John Williams: US Unemployment Hits 22.5% in Alternate Estimate

Perhaps this chart will help explain the divergence that Charles Biderman of Trimtabs sees between the official unemployment numbers and the income tax data he has been tracking.

The difference amongst the three measures revolves around the treatment of workers who desire a real full time job, but have to either settle for a part time position and other forms of under-employment that may technically qualify as a 'job' but not as a 'living,' or who have simply been removed from the government's official attention span.

"The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.

The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment."

Read the rest of John Williams' Shadowstats here.

My own estimation is that the recovery is flat-lining here and is vulnerable to a double dip which, if it does occur, will be blamed on some exterior factor such as slack European demand, problems in the emerging markets, or China. But it is still too soon to tell from the numbers.

In terms of historical perspective, the great reformer Obama is much more like Herbert Hoover or Nelson Rockefeller than a Franklin Roosevelt. He resembles a moderate Republican despite all the hysterical rhetoric from the far right.

The economy has not been reformed, and most of the problems that caused the collapse in the first place are still operating. As the corporate lobbyists were able to weaken financial reform in Dodd-Frank, so they continue to monopolize the conversation and policy discussions with their money.

I do not see genuine change happening until and unless the human misery increases enough to trigger a reaction, mass protests, or some other serious challenge to the status quo and the apathy of the fortunate. And I have quite a bit of confidence that the one percent will continue to obsessively power forward as the economy dries up until they achieve a pyrrhic victory. Winning.

This applies not only to the US but several other western countries, particularly the UK. It is also true for China which despite the gloss of their miracle economy in the western corporate media remains largely a narrow oligarchy sitting on top of a virtual slave labor camp, with a few showcase exceptions. And the western oligarchs love it. As Bill Gates said, 'This is my kind of capitalism.'

US Weekly Unemployment Claims

US Non-Farm Payrolls Report for June; Unemployment at 16.5%

Despite the 'improved' rate of unemployment, achieved by eliminating unemployed people from government statistics as if they no longer matter, the plunge in jobs growth broke an important uptrend which had been fueled by temporary, lowpaying Census jobs.

This chart looks like Obama's post election popularity. The Democrat's are heading into a November bloodbath at the polls. Obama might wish to consider firing Tim and Larry now, rather than as a reaction to angry party members and supporters. Timmy is a busboy, and Larry has failed at every real job he has attempted. Looks like he is running out of tricks. Robert Reich and Elizabeth Warren are the kinds of people you should be bringing in.

A weak and insecure leader surrounds themselves with sycophants, cronies from the old neighborhood, and the hand picked stooges of the powerful. But at some point you need to get the job done for the people when you hold the reins of power. In the commercial world we used to say, "You are not really promoted, until you are successful." And in case you have not noticed, you are on your way to palooka-ville.

People of substance, Barry, people of substance. There is no substitute.




Unemployment according to the U6 Alternate Measure was steady at 16.5% thanks to discouraged workers dropping off the radar screen.



U6 Unemployment: Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workersLabor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed

A Comparison of Unemployment In the European Union and the United States

The EU has its Spain and Ireland. The United States has Michigan, Ohio, and Nevada.

A Reader Asks "How Did 558,000 People Lose Their Jobs When Only 190,000 Jobs Were Lost?"

Here is an excerpt from today's Bureau of Labor Statistics Non-farm Payrolls report.

"The unemployment rate rose from 9.8 to 10.2 percent in October, and nonfarm
payroll employment continued to decline (-190,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. The largest job losses over the month were in con-
struction, manufacturing, and retail trade.

Household Survey Data

In October, the number of unemployed persons increased by 558,000 to 15.7
million. The unemployment rate rose by 0.4 percentage point to 10.2 percent,
the highest rate since April 1983. Since the start of the recession in
December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has risen by 8.2 million,
and the unemployment rate has grown by 5.3 percentage points...

The civilian labor force participation rate was little changed over the month
at 65.1 percent. The employment-population ratio continued to decline in
October, falling to 58.5 percent."

An astute reader noticed that the BLS press release says that 190,000 jobs were lost from payroll employment, but the number of unemployed persons increased by 558,000. What's up with that?

The BLS report consists of two independent data samples. BLS has two monthly surveys that measure employment levels and trends: the Current Population Survey (CPS), also known as the household survey, and the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey, also known as the payroll or establishment survey.

There is the "Establishment Survey" which is based on responses from a sample of about 400,000 business establishments, about one-third of total nonfarm payroll employment. The headline payroll number, the job loss of 190,000, is based on this data.

Then there is the "Household Survey" which is a statistical survey of more than 50,000 households with regard to the employment circumstances of their members, which is then applied to the estimates of the US population to obtain the unemployment number. This survey was started in the 1950's and is conducted by the Census Bureau with the data being provided to BLS. It is from the household survey that more detailed information is obtained about employment statistics within population groups like gender and age, wages, and hours worked. It is this study that is responsible for the unemployment rate of 10.2%.



So which survey is correct? Neither. The truth is somewhere in between.

The most obvious reason for the discrepancy is that job creation in the US seems to be centered in the smaller business and the self-employed areas in recent years. These sectors are not polled by the BLS and their impact would only be obtained by the Household Survey's interviews.

The BLS does have a way to account for this called the "Birth Death Model" which is supposed to estimate jobs created by smaller businesses. That model is a bit of a joke actually since it almost always follows the same pattern of adding jobs, with two big corrections in January and July of each year when it will do the least damage to the headline number. Any model that does not reflect the job declines that started in 2007 can most certainly be called a statistical joke. Small business is not immune to business cycles.



The payroll survey for October will be revised several times in the short term, with each release of monthly data, and even larger revisions will be done periodically, every year or so, to correct the whole series and sometimes dramatically.

The household survey is not revised per se, but the data against which it is statistically evaluated, the census data of the population, will be revised and this will change the representation of the monthly samples. Let's hope that lowering of the population is only done by revision of the numbers, and not the more draconian things practiced throughout the earlier part of the 20th century.

There was a famous joke that the Household Survey and the Establishment Survey were synchronized under George W. Bush by getting rid of people, by lowering the estimates of the population that is, which is something his pappy did when he was the president. In the states there will be a new Census conducted in 2010 as you yanks may already know, so we will have to see if the census bureau's population estimates are lowball or highball.

So what are we to conclude from this?

First, that Wall Street and the government use the monthly jobs data as tools to achieve their particular ends, to justify programs, to buy and sell, to promote certain ideas and behaviours in the public. Secondly, people will believe what they wish to believe to suit their biases if they are not fact-based in their thinking.

The truth is more clearly demonstrated in the long term trends, the averaging of the data over time. It does not seem that the long term data is as manipulated as the Consumer Price Index information which has become a statistical disgrace with its hedonic adjustments.

So what do we do, the average person with too little time and too many other priorities, at times seemingly held captive by the flows of information from the mainstream media? As always, we must sift what the government and business tell us, with a keen eye for deception which is an unfortunate part of human nature especially when things are not going well and it is easy to rationalize many things, and do what seems to be the right thing based on our own judgement and a broader analysis of all the news.

Peak Employment

The Labor Participation Rate is the total number of people employed expressed as a percentage of the total non-institutionalized working force over the age of 16.

It is a good number to watch, because it is harder to play games with it, as the government tends to do with the unemployment rate, making people disappear when their benefits expire.

Granted, it is not perfect, because it does not account for those who are underemployed, working part time or at a minimum wage job far below their aspirations and capabilities.

Nevertheless, we are seeing a flatness in the employment figures that is pronounced.



This might not necessarily be a bad thing, if the average real wage was rising sufficiently so that one might put forward the hypothesis that people are not working because they do not need to work, and their disposable income is sufficient for their needs.

But this is not the case in the USA.

A painful adjustment to free trade and globalization? Sending your working class against nations that are executing aggressive industrial policies is like sending troops marching upright in ordered ranks into heavily entrenched machine gun fire.

Most would feel better if that pain were more equally and equitably distributed. The wealthy elite often like to use a crisis to send a nation to war at times such as these, to create work and control the population. In WWI there was also a vigorous pandemic to help cull the herd as the eugenicists used to say. Good for employment, perception control, and of course profits.

And so it is, that the generals, besotted with the favors of industrialists, and the institutionalized thinking of craven staff, are fighting the last war once again, and losing badly.

Fed Official: Real US Unemployment Rate is 16%

Dennis Lockhart may be expressing his own views, but the figure of 16% he quotes is nothing more than the Bureau of Labor Statistics "U-6" measure of unemployment.

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons,economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

Here is a chart showing the 'official' U3 measure of unemployment and the U6 alternate measure. The chart also includes the unofficial unemployment rate projection done by John Williams of Shadowstats.com.



It appears that Dennis wanted to take this occasion to say that things were SO bad that there is little use in applying any sort of stimulus to the public, although there is plenty of stimulus required for the banks.

Breitbart
Real US unemployment rate at 16 pct: Fed official
Aug 26 02:25 PM US/Eastern

The real US unemployment rate is 16 percent if persons who have dropped out of the labor pool and those working less than they would like are counted, a Federal Reserve official said Wednesday.

"If one considers the people who would like a job but have stopped looking -- so-called discouraged workers -- and those who are working fewer hours than they want, the unemployment rate would move from the official 9.4 percent to 16 percent, said Atlanta Fed chief Dennis Lockhart.

He underscored that he was expressing his own views, which did "do not necessarily reflect those of my colleagues on the Federal Open Market Committee," the policy-setting body of the central bank.

Lockhart pointed out in a speech to a chamber of commerce in Chattanooga, Tennessee that those two categories of people are not taken into account in the Labor Department's monthly report on the unemployment rate. The official July jobless rate was 9.4 percent.

Lockhart, who heads the Atlanta, Georgia, division of the Fed, is the first central bank official to acknowledge the depth of unemployment amid the worst US recession since the Great Depression.

Lockhart said the US economy was improving but "still fragile," and the beginning stages of a sluggish recovery were underway.

"My forecast for a slow recovery implies a protracted period of high unemployment," he said, adding that it would be difficult to stimulate jobs through additional public spending. (How about Bank bailouts and bonsues? Plenty of room to add more, right? - Jesse)

"Further fiscal stimulus has been mentioned, but the full effects of the first stimulus package are not yet clear, and the concern over adding to the federal deficit and the resulting national debt is warranted," he said.

President Barack Obama's administration has resisted calls for more public spending, arguing that the 787-billion-dollar stimulus passed in February needs time to work its way through the economy.

Lockhart noted that construction and manufacturing had been particularly hard hit in the recession that began in December 2007 and predicted some jobs were gone for good.

Prior to the recession, he said, construction and manufacturing combined accounted for slightly more than 15 percent of employment. But during the recession, their job losses made up more than 40 percent of all US job losses.

"In my view, it is unlikely that we will see a return of jobs lost in certain sectors, such as manufacturing," he said. (Yep that's it. Manufacturing is dead, forever. Never to return. - Jesse)

"In a similar vein, the recession has been so deep in construction that a reallocation of workers is likely to happen -- even if not permanent."

Payroll employment has fallen by 6.7 million since the recession began.

The US Employment Picture

The official US Unemployment Percentage Rate.



The average number of weeks a job seeker is unemployed.



The percentage of people in the Civilian Labor Force who are working.

This statistic helps to keep track of workers who are 'discouraged' and no longer included in the official unemployment rate.

This statistic shows that there never really was any recovery after 2001, that the appearance of growth was ephemeral, all a bubble spun by the Fed and the Banks and the Bush Administration.



Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Recessions and the SP 500

Paul Kasriel's latest reading of his proprietary tea leaves (a blend known as the Kasriel Recession Warning Indicator) estimates the current probability of a recession in the US economy at 65%. As the chart shows, once his KRWI reaches this critical level its a strong probability that we will see an economic recession call by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). Even the period following the tech wreck of 2000 eventually read out a formal recession, although the financial engineering of the Fed and federal friends did block the traditional back to back quarters of economic contraction, as the inflation reading is subtracted from the nominal GDP number to develop real GDP. Hard as it may be to believe, the government has simply changed the rules of the game for measuring price inflation in the US, and considerably enough that what used to be a recession may no longer be called one. Changing the rules of the game is a traditional method of the privileged and elite in achieving their goals.

We give a lot of credibility to Paul Kasriel in general, as a classic macro economist who seems unaffected by the dark pollution of biased thought that corporatism has brought to an already dismal and confounding science. The Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) are already calling out recession, and as you know, the classic inversion of the Yield Curve (Ten Year Treasury Yield - Effective Fed Funds Rate) is still negative as of the Fed's official numbers last week.

So it bothers us quite a bit that the stock market, that great discounter of the future and unerringly efficient prognosticator of economic things yet unseen, is presumed to be rallying back to new all time highs, even if only on a nominal level, not accounting for inflation. We show the SP deflated by gold in this chart, and as you can see, the rebound in US stocks is a bit of a mirage. If the bad times are when the tide goes out and shows who's naked, then inflation is the hurricane storm surge that pushes the waters back in, to provide cover for those au naturel.

By the way, the perception of inflation, or inflation expectations, is not incidental, but rather is absolutely key to the kind of financial engineering that neo-Keynesian economists that infest the Fed and Treasury wish to embrace as the ripe fruits of a fiat monetary system. Don't think for one minute that what is happening with M3, CPI revisions, etc. are a mere coincidence. Its all about control of the many by the few, after all.

So what about the stock market? We decided to try and plot out Kasriel's indicator of recessions against the SP 500. Since the nominal SP is also a trend child of inflation, we wanted to get a measure of SP that tends to take out the inflationary trend, and show us the purer wiggles that stocks make in response to the anticipation of economic variations.

If in fact we are on the verge of a recession, the SP500 will likely be in the process of making a top. We might see another push higher by the broad stock indices in response to the unprecedented monetary stimulus being applied by the banks. But even with this latest phase in the financial engineering experienment currently in progress, within the next two months we should see a confirming signal from the equity markets that the economy is turning lower in real terms AND has started contracting, even if the current set of official economic measures say otherwise.

We underestimated the Fed and their banker buddies in the great reflation of 2003-2004, finally catching on to the game after some painful soul searching and genuine confusion. The July 2004 working paper from Small and Close of the Fed, which basically tried to set some boundaries in how far the Fed could go in monetizing things non-traditional was a good clue, well before the infamous speech about the Fed's printing press that gave Helicopter Ben his sobriquet.

So we will strive to not be fooled again, and keep an open mind that the fighting of the housing bubble and massive credit fraud by the banks could have a short term second order effect of inflating the stock markets, along with most other commodities, especially gold and oil. One thing we are certain is that the next twelve months may be among the most interesting we have seen, and can only wonder what we all might be saying about things at this time next year.

A Snapshot of the US Economy

If we were using the same measures of the economy that the government had in place prior to the Clinton - Bush administrations, the economic picture would be considerably clearer. Here is a quick checklist from John Williams of Shadow Government Statistics:

"We publish an analysis of the government statistics: where they are right, where they are wrong, and the implications if they are wrong, which is generally the case. In fact, what has happened over the years is that changes in methodologies have been implemented in reporting the key statistics, with the effect that economic statistics seem stronger than real growth, and inflation numbers tend to be weaker than reality, enough so that GDP (Growth Domestic Product) is overstated by three percent; the unemployment rate is really up around 12 percent as most people would look at it, and the inflation rate is now topping 11 percent."

Remember Okun's Misery Index?

Inflation Rate + Unemployment Rate = the Misery Index

If we use John Williams' numbers for Inflation Rate and Unemployment the current Misery Index is now at 23, which is worse than anything seen in the Carter stagflationary recession. What Jimmy obviously needed was a staff of more creative accountants and statisticians.

If an economy falls in a forest of deception, and no one sees it happening, do the victims make a sound when they hit the wall?

Recession: Straight Up, With a Twist

There is a significant debate going on in economic and financial circles about the odds for a recession in the United States in 2008. In fact we heard on Bloomberg Television a savant saying that it is unthinkable that the economy could decline to negative so quickly from its current positive growth.

Definition of a recession

The textbook definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth in real GDP. This definition has been problematic in this decade however, because of the tinkering that our government has done with the measures of inflation. As you know, real GDP is GDP deflated by the inflation rate. The official deflator used for GDP is called the GDP chain deflator.

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) recognized this and determined that there was a recession in the US in 2001 from March through November, even though the quarter to quarter real GDP annualized growth rates for the four quarters of 2001 were -0.5%, 1.2%, -1.4% and 1.6%. As you can see, we did not have two consecutive quarters of real GDP declines. How does the NBER explain this?

"Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. According to current data for 2001 [as of October 2003], the present recession falls into the general pattern, with three consecutive quarters of decline. Our procedure differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we consider the depth as well as the duration of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, 'a significant decline in economic activity.' Second, we use a broader array of indicators than just real GDP [including personal income, employment, industrial production and manufacturing/trade sales]. One reason for this is that the GDP data are subject to considerable revision. Third, we use monthly indicators to arrive at a monthly chronology."

The point of this diversion is to define what a recession is, although it cannot be so neatly compartmentalized to such a simple formula, especially in these times of government revision of economic data.

A quick look at the chart at John Williams' excellent site, Shadow Government Statistics will give you the idea of how the notion of Consumer Price Inflation has been distorted by the Clinton and Bush administrations. Inflation has a direct effect on real GDP, and therefore on the formal definition of recessions. Of course, it has a real impact on lots of other things including consumer and voter sentiment, and Social Security and other cost of living increases, which is a strong incentive for the government to down play inflation.


Advance Indicators of Recession

We tend to favor the US Treasury yield curve as a significantly reliable indicator of approaching recessions. Here is a description of the classic definition from Paul Kasriel of Northern Trust:

"...each of the past six recessions (shaded areas) was preceded by an inversion in the spread between the Treasury 10-year yield and the fed funds rate. But there were two other instances of inversion - 1966:Q2 through 1967:1 and 1998:Q3 through 1998:Q4 - immediately after which no recession occurred. It would appear, then, that an inverted yield curve is more of a necessary condition for a recession to occur, but not a sufficient condition. That is, if the spread goes from +25 basis points and to -25 basis points, a recession is not automatically triggered. Rather, whether an inversion results in a recession would seem to depend on the magnitude of the inversion and, to a lesser extent, the duration of it. Recession-signaling aside, the yield curve remains a reliable leading indicatorof economic activity. Although the spread going from +25 basis points to -25 basis points might not result in a recession, it does indicate that monetary policy has become more restrictive." That's the current theory, but has it? Has the growth of US money supply been restrictive?

Has Monetary Policy Been Restrictive?

The most alarming thing to us is that despite the inverted yield curve and the Fed funds tightening we just witnessed over the last few years, from historic lows to the 5+% level, monetary policy has not only NOT been restrictive, it has been what many would define as loose. When one looks at real interest rates we had been in a prolonged period of negative interest rates, and only recently had been back in the positive area. It appears that we might be slipping back down into the negative again as the Fed tries to forestall the impending recession and the collapse of the stock - housing bubbles.

It appears to us that even while the Fed feigned monetary conservatism with the right hand, with the left hand they were doing all that was in their power to encourage the reckless growth of credit and the lowering of regulatory oversight and market discipline. To use an analogy, they were preaching energy conservation while running every light on in the house, the backyard, the neighbors house, and slipping pennies into the fuse box to keep it all going. Well, here we are.

What we are seeing is true moral hazard, the unintended consequence of the financial engineering being practiced by the wizard's apprentices at the Fed helping to nuture market distortions, asset bubbles, and imbalances that have become too big to correct naturally without systemic risk. Even though one can mask one's actions with words, and use information selectively and slyly to dampen the alarms and misdirect the public awareness, the chickens will come home to roost, and in this case they are more like the nemesis of retribution for our many economic trespasses. Let us hope that it is not as bad this time as the last time the Fed tried short circuit market discipline and engineer the economy centrally. We believe that the next twenty years or so will provide a rich opportunity for study, and probably the rise another new theory, a new school of economics, that tries to account for exactly what happened and why.

We are old enough to remember that stagflation, now seemingly so familiar, was once considered an improbability, a black swan. In the 1970's stagflation was triggered by an exogenous supply shock in the disruption in the market pricing of crude oil, impacting a slowing economy in monetary inflation from the post-Nixon era and the abandonment of the vestiges of the gold standard. The tonic that time was the tough monetary love of Paul Volcker.

What will they call it when a slowing economy with monetary inflatin is hit with a currency shock, as the dollar is displaced as the reserve currency of the world? We're not sure what they will call what we are about to experience, except on the bigger scale of thing, it will be just another episode in the hubris of arrogant men who consider themselves to be above principle, above the rules.