Economist Insights Underemployed and understated 15 July 2013 Asset management The financial crisis created the worst unemployment situation in the US for three decades, but since then the unemployment rate has been falling. Unfortunately, the news is not as good as it appears. As Chairman Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve stated last week: “the unemployment rate probably understates the weakness of the labor market”. For many Americans, it is a situation of “congratulations, you are no longer unemployed; but unfortunately you don’t have a job”. The confusion is one of definition. The unemployment rate only considers those who are actively looking for work. Such a measure is useful for economists because it excludes those who are not looking for a job at all (students, the retired, disabled who are unable to work, and those who choose to stay at home), and therefore it is good at measuring pressures on wages in the market. However, when the economy has been as bad as it is for so long, many people will become discouraged and give up looking. Others may not enter the labour market at all. The unemployment rate will not capture these people who are outside the labour force because they are not active participants and hence will not affect wages. Pick a person at random on the street in the US, and the probability that they have a job will be the same as it was three years ago, despite the improvement in the unemployment rate (see chart 1). The fall in the participation rate (all those people not looking for jobs any more) has flattered the headline unemployment rate. This is the wrong type of improvement, and Chairman Bernanke knows it. The drop in the participation rate is unprecedented in both size and speed, so this cannot be blamed on the recession. The participation rate was on an upward trajectory from the 1960s onwards as women joined the labour force, broadly levelled out from the 1990s to early 2000s and then started to fall. Up to half of the drop in participation rate may have come from demographics as the population is aging and people move into age groups that usually have lower participation rates, but that still leaves much of the divergence to explain. Break things down into a bit more detail, and there are some interesting observations. As is the case in Europe now and in past recessions around the world, the biggest losers from the recession have been the young. The increase in the unemployment rate during the crisis for those aged 16-24 was approximately double that of older cohorts (see chart 2), and the fall in unemployment since then has been proportionately less. The employment to population ratio also fell by more for Joshua McCallum Senior Fixed Income Economist UBS Global Asset Management [email protected]Gianluca Moretti Fixed Income Economist UBS Global Asset Management [email protected]Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Chart 1: Gainful unemployment US unemployment rate and employment to population ratio (%) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Jan-13 Jan-12 Jan-11 Jan-10 Jan-09 Jan-08 Jan-07 Jan-06 Unemployment rate (lhs) 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Employment to population ratio (rhs) The US unemployment rate has been falling but the news is not as good as it appears. The unemployment rate only considers those who are actively looking for work so it does not capture those who have become discouraged and given up looking. The summary unemployment rate also obscures a lot of differences in the detail, such as differences between age groups. The Federal Reserve knows that the labour market is far more complicated than just the unemployment rate and has given the market a reminder of this – so do not expect rates to rise sooner than the Fed has indicated.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Economist Insights
Underemployed and understated
15 July 2013Asset management
The financial crisis created the worst unemployment situation
in the US for three decades, but since then the unemployment
rate has been falling. Unfortunately, the news is not as good
as it appears. As Chairman Ben Bernanke of the Federal
Reserve stated last week: “the unemployment rate probably
understates the weakness of the labor market”. For many
Americans, it is a situation of “congratulations, you are no
longer unemployed; but unfortunately you don’t have a job”.
The confusion is one of definition. The unemployment rate
only considers those who are actively looking for work. Such
a measure is useful for economists because it excludes those
who are not looking for a job at all (students, the retired,
disabled who are unable to work, and those who choose to
stay at home), and therefore it is good at measuring pressures
on wages in the market. However, when the economy has
been as bad as it is for so long, many people will become
discouraged and give up looking. Others may not enter the
labour market at all. The unemployment rate will not capture
these people who are outside the labour force because they
are not active participants and hence will not affect wages.
Pick a person at random on the street in the US, and the
probability that they have a job will be the same as it was three
years ago, despite the improvement in the unemployment rate
(see chart 1). The fall in the participation rate (all those people
not looking for jobs any more) has flattered the headline
unemployment rate. This is the wrong type of improvement,
and Chairman Bernanke knows it.
The drop in the participation rate is unprecedented in both size
and speed, so this cannot be blamed on the recession. The
participation rate was on an upward trajectory from the 1960s
onwards as women joined the labour force, broadly levelled
out from the 1990s to early 2000s and then started to fall. Up
to half of the drop in participation rate may have come from
demographics as the population is aging and people move into
age groups that usually have lower participation rates, but that
still leaves much of the divergence to explain.
Break things down into a bit more detail, and there are
some interesting observations. As is the case in Europe now
and in past recessions around the world, the biggest losers
from the recession have been the young. The increase in the
unemployment rate during the crisis for those aged 16-24 was
approximately double that of older cohorts (see chart 2), and
the fall in unemployment since then has been proportionately
less. The employment to population ratio also fell by more for
US unemployment rate and employment to population ratio (%)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Jan-13Jan-12Jan-11Jan-10Jan-09Jan-08Jan-07Jan-06
Unemployment rate (lhs)
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Employment to population ratio (rhs)
The US unemployment rate has been falling but the news
is not as good as it appears. The unemployment rate only
considers those who are actively looking for work so it
does not capture those who have become discouraged
and given up looking. The summary unemployment rate
also obscures a lot of differences in the detail, such as
differences between age groups. The Federal Reserve
knows that the labour market is far more complicated
than just the unemployment rate and has given the market
a reminder of this – so do not expect rates to rise sooner
than the Fed has indicated.
this age group than any other, which can only be explained in
part by more people staying in education (rather than leave
without any job prospects).
One of the most striking features has been the performance
of those aged over 55. This pre-retirement and retired cohort
actually has a higher proportion of people employed than
before the crisis, even though their unemployment rate has
risen almost as much as their slightly younger counterparts.
The participation rate has actually risen for this group: so they
gained more jobs than they lost, but even more of them are
actually looking for work than before. This may have a lot to
do with the value of their pension pots: many people close to
retirement age may have been planning imminent retirement,
but the crisis slashed the value of their home and their equity
investments. Finding themselves with insufficient funds to
retire, many will have remained in their jobs wherever possible.
The decision to remain in jobs can have a knock on effect on
younger cohorts. When a worker postpones retirement there
is no vacancy created. Like all good economists, we know full
well that the ‘lump sum of labour fallacy’ is a fallacy – there is
not a limited number of jobs around so that old people working
may keep younger people unemployed. (If there was a limited
number of jobs the unemployment rate would just keep rising as
the population grew.) However, during a recession when firms
are reluctant to hire other than to replace workers that have left,
workers who already have jobs are at an advantage over those
who do not. This creates a transitional impact; the young will
really only benefit when the recovery finally takes off.
The recession has also been harsher on American men than
women, though much of this can likely be explained by the
industry-bias of the genders. There were disproportionately
more men working in construction and manufacturing, both
of which were especially badly hit. There are more women
employed in services, and in particular healthcare, which did
not suffer as much during the downturn.
There is a similar story when it comes to ethnicity. People
of Black & Caribbean or Hispanic origin (as defined by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics) suffered far more than those of
Asian or White background. Once again, this really a story
about another factor: education. Far fewer of those from Black
& Caribbean or Hispanic backgrounds have benefited from
further education, and the recession has been particularly bad
for those without qualifications. The rate of unemployment for
these groups was much higher to start with. So college may be
expensive in the US, but it clearly brings employment benefits.
While it is useful to have summary statistics like the
unemployment rate to quickly describe the economy, relying
too much on these numbers means that you miss a lot of
the detail. When it set its thresholds for raising interest rates,
the Federal Reserve knew full well that the labour market is
far more complicated than just the unemployment rate. For
the sake of simplifying communication the Fed headlined the
unemployment rate because it is familiar to everyone, but
warned that it would be looking at other statistics as well.
The market has been focusing on the steady improvement in
the unemployment rate, but Chairman Bernanke looks at the
employment to population ratio as well and he knows that the
improving unemployment rate is largely illusion: your economy
is not getting stronger when job-seekers are giving up.
Chairman Bernanke has also said that he believes that much
of the decline in the participation rate is cyclical: in short,
when the economy gets better people will start looking for
jobs. If he is right, then this means that the economy will have
to generate even more jobs in order to absorb these people
returning to the labour force. That would require a very strong
recovery indeed, so no wonder Chairman Bernanke felt that it
might have been time to warn the market that their reaction
to the ending of tapering was overstated. He even warned
that “it may well be some time after we hit 6.5% before rates
reach any significant level” – so it looks like the Fed target
itself may be overstated as well.
The views expressed are as of July 2013 and are a general guide to the views of UBS Global Asset Management. This document does not replace portfolio and fund-specific materials. Commentary is at a macro or strategy level and is not with reference to any registered or other mutual fund. This document is intended forlimited distribution to the clients and associates of UBS Global Asset Management. Use or distribution by any other person is prohibited. Copying any part of this publicationwithout the written permission of UBS Global A sset Management is prohibited. Care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of its content but no responsibility is acceptedfor any errors or omissions herein. Please note that past per formance is not a guide to the future. Potential for profit is accompanied by the possibility of loss. The value ofinvestments and the income from them may go down as well as up and investors may not get back the original amount invested. This document is a marketing communication.Any market or investment views expressed are not intended to be investment research. The document has not been prepared in line with the requirements of any jurisdictiondesigned to promote the independence of investment research and is not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of the dissemination of investment research. Theinformation contained in this document does not constitute a distribution, nor should it be considered a recommendation to purchase or sell any particular security or fund.The information and opinions contained in this document have been compiled or arrived at based upon information obtained from sources believed to be reliable and in goodfaith. All such information and opinions are subject to change without notice. A number of the comments in this document are based on current expectations and are considered“forward-looking statements”. Actual future results, however, may prove to be different from expectations. The opinions expressed are a reflection of UBS Global AssetManagement’s best judgment at the time this document is compiled and any obligation to update or alter forward-looking statements as a result of new information, futureevents, or otherwise is disclaimed. Furthermore, these views are not intended to predict or guarantee the future performance of any individual security, asset class, marketsgenerally, nor are they intended to predict the future performance of any UBS Global Asset Management account, portfolio or fund.