the US, apparently.

Before we go any further, a quick note on what last month we said was "the most ridiculous jobs report in recent history": it appears the BLS read our comments and decided to stop beclowing itself. It did that by slashing last month's ridiculous print by over a third, and revising what was originally reported as a massive 353K beat to just 229K,  a 124K revision, which was the biggest one-month negative revision in two years!

Of course, that does not mean that this month's jobs print won't be revised lower: it will be, and not just that month but every other month until the November election because that's the only tool left in the Biden admin's box: pretend the economic and jobs are strong, then revise them sharply lower the next month, something we pointed out first last summer and which has not failed to disappoint once.

To be fair, not every aspect of the jobs report was stellar (after all, the BLS had to give it some vague credibility). Take the unemployment rate, after flatlining between 3.4% and 3.8% for two years - and thus denying expectations from Sahm's Rule that a recession may have already started - in February the unemployment rate unexpectedly jumped to 3.9%, the highest since February 2022 (with Black unemployment spiking by 0.3% to 5.6%, an indicator which the Biden admin will quickly slam as widespread economic racism or something).

And then there were average hourly earnings, which after surging 0.6% MoM in January (since revised to 0.5%) and spooking markets that wage growth is so hot, the Fed will have no choice but to delay cuts, in February the number tumbled to just 0.1%, the lowest in two years...

... for one simple reason: last month's average wage surge had nothing to do with actual wages, and everything to do with the BLS estimate of hours worked (which is the denominator in the average wage calculation) which last month tumbled to just 34.1 (we were led to believe) the lowest since the covid pandemic...

... but has since been revised higher while the February print rose even more, to 34.3, hence why the latest average wage data was once again a product not of wages going up, but of how long Americans worked in any weekly period, in this case higher from 34.1 to 34.3, an increase which has a major impact on the average calculation.

While the above data points were examples of some latent weakness in the latest report, perhaps meant to give it a sheen of veracity, it was everything else in the report that was a problem starting with the BLS's latest choice of seasonal adjustments (after last month's wholesale revision), which have gone from merely laughable to full clownshow, as the following comparison between the monthly change in BLS and ADP payrolls shows. The trend is clear: the Biden admin numbers are now clearly rising even as the impartial ADP (which directly logs employment numbers at the company level and is far more accurate), shows an accelerating slowdown.

But it's more than just the Biden admin hanging its "success" on seasonal adjustments: when one digs deeper inside the jobs report, all sorts of ugly things emerge... such as the growing unprecedented divergence between the Establishment (payrolls) survey and much more accurate Household (actual employment) survey. To wit, while in January the BLS claims 275K payrolls were added, the Household survey found that the number of actually employed workers dropped for the third straight month (and 4 in the past 5), this time by 184K (from 161.152K to 160.968K).

This means that while the Payrolls series hits new all time highs every month since December 2020 (when according to the BLS the US had its last month of payrolls losses), the level of Employment has not budged in the past year. Worse, as shown in the chart below, such a gaping divergence has opened between the two series in the past 4 years, that the number of Employed workers would need to soar by 9 million (!) to catch up to what Payrolls claims is the employment situation.

There's more: shifting from a quantitative to a qualitative assessment, reveals just how ugly the composition of "new jobs" has been. Consider this: the BLS reports that in February 2024, the US had 132.9 million full-time jobs and 27.9 million part-time jobs. Well, that's great... until you look back one year and find that in February 2023 the US had 133.2 million full-time jobs, or more than it does one year later! And yes, all the job growth since then has been in part-time jobs, which have increased by 921K since February 2023 (from 27.020 million to 27.941 million).

Here is a summary of the labor composition in the past year: all the new jobs have been part-time jobs!

But wait there's even more, because now that the primary season is over and we enter the heart of election season and political talking points will be thrown around left and right, especially in the context of the immigration crisis created intentionally by the Biden administration which is hoping to import millions of new Democratic voters (maybe the US can hold the presidential election in Honduras or Guatemala, after all it is their citizens that will be illegally casting the key votes in November), what we find is that in February, the number of native-born workers tumbled again, sliding by a massive 560K to just 129.807 million. Add to this the December data, and we get a near-record 2.4 million plunge in native-born workers in just the past 3 months (only the covid crash was worse)!

The offset? A record 1.2 million foreign-born (read immigrants, both legal and illegal but mostly illegal) workers added in February!

Said otherwise, not only has all job creation in the past 6 years has been exclusively for foreign-born workers...

Source: St Louis Fed FRED Native Born and Foreign Born

... but there has been zero job-creation for native born workers since June 2018!

This is a huge issue - especially at a time of an illegal alien flood at the southwest border...

... and is about to become a huge political scandal, because once the inevitable recession finally hits, there will be millions of furious unemployed Americans demanding a more accurate explanation for what happened - i.e., the illegal immigration floodgates that were opened by the Biden admin.

Which is also why Biden's handlers will do everything in their power to insure there is no official recession before November... and why after the election is over, all economic hell will finally break loose. Until then, however, expect the jobs numbers to get even more ridiculous.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 13:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending