Greg Mankiw, the author of the most popular economics textbook, briefly explains why unemployment numbers are often so confusing. Read here. He excerpts several paragraphs from his textbook, ending with:
The problem is that even though the Household survey tends to be very volatile, this decline seems to lack face-validity, particularly after the prior month's numbers. The consensus estimate was that the government would report that the unemployment rate was unchanged at 8.1% in September. GDP growth was 1.3% in the second quarter and seems to be no better this quarter. The government's Establishment survey shows there were 114,000 new jobs created in September — very close to the consensus of 113,000 — and not sufficient to lower the unemployment rate.
The obvious conclusion is that a new employment measure is needed. Gallup has proposed such a measure — Payroll to Population (P2P) — the number of Americans employed full-time for an employer as a percentage of the U.S. population. This is a much simpler measure that has none of the numerous adjustments made to the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate. The P2P deteriorated slightly to 45.1% in September from 45.3% in August, suggesting the real jobs situation was essentially unchanged last month. …
The Gallup piece goes on at some length to explain their case. Complicating matters with the current system is that the big announcement is made about monthly numbers, but a little later, those numbers are revised, sometimes significantly so, when more complete data is available. All the public ever remembers is the originally announced numbers.
Leave a Reply