25/6/20: America's Scariest Charts Updated

Trump cheers today's unemployment figures... and...

Week of June 13th non-seasonally adjusted new unemployment claims were revised up to 1,463,363, from 1,433,027 published a week ago.

First estimate for the week of June 20th came in at 1,457,373.

Total initial unemployment claims filed so far during the COVID19 pandemic now sit at a massive, gargantuan 43,303,196, while estimated jobs losses (we only have official data for these through May, so using June unemployment claims to factor an estimate) are at 24,033,000. Putting this into perspective, combined losses of jobs during all recessions prior to the current one from 1945 through 2019 amount to 31,664,000.

A visual to map things out:

Charted differently:

Let's put this week's number into perspective: last week marked 14th worst week from January 1, 1967 through today. Here is tally of COVID19 initial claims ranks in history:

This is pretty epic, right? We are cheering 14th worst week in history. Note: all 14 worst weeks in history took place during this pandemic.

Of course, not all of the last week's initial unemployment claims are new claims. Initial claims can arise from people who have been kicked off prior unemployment rolls, who were denied unemployment filed earlier and so on. But the numbers above are dire. Disastrously dire. No matter how we spin the table.

18/8/19: Migration Policy vs the Law of Unintended Consequences

President Trump's policies are a rich field for sowing evidence on the application of the law of unintended consequence in economic policies. Take his Trade War with China that so far resulted in ca USD20 billion in fiscal receipts and USD26 billion payouts in subsidies to U.S. farmers, netting a fiscal loss of USD 6 billion (https://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2019/06/17619-lose-lose-and-lose-some-more.html), while generating gains for European exporters (https://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2019/08/15819-winning-trade-wars-round-3.html) and shrinking net real exports for the U.S. economy (https://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2019/08/1919-losin-spectacularly-trump-trade.html) and driving losses to the U.S. exporters (https://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2019/07/31719-fed-rate-cut-wont-move-needle-on.html). Another example, the never-ending rhetorical and regulatory war against skilled (and other) migration.

On the latter, we have plenty of evidence drawn from Mr. Trump's predecessors that conclusively shows the costs of severely restrictive application of the skills-based migration quotas. And, thanks to Mayda, A M, F Ortega, G Peri, K Shih, and C Sparber 2017 paper, titled “The Effect of the H-1B Quota on Employment and Selection of Foreign-Born Labor” (NBER Working Paper No. w23902, https://www.nber.org/papers/w23902.pdf), we now have an in-depth analysis of the mechanics by which unintended consequences of restricting skilled migration impose these economic losses on the U.S.

The authors looked at how changes in H-1B policy, enacted over the years, affect the characteristics of migrants entering the U.S. and how these changes alter U.S.-wide productivity and wages.

Per authors, "The economic intuition [behind the study] is simple. Firms across the globe compete to hire highly skilled workers. The strict quota and the lottery allocation generate uncertainty in acquiring the legal right to work in the US even after securing a job offer. Hence, talented foreign nationals might elect to work elsewhere. Similarly, US firms face uncertainty over whether they will be allowed to employ the top job candidates they have identified. Some firms might elect to forgo this uncertainty altogether by turning to alternative labour sources."

"First, we examine H-1B quality. ... ...H-1B restrictions have particularly hindered the employment of the highest ability foreign-born workers. Anyone who believes immigration policy should be designed to attract ‘the best and brightest’ workers to the country should be troubled by the discovery that restrictions to aggregate inflows generate the opposite effect. Quantitatively, the number of new H-1B workers from the highest wage quintile is nearly 50% lower than it would have been in the absence of H-1B restrictions, but the number of new H-1B workers in the median wage quintile is unchanged." In other words, if wages are a proxy for talent, skills and productivity, reducing H1B quotas appears to reduce availability of more skilled, more talented and more productive foreign workers, while having zero impact on availability of mid-range skills, talents and productivity workers.

Worse, reduced H1B quotas also increased concentration of H1B attaining firms (or reduced the pool of employers with a meaningful access to H1B workers). Authors conclude that "It is possible that when faced with the uncertainty and costs of the H-1B hiring process, economies of scale and network externalities arise that favour firms specialising in H-1B employment and workers with specialised knowledge about the legal hiring process." Or put differently, H1B quotas restriction may be fuelling increase in the share of foreign talent brought into the U.S. by outsourcing agencies and a handful of very larger employers. This selection bias does not appear to be linked to higher productivity and is, therefore, welfare reducing as compared to a system where firms that can generate higher productivity increases by employing foreign workers gain better access to H1B via markets.

In summary, "we presume that by reducing the H-1B cap from 195,000 in 2001-2003 to 85,000 today, policymakers intended to reduce new H-1B employment at for-profit firms and possibly increase employment of competing US-born workers. The policy achieved the first but not the second goal. Moreover, the cap restriction also generated consequences that were likely unintended. The policy change has particularly deterred workers with the highest earnings potential from entering the US labour market. Given the potential for productivity-enhancing technological gains generated by H-1B workers, this loss could reverberate throughout the economy. Other important effects are distributional and favour computer-related occupations and firms that use the H-1B programme heavily."

Consequences. A lesson for MAGA crowd from their predecessors.

7/7/19: Employment to Population Rate in the U.S.: General Labor Force vs African Americans

With 'booming' and 'tight' labor markets, the White House is only happy to argue these days that we are in a Golden Era of employment/unemployment for all, including the African Americans. Is this, in fact, the case?

Firstly, I am not too keen on the arguments that any President in office should get the credit for jobs creation. At the very best, Presidential decisions simply support jobs creation by the private sector, and can be instrumental in creating jobs (albeit less in sustaining them) in the public sector. Secondly, jobs are just numbers, unless they are distinguished by their quality - something that is hard to do.

But the White House claims are usually about the aggregate jobs numbers / statistics, as opposed to the more granular analysis. So it might be worth taking them to the test.

One comparable - across different cohorts and time periods, as well as business cycles - metric is that of employment to population ratio. It takes total number in employment and divides it into the total population of working age for a specific group. Here is the chart (data from FRED database with calculations performed by myself):

Across the entire workforce, E-to-P ratio is sitting at 60.6%, statistically indistinguishable from the historical average of 60.64%, and 4.1 percentage points below all time high of 64.7%. For the category 'Black or African American', the E-to-P ratio is currently at 58.2%, which is above 55.13% historical average and is 3.2 percentage points below all time high of 61.4%.

Which means that current reading for African Americans population in terms of employment-to-population ratio is better, relative to their own historical trends than for the overall population. But, the ratio is still lower for African Americans than for the overall population in level terms.

What about the historical positioning of the gap between the overall population E-to-P ratios and that for the African Americans?

The gap between the employment-to-population ratio for the African Americans and that for the overall population is around the lowest levels it has ever been and is well below the historical average.

So, yes, the claims that employment has been relatively strong for both the general population and for the African Americans pans out to be true in at least this metric, which is - as noted above - by far not the only metric that matters.

3/6/19: Average Duration of Unemployment in the U.S.: Still High by Historical Comparatives

Remember my 'scary chart' from the day back? The one plotting the persistently high - relative to the business cycle - duration of unemployment in the U.S.?

I have not updated this chart for some years now. So here is a new version based on the latest data:

Two things worth noting:

1. Declines in unemployment and rises in employment in recent years have been accompanied by a rather dramatic decline in the average duration of unemployment claims in the U.S. This is reflect in the drop in the cyclically-adjusted average duration of claims evidenced in the chart.
2. However, by all historical comparatives, the current business expansion cycle continues to be associated with significantly higher average duration of unemployment, compared to the pre-recession average.

In other words, not all is rosy in the labor markets.

27/7/17: The Gen-Lost is still lost...

Today, Marketwatch reported on a research note from Spencer Hill of Goldman Sachs Research claiming that the young workers cohorts in the U.S. have now caught up in terms of employment with older workers' cohorts.

Sadly, the argument is based on highly flawed analysis. The core data presented in support of this thesis is the unemployment rate, as shown in the chart below:

But official unemployment figures mask massive decline in younger cohorts' labor force participation rates, as evidence in this chart from Peterson Institute for International Economics:

In simple terms, when you reduce your employment base by moving people into 'out of workforce' category, you lower unemployment rate.  This is supported by other research, e.g. as reported here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2017/07/27717-work-or-play-snowflakes-or.html. Skewed, against the Millennials, workplace conditions are also to be blamed: http://www.epi.org/blog/young-workers-face-a-tougher-labor-market-even-as-the-economy-inches-towards-full-employment/. or as highlighted in these data:

Source: https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/labor-market-distributions.aspx?panel=1

So, no, beyond superficially deflated official unemployment metric, there is no evidence of the labor force conditions recovery for the younger workers. The Generation Lost is still lost. And that is before we consider the life cycle effects of the crisis.

2/1/16: Remember that America's Scariest Chart?

As promised in the previous post, here is a look at yet another wrinkle in the U.S. jobs creation saga. The following used to be referred to as the America's Scariest Chart some years back, until all analysts stopped tracking it. Well, all, save for myself - and for a good reason.

Since the election of Donald Trump, the U.S. media has been full of praise for President Obama's record on economic recovery, setting the stage for an argument that Trump Administration is about to inherit a very strong economy, the one that, in mainstream media's minds, Trump is likely to mess up.

So lets do a simple exercise. Take current level of employment (non-farm payrolls) and compare it to the pre-crisis average levels of employment. Represented as an index, this comparative can be performed for every recession since the end of WW2. Chart below illustrates the results:

As the chart above clearly shows:

1. Today's employment figures represent the worst recovery from a recession on record (for any terminal point of previous recoveries, current recovery is associated with lower employment levels).
2. Even stretching time of this recovery to present day - yielding the second longest period of a recovery since 1945, after the 1990 episode - current recovery is still the worst performing one.
3. Looking at the slope of the 2008 line, increases in employment relative to pre-crisis situation are weaker in the current post-crisis recovery than in every other recovery, except the 2001.

Now, this is not to put the blame for the weak recovery on the shoulders of President Obama. Presidential policies have little short term impact on unemployment and it takes cooperative Congress to structure and enact longer-term policies. But this does dispute the media-promoted view of the U.S. labour markets are being in rude health. President-elect is not about to inherit a spotless jobs market from his predecessor. America's Scariest Chart still confirms as much.

16/1/2013: US Labor Market Q4 2012 in one chart

And another stunning chart from http://oregoneconomicanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/visualizing-labor-markets/
showing the overall summary of data on the US Labor Markets compared to Q4 2007 and Q4 2009 to current state.