June jobs report: 195K jobs added, jobless rate steady at 7.6%

posted at 8:36 am on July 5, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The June jobs report beat expectations, and for the second month in a row outpaced the usually-inflated ADP employment survey.  The US economy added 195,000 jobs over, and added 202,000 in the private sector.  The U-3 jobless rate remained steady at 7.6%:

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 195,000 in June, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 7.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment rose in leisure and hospitality, professional and business services, retail trade, health care, and financial activities.

Household Survey Data

The number of unemployed persons, at 11.8 million, and the unemployment rate, at 7.6 percent, were unchanged in June. Both measures have shown little change since February. (See table A-1.)

The overall results for June roughly coincided with the ADP results (+188K in the private sector), and came in above expectations.  Not all of the indicators are good in this result, however.  The number of people in the involuntary part-time category rose 322,000 this month, outstripping the overall gains in full-time employment.  Year-on-year, the number of discouraged workers has risen by 206,000 people as well (see update).

Even worse, the U-6 rate jumped significantly from last month, going from 13.8% to 14.3%:

That’s the highest rate for the U-6 since February, and it belies the growth that the topline measures suggest.  However, bith the civilian labor force participation rate and the employment population ratio improved by a tenth of a point in June (63.5% and 58.7% respectively), although both are still near generational lows.

The BLS also upwardly revised the previous two months by 70,000 total:

CNBC manages not to get too far ahead of itself in reporting the upside:

The numbers provided a mixed bag of news: While the actual employment level grew by 160,000, the unemployment ranks increased as well, by 17,000.

Those working part-time for economic reasons also jumped, growing [322,000] for the month.

That pushed a more encompassing count of unemployment that includes discouraged and underemployed from 13.8 percent to 14.3 percent.

Moreover, the quality of jobs was weak.

The bulk of the gains—75,000—came in the hospitality industry of bartending and waiters.

Professional and business services was the second-best growth area, adding 53,000 and retail grew 37,000.

Even if the jobs weren’t “weak,” it’s still a stagnation result. The American economy needs to add 150,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth.  At this pace, it would almost 5 months just to make up for the 206K who joined the discouraged-worker ranks over just the past year.  It would take more than seven months just to make up for the number of people who moved into the involuntary part-time ranks this month alone.

We’re still mired in the Great Stagnation, and will be until we start getting consistent job-creation reports at the 300K level.

Update: I misread the portion about the discouraged workers; there are 1 million overall, an increase of 206,000 from last year, not an increase of a million.  I’ve fixed the post in two places above.  Thanks to Dustin Siggins for the correction.

Update: A good question from Twitter:

The workforce level did increase by 180K in June. That’s not enough to drive the 0.5% increase in U-6, though, and that increase was much less than the 320K increase from April to May.  The U-6 level in that month actually dropped a tenth of a point from 13.9% to 13.8%.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Suicide rate quadrupled under Obama Presidency

Fallon on July 5, 2013 at 9:40
Awesome, less competition for jobs!

Sincerely,
Libfreeorkillmyself

hillsoftx on July 5, 2013 at 12:26 PM

The New Normal.

CW on July 5, 2013 at 12:32 PM

With 90 Million citizens out of work this is anything but steady. WTH?

Tangerinesong on July 5, 2013 at 12:38 PM

>I don’t recall George W. pumping billions in free printed dollars into the economy.(QEs I, II, & III)

First, he did – it was called the Iraq War. That was about a trillion dollar boost in spending – which in conjunction with the Bush tax cuts, led to our huge deficits.

And Quantitative Easing -which is the Fed buying bonds, is not “pumping billions in free printed dollars” – whatever-the-f*ck that means.

But hey – you can ask the UK or Greece how austerity is working.

You related to FireDogLake by any chance?

LOL. No.

inklake on July 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Republicans warned of, and tried to prevent, the crisis at Fannie/Freddie, while Democrats falsely accused the Republicans of racism (“Political lynching” of Franklin Raines, who is black), and falsely claimed that there were no “safety and soundness issues” at Fannie/Freddie.

ITguy on July 5, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Too late. Libdie ran off.

inklake on July 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Wordgames, libtard? Gee, that ain’t like you people.

Lanceman on July 5, 2013 at 12:58 PM

First, he did – it was called the Iraq War. That was about a trillion dollar boost in spending – which in conjunction with the Bush tax cuts, led to our huge deficits.
inklake on July 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Ummm, the TRILLION spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars took the entire 8 years to be spent. Obama spent $1 trillion on a stimulus over a summer. And QE infinity destroys billions in wealth yearly.

LoganSix on July 5, 2013 at 1:02 PM

P.S.
But if you want to run the Bush/Romney/Ryan path to prosperity plan, I hope the GOP candidates you’re advising, run commercials on that 24 *7. I will even pitch in.

inklake on July 5, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Remind me where the S&P 500 and DJIA are right now?

inklake on July 5, 2013 at 10:15 AM

You liberal scums should understand that the Markets have nothing to do with the real economy and everything to do with the Feds printing money in trillions of dollars, lending it to Wall Street at zero interest, and then Wall Street lend it to customers at higher interests, as well as the Feds buying toxic assets from Wall Street at a rate of $ 40 billion a month… This is it… And all at the terrible expense of the country and the taxpayers so Obama will create a fake appearance of good economy with the alliance Limousine Liberals who control Wall Street. Let the Feds stop printing the money and lending it at zero interest to Wall Street as well as buying the toxic assets of Wall Street and the whole fake structure of Wall Street will crumble down in few weeks… And all this at the expense of the tax payers…

mnjg on July 5, 2013 at 1:07 PM

This is now a part time job economy… All this is because of Obamacare… Businesses are cutting hours for their employees to 29 hours or less to avoid penalty of Obamacare and in order to make up for the lost production they are hiring more part time workers…

mnjg on July 5, 2013 at 1:09 PM

And Quantitative Easing -which is the Fed buying bonds, is not “pumping billions in free printed dollars” – whatever-the-f*ck that means.

inklake on July 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM

You know, most people, when aware that they don’t know whatever-the-f*ck they’re talking about, will shut-the-f*ck up out of sheer embarrassment.

Libtards like you, however, just love doubling-down and proving themselves to be utter f*ckwits.

That you don’t even know that the Fed is pumping billions of freshly printed, backed-by-nothing cash in order to buy those bonds, speaks additional volumes about the depth of your comical ignorance.

Congratulations, f*ckwit.

Midas on July 5, 2013 at 1:09 PM

inklake on July 5, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Wow, stupendous ignorance of reality on display. If the banks were so eager to write bad loans, why was it necessary for Zero to sue and for Bubba to send Reno out to threaten them?

Because up to that point the banks required people to be able to make their mortgage payments. Heck there is even a video of Bawney Fwank extolling the vwirtues of paying one’s mortgage with foodstamps.

No they were compelled to do it. The CRA probably didn’t start the housing bubble, but it sure fueled it.

I’ll never forget the CNN interview babe looking all shocked and stupefied during an interview of a woman who expected Zero to save her $800,000 palazzo which she purchased on her staggering part time bus driver’s income.

Remember, the bank could not refuse her loan.

dogsoldier on July 5, 2013 at 1:12 PM

inklake on July 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Total federal outlays since 2003 have been 31 trillion dollars, the Iraq war was 1 trillion or 3% of that.
The projected federal budget deficit for 2007 (back when Congress passed budgets) was 160 billion dollars 6 years after the Bush tax cuts.
The deficit for each of Obama’s years has exceeded 1 trillion dollars.
Repealing the Bush tax cuts for those earning over 250k would have netted 80 billion dollars per year at best or 6% of Obama’s federal deficit for 2012.
Math is hard

How do you define QE? It’s asset buying to increase liquidity. Dollars are created to fund that. It’s not working.

Years of debt funded spending did little to help Britain or Greece. Britain is not really undergoing austerity, Greece’s problem is a currency that doesn’t work.

breffnian on July 5, 2013 at 1:12 PM

But if you want to run the Bush/Romney/Ryan path to prosperity plan, I hope the GOP candidates you’re advising, run commercials on that 24 *7. I will even pitch in.

inklake on July 5, 2013 at 1:03 PM

See if you actually had a clue, you would know most of us consider those two, y’know, like, a couple semi liberals. Bush perhaps slightly less.

dogsoldier on July 5, 2013 at 1:14 PM

But hey – you can ask the UK or Greece how austerity is working.

inklake on July 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM

You mean like that weally awfully austere reqwirement to work until they are 50? Or what?

Apparently you just like to spout off without any real knowledge of events.

dogsoldier on July 5, 2013 at 1:18 PM

That you don’t even know that the Fed is pumping billions of freshly printed, backed-by-nothing cash in order to buy those bonds, speaks additional volumes about the depth of your comical ignorance.

Congratulations, f*ckwit.

Midas on July 5, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Thanks. I refrained from explaining that to firedoglake because I was having more fun on the Zimmerman headline thread.

It plays dumb cop/weird cop with words.

Lanceman on July 5, 2013 at 1:57 PM

inklake on July 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Well, looks like the intellectual depths of ink lake are about 1mm.

Seriously, dude. You are weapons grade stupid. Come back when you can do more than regurgitate what you read at ThinkProgress/FireDogLake.

HumpBot Salvation on July 5, 2013 at 2:11 PM

The chart doesn’t lie.

libfreeordie on July 5, 2013 at 9:06 AM

No these charts don’t lie. Behold the ineptitude of the zero…

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EMRATIO/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/11/02/the-real-story-of-job-creation/

Digging under the surface, much of the drop in the unemployment rate over the past two years is nothing but a statistical mirage coupled with a massive increase in part-time jobs starting in October 2012 as a result of Obamacare legislation.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/07/establishment-survey-jobs-195k.html

voiceofreason on July 5, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Only a dope/Democrat will look upon this report with optimism. Pay no attention to the Dow — those scammers are exposed every time Bernanke breathes a word about ending his inflationary shell game.

As for the clearest and most intelligent opinion I have seen on today’s job numbers, it’s Iowahawk:

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog
Unemployment report in a nutshell: the Taco Bell that had 30 40 hour workers now has 40 30 hour workers.

Jaibones on July 5, 2013 at 2:59 PM

inklake on July 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM

I’m constantly amazed at the lack of self-awareness you lefty’s have when it comes to the deficits. You talk about how bad Bush’s deficits were, hoping we ignore Obama’s TRIPLING of Bush’s highest deficit.

Take the log out of your own eye before trying to remove the speck in ours.

Jeff Weimer on July 5, 2013 at 3:01 PM

And Quantitative Easing -which is the Fed buying bonds, is not “pumping billions in free printed dollars” – whatever-the-f*ck that means.
 
inklake on July 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM

 

HOW DOES IT WORK?
 
To buy bonds, the Fed essentially creates money from nothing, paying for its purchases by crediting the accounts of banks from which it buys the bonds.
 
…banks may be keener to lend to companies and people. If companies use that money to buy equipment, and households use it to buy homes and cars, the economy gets a jump.
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/13/us-usa-fed-easing-idUSBRE88C1CT20120913

 
The feds aren’t actually printing it, racists.

rogerb on July 5, 2013 at 5:01 PM

The workforce level did increase by 180K in June. That’s not enough to drive the 0.5% increase in U-6, though, and that increase was much less than the 320K increase from April to May. The U-6 level in that month actually dropped a tenth of a point from 13.9% to 13.8%.

U-6 includes three categories not included in the U-3 number, and all are independent of the net workforce change:

- Those who say the dismal job market discouraged them for looking for work in the 4 weeks prior to the survey, but who had looked for work sometime in the 48 weeks prior to that, otherwise known as the “discouraged workers”. That unseasoned number is added in both the numerator and denominator of the U-4 number (versus U-3) on both the unseasoned side and the seasonally-adjusted side.

- Those who last looked for work between 5 and 52 weeks prior to the survey but who either didn’t cite a reason or cited a reason other than the dismal job markeet, otherwise known as “others marginally attached to the workforce”. That unseasoned number is added in both the numerator and denominator of the U-5 number (versus U-4) on both the unseasoned side and the seasonally-adjusted side.

- Those workers who say that they worked for less than 35 hours a week (the BLS definition of part-time) because of economic reasons, stated above as the “involuntary part-time”. That is added in the numerator of the U-6 number (versus U-5), with seasonal adjustments made on the seasonally-adjusted side.

Specifically, in this month, there were 1-month increases of:

- 247,000 discouraged workers, which drove the unseasoned U-4 up from 7.7% to 8.4% (compared to the unseasoned U-3′s 0.5-point climb from 7.3% to 7.8%) and the seasonally-adjusted U-4 up from 8.0% to 8.2% (compared to the seasoned U-3′s unchanged 7.6%).
- 171,000 otherwise marginally attached to the workforce, which drove the unseasoned U-5 up from 8.5% to 9.3% (0.3 points above the unseasoned U-3 climb) and the seasonally-adjusted U-5 up from from 8.8% to 9.1%.
- 805,000 unseasoned/314,000 seasonally-adjusted workers who were involuntarily part-time, which drove the unseasoned U-6 up from 13.4% to 14.6% (0.7 points above the unseasoned U-5 climb) and the seasonally-adjusted U-6 up from 13.8% to 14.3%.

A note or two on that final number – while it is a bit higher than the modern household survey average in percentage (+10.7% versus a 1994-2012 average of +9.0%), it is only in a three-way tie for 4th-highest percentage climb in that time. It’s also below the 1982-2012 +11.0% average and the 1955-2012 18.0% average, though I suspect that is a result of earlier versions of the survey being more expansive in their definition of “economic reasons”.

Steve Eggleston on July 5, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Correction to the above:

- 805,000 unseasoned/314,000 seasonally-adjusted workers who were involuntarily part-time, which drove the unseasoned U-6 up from 13.4% to 14.6% (0.7 0.4 points above the unseasoned U-5 climb, and 0.7 points above the unseasoned U-3 climb) and the seasonally-adjusted U-6 up from 13.8% to 14.3%

Steve Eggleston on July 5, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Have you seen Drudge? Even I am skeptical of the figure that only 47% of adults have full time jobs because that would mean that 53% of adults in the work force have part time (or temporary full time)jobs. If this astounding figure is true, however it would mean this:

“Official” Unemployment figures 7.6%
Estimated percentage of people who stopped looking for
jobs and are no longer counted 10.0%
People with part-time (or temp) jobs 53.0%

Effective unemployment rate
including part timers and temps 70.6%

I’ll have to check this out further because it’s lions running loose in the streets kind of stuff and all we need is a flood of 25 million illegal aliens added to this stew.

MaiDee on July 6, 2013 at 12:32 AM

MaiDee on July 6, 2013 at 12:32 AM

We’re not lieberals, so we don’t need to miscalculate to make things seem even worse than they are. Allow me to walk you through a better calculation:

The “47% of adults working full-time” (a seasonally-adjusted 115,998,000) is out of the entire civilian noninstutional population of 245,552,000. Somewhere around 50,000,000 of that number are retired or collecting Social Security Disability insurance. Another segment of the population (not directly reported) are stay-at-home parents. Neither group really should be counted as “unemployed”.

We stipulate that the official civilian labor force (a seasonally-adjusted 155,835,000) is not a true measure of who wants to work. A better base would be to include those who want to work but hadn’t looked in the 4 weeks prior to the survey. The largest definition of that (and also the only one seasonally-adjusted) is the “persons who currently want a job” subset of those not part of the labor force, and that was a seasonally-adjusted 6,580,000. That drives the potential labor force up to a seasonally-adjusted 162,415,000, and the broadest definition of unemployed (broader than even the U-5 measure, which only considers the subset of those who want to work who also looked for work between 5 and 52 weeks prior to the survey) to a seasonally-adjusted 18,357,000.

The household survey doesn’t differentiate between permanent and temporary jobs. While it does track who works multiple jobs (and break out those who work only multiple part-time jobs), for the purpose of being declared a full-time or a part-time worker, it only considers whether one works fewer than or at least 35 hours per week. That was a seasonally-adjusted 28,059,000. Of that “usually part-time” number, 8,226,000 claim that their part-time status is due to economic conditions, though I suspect that is low given the month-to-month patterns found in previous versions of the survey. I have no way to measure that, however.

Now that we have all the numbers, we can do some proper calculations:

- The percentage of “usually full-time” workers as a part of the potential workforce is 71.4%. While that is an improvement over the last 4 Junes and indeed over the Obama average of 70.5%, it is lower than every month between sometime before January 1994 (the first month of the current version of the household survey) and March 2009. It also is the third consecutive month it declined.

- The 11.3% of the potential workforce who want a job but don’t have one, though down 0.1 percentage point from last month, is still higher than any month between sometime before January 1994 and February 2009.

- The 5.1% of the potential workforce forced to work fewer than 35 hours due to economic conditions is not only higher than any month between sometime before January 1994 and February 2009, but a 0.2 point increase over April/May and the highest since October 2012. As a side note, the related “underutilization” component of the official U-6 measure (which uses the smaller sum of the labor force and those marginally-attached to it as the denominator) was 5.3% in June.

- The 17.3% of the potential workforce working part-time is higher than any month between February 1994 (January 1994 also was 17.3%) and July 2009, only 0.1 point below the May 2012 record, and the highest since July 2012.

Steve Eggleston on July 6, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Comment pages: 1 2