The Drop in the Unemployment Rate: A Bad Sign For the Economy?

Economists are wondering why more people aren't lining up for jobs. (Shannon Stapleton/Reuters)
Eric Lipps, 52, waits in line to enter the NYCHires Job Fair in New York December 9, 2009. While the jobless rate has edged down, high unemployment rate remains a political headache for President Barack Obama and fellow Democrats, who are worried they will lose seats in Congress in next November's elections if faster recovery is not faster. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton (UNITED STATES BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT POLITICS IMAGES OF THE DAY)

More jobs plus a lower unemployment rate equals — more to worry about. Really?

On Friday, the government reported that the job market grew faster in March than it has in that month for more than 5 years. The number of employed people in the U.S. increased by 216,000. That was better than the 194,000 jobs the economy added in February. And it was the third month in row that the economy created more jobs than the month before. The last time that happened, excluding government jobs added for the Census, was back in November 2005.

But the thing that surprised most economists and forecasters was this: The unemployment rate dropped, again, to 8.8%. Many forecasters had been predicting that the unemployment rate might rise this month. Instead it fell again for the fourth month in a row. In the past year and a half, the unemployment rate has dropped 13%, from a rate of 10.1% in October 2009. That’s one of the fastest drops in the unemployment rate of any recovery, and it is far faster than many expected. And, you guess it, that has some economists and forecasters worried. Here’s why:

You have to understand why economists have been expecting a jump in the unemployment rate, even as many continue to expect the economy to improve. That’s because the unemployment rate is a weird figure as this blog has written about in the past. It tracks not just the number of people without jobs but the number of people looking for jobs. If a growing number of people give up looking for work, even if the number of jobs doesn’t rise, the unemployment rate will drop. One of the things that observers have found curious about this recovery is that the number of people looking for a job even after the economy has improved has not spiked up. It rose this month, up 160,000, but over the past year it has basically been flat, even though the economy has improved.

So is this worrisome? Potentially, for two reasons. First of all, and this is a worry that people have had for some time, the amount of people out looking for work is a sign of how optimistic people are about the prospects of the economy, and their own prospects. Combine that with this week’s large drop in consumer confidence and that seems like a real worry. But there is a second newer fear raised by the fact that more people aren’t out looking for work: The Federal Reserve. If people don’t return to the workforce but companies continue to increase hiring that can cause inflation. The result may be that Ben Bernanke and the Fed would have to boost interest rates. And higher interest rates could slow the economy. Economy.com’s Mark Zandi on CNBC this morning said that the jobs report “calls into question when the Fed has to move on interest rates.”

James Paulsen, chief investment strategist of Wells Capital, though, says people are making a bigger deal out of the job market participation rate than they should be. The labor force has been growing slowly for some time. Women and baby boomers entered the workforce in droves in the 1970s. Since then the labor force has been growing much slower, a trend that has been slightly exaggerated during the recession, but a long-term trend nonetheless. “This isn’t a this recession phenomenon,” says Paulsen. “This is a 25-year trend.”

People are probably too worried about jobs growth causing inflation, as well. The March report showed that wages dropped slightly. So there is no real sign that employers have had to boost paychecks in order to lure workers. But even if the Fed was to raise interest rates, Paulsen doesn’t think that would be such a bad thing. He says two years into the recovery it probably no longer makes sense to have short-term interest rates stuck on zero. Paulsen says if the Fed were to raise interest rates, that would signal to others that the nation’s most important economists think the economy is finally improving. That would boost confidence and with it the recovery, perhaps more than higher interest rates would slow growth.

Lastly, Paulsen says we are probably too focused on the unemployment rate anyway. The thing we should be looking at is job growth, and that number was unambiguously better. What’s more, job growth is accelerating. Jobs in the private sector have grown by 1.6% in the past twelve months. But in the past three months, the rate has jumped to 2.1%. “That’s a huge move,” says Paulsen. “That’s the difference from having to worry about a double dip to widely accepting that this is a sustainable recovery.”

For me, I am not as worried that inflation is on the rise. So I don’t think the Fed will have to raise rates anytime soon. Rising job growth plus continued low interest rates equals great news. Goldilocks economy anyone? OK, not yet. But things are getting brighter for sure.

Related Topics: Economy & Policy, jobs, Economy & Policy
  • Latest on Business

    Brendan McDermid / Reuters

    Facebook’s Stock Falls Below $30 for First Time

    (NEW YORK) — Facebook’s stock has fallen below $30 for the first time since its much-awaited public debut this month.

    The Jury Is Out on the EuroSlate

    U.S. consumer prices rose faster than expected in May. (Mario Anzuoni / Reuters)

    Consumer Confidence in the Economy Plunged in May

    NEW YORK — American confidence in the economy suffered the biggest drop in eight months as worries about the weak jobs, housing and stock markets rattled them again. The decline comes after a few months of optimism amid some positive economic news.

  • http://stephenpoo.wordpress.com stephenpoo


    But there is a second newer fear raised by the fact that more people aren’t out looking for work: The Federal Reserve. If people don’t return to the workforce but companies continue to increase hiring that can cause inflation”

    I plan on staying out of the workforce just to spite them. Let them suffer awhile, I guess I will cause inflation by my act but they had it coming. Before I was worried a new job and fistfulls of money to buy new products was a inflation concern. Now iI know staying home was the cause

    But let me ask: is Inflation the new de-facto tax increase?

  • waynebernard

    While the American unemployment situation appears to be gradually improving, research shows that over the past decade, the unemployment and labour underutlilization situation among young Americans between the ages of 16 and 29 has grown steadily worse, a revelation that is not clearly reflected in the monthly U-3 data release. As shown here, labour underutilization among non-White Americans is particularly grim, reaching as high as 43 percent:

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/04/americas-youth-labour-issues-entrenched.html

    These high levels of both unemployment and underemployment will make it difficult for young adults to start families, purchase homes and contribute meaningfully to American society.

  • tanboontee

    The drop, if correct, is 1.3%, not 13%.

    Anyway, I find it more and more perplexing. Perhaps the whole thing is meant to be obfuscating, depending on who makes the piecemeal selected and filtered argument. (vzc1943)

  • Stephen Gandel

    Thanks for the comment. But no correction needed. The drop from a 10.1% unemployment rate to 8.8% is a 1.3 percentage point drop, not 1.3%. But in terms of percentage change it is a 13% drop. Some times change in percentage can be confusing, so I can understand your mistake tanboontee. Thanks again for reading.

  • tanboontee

    Well, did I make a mistake?

    The drop in the unemployment rate is 1.3 percentage point, I should have made that clearer.

    Let us take a small whole number, say 10000 people employed in 2009, and 10.1% unemployed rate would mean 1010 people unemployed.

    By March 2011, there are more people in employment, say 10500, and an 8.8% unemployed rate would mean 924 people unemployed.

    A drop of 86 people based on 1010 is NOT 13%, it would be 8.5%.

    Verily, the concept of percentage may appear simple, but in reality it is not, especially when it comes to the dubious unemployment rate. (btt1943, vzc1943)

  • http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/ pacificgatepost

    @ STEPHEN GANDEL,

    First: You use incorrect numbers as basis for your article. Quit accepting “official” numbers, and get a little more credible. So some homework.

    Second: Again, do some more homework, and discover that NET increases in employment have come from Government ranks, NOT corporate ranks. Guess what that means? . . . . No, really, Guess.

  • Stephen Gandel

    I am just looking at the change in the unemployment rate, which went from 10.1% to 8.8%. That move is a 13% drop. If you added people to the working population over that time period, then yes the number of unemployed people would have a smaller drop than the unemployment rate, but that is not what I was talking about.

    By the way, the fact that the drop is 13% is significant. I believe that’s the same drop in the unemployment rate that preceded Regan’s re-election to office.

  • Stephen Gandel

    If you look at the U-6, which I think is what you are talking about, I think you would see the same move in the unemployment rate, perhaps even a more dramatic move. So I think it makes the same point, I am making.

    On your second point, government jobs has been a drag recently on the jobs report, causing a loss of jobs, not a gain. So don’t know what you are talking about there. Thanks for reading.

blog comments powered by Disqus