Average Real Hourly Wage Growth in 2014 Was No Better Than 2013
The Bureau of Labor Statistics released the Consumer Price Index for December 2014 today, which lets us look at trends in real (inflation-adjusted) wages over the year. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, the U.S. economy has seen very little real wage growth. Real hourly wage growth fell 1.0 percent in 2011, and then 0.1 percent in 2012. Over the last two years, real wage growth has been positive, but slow: real wages rose 0.5 percent in 2013 and 0.4 percent in 2014. Even with the drop in inflation over the last couple of months, average wages increased in 2014 slightly less than in 2013. This means that, by definition, there has been no acceleration in wage growth. Decent wage growth would look like inflation plus productivity growth (around 1.5 to 2.0 percent). Given this, it is clear that the Federal Reserve should not take action to slow the economy down.
Our nominal wage tracker shows just how much wage growth has been falling short of reasonable targets. The labor market and the economy could withstand even higher wage growth because labor’s share of corporate sector income yet to rise in this recovery, and profits are still at record highs. Therefore, real wage growth can be accomplished without putting pressure on prices.
Turning to monthly wages, the figure below shows real average hourly earnings of all private employees (top line) and production/nonsupervisory workers (bottom line) since the recession began in December 2007. For both series, you can see that real wages fell during the recession, then jumped up in late 2008, in direct response to a drop in inflation. When inflation falls and nominal wages hold steady, the mathematical result is a rise in inflation-adjusted wages. After the deflation leading up to 2009 stopped boosting real wages, wage growth has been flat.
White House Breaks Silence on Disability Rule
The White House finally weighed in on the new House rule preventing a simple fix to extend the life of Social Security’s Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund. The fund is projected to run out next year, and if revenue isn’t reallocated from the larger Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) program, disability benefits, already meager, will be reduced by a fifth, as taxes allocated to the program aren’t enough to cover promised benefits. Though a routine reapportionment of payroll taxes would address the problem, the new rule prohibits such a move unless steps are taken to extend the solvency of the Social Security system as a whole.
Since a simple majority is required to overturn the rule or vote for benefit cuts, the rule appears largely symbolic. But depending on whom you talk to, it may or may not have real political repercussions. One thing seems clear: It’s an attempt to pit retirees against disabled beneficiaries, with Republicans positioning themselves as advocates of seniors and reformers of a disability system supposedly rife with fraud and abuse.
What happens when this comes to a head in an election year? Though Republicans may be hoping to force benefit cuts by creating an artificial crisis, it seems unlikely that they’ll let 11 million disabled beneficiaries and their dependents, who disproportionately live in red states, experience sharp benefit cuts, which would cause the average benefit to drop below the federal poverty line.
How to Increase Revenue Without Increasing Taxes
Rep. Lloyd Doggett and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse introduced the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act earlier this week (Rep. Doggett and former-Sen. Carl Levin introduced a similar bill in the 113th Congress). The bill would strengthen reporting standards for multinational corporations, strengthen various enforcement provisions, and end certain loopholes that allow corporations to avoid paying U.S. taxes as well as “check-the-box rules.” An explanation of these rules can be found here. It would also deal with what’s known as the “Ugland House” problem.
Though most people are aware of the nice beaches in the Cayman Islands, they are probably unaware of the Ugland House. The Cayman Islands is a tax haven for many profitable U.S. multinational corporations, who claim to earn substantial profits there but pay no taxes to Cayman authorities. In 2008, foreign subsidiaries of U.S. multinational corporations reported they earned $43 billion in the Cayman Islands, which is rather interesting, because this amount is 20 times the Cayman Islands’ GDP. It is simply not possible that this amount could reflect legitimate business activities in the Caymans. This is where the Ugland House comes in.
The Ugland House (on South Church Street in George Town on Grand Cayman) is home to the law firm of Maples and Calder. It is also the legal “home” to over 18,000 corporations, many of which are foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations. The Ugland House serves as nothing more than a mailing address for these corporations—their only contact with the Cayman Islands. Their actual business operations are located in other countries, like the United States. A lot of money, however, is credited to this address. (It is worth noting there is a building in another well-known tax haven that serves the same purpose: 1209 North Orange Street in Wilmington, Delaware.)
So far, Congress has been uninterested in doing anything about this tax avoidance problem. The Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act would address this problem by categorizing corporations worth more than $50 million which are managed and controlled in the United States as U.S. taxpayers, no matter where they are incorporated. It is estimated that this act would raise almost $300 billion in revenue over 10 years. While some members appear to think that making U.S. taxpayers pay what they owe amounts to a tax hike, Rep. Doggett and Sen. Whitehouse are to be congratulated on their efforts to curb the flagrant abuse of tax loopholes by profitable companies that can afford to pay their fair share.
Still No Sign of a Skills Mismatch—Unemployment is Elevated Across the Board
One of the recurring myths following the Great Recession has been that recovery in the labor market has lagged because workers don’t have the right skills. The figure below, which shows the number of unemployed workers and the number of job openings in November by industry, is a useful way to examine this idea. If today’s labor market woes were the result of skills shortages or mismatches, we would expect to see some sectors where there are more unemployed workers than job openings and others where there are more job openings than unemployed workers. What we find, however, is that there are more unemployed workers than jobs openings across the board.
Some sectors have been closing the gap faster than others. Health care and social assistance, which has been consistently adding jobs throughout the business cycle, has a ratio quickly approaching 1. Wholesale trade is also moving towards a ratio of 1. And on the other end of the spectrum, there are 6.2 unemployed construction workers for every job opening. Arts, entertainment, and recreation has the second highest ratio, at 3.2-to-1.
Taken as a whole, these numbers demonstrate that the main problem in the labor market is a broad-based lack of demand for workers—not available workers lacking the skills needed for the sectors with job openings.
Unemployed and job openings, by industry (in millions)
| Industry | Unemployed | Job openings |
|---|---|---|
| Professional and business services | 1.1029 | 0.8648 |
| Health care and social assistance | 0.7116 | 0.7004 |
| Retail trade | 1.1112 | 0.4763 |
| Accommodation and food services | 0.9649 | 0.5807 |
| Government | 0.6825 | 0.4352 |
| Finance and insurance | 0.2636 | 0.2311 |
| Durable goods manufacturing | 0.4713 | 0.1775 |
| Other services | 0.3750 | 0.1480 |
| Wholesale trade | 0.1597 | 0.1526 |
| Transportation, warehousing, and utilities | 0.3663 | 0.1645 |
| Information | 0.1507 | 0.0989 |
| Construction | 0.7853 | 0.1272 |
| Nondurable goods manufacturing | 0.3048 | 0.1088 |
| Educational services | 0.2258 | 0.0784 |
| Real estate and rental and leasing | 0.1148 | 0.0566 |
| Arts, entertainment, and recreation | 0.2175 | 0.0685 |
| Mining and logging | 0.0518 | 0.0293 |

Note: Because the data are not seasonally adjusted, these are 12-month averages, December 2013–November 2014.
Source: EPI analysis of data from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey and the Current Population Survey
Little Change in Hires, Quits, or Layoffs in November 2014
The hires, quits, and layoffs rate held fairly steady in the November Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), released today. Total separations—the combination of quits, layoffs, discharges, and other separations—fell slightly in November.
The figure below shows the hires rate, the quits rate, and the layoffs rate. Layoffs shot up during the recession but recovered quickly and have been at prerecession levels for more than three years. This makes sense, as the economy is in a recovery and businesses are no longer shedding workers at an elevated rate. The fact that this trend continued in November is a good sign. However, not only do layoffs need to come down before we see a full recovery in the labor market, but hiring needs to pick up. While the hires rate has been generally improving, it’s still below its prerecession level.
The voluntary quits rate had been flat since February (1.8 percent), and saw a modest spike up in September to 2.0 percent, before falling to 1.9 percent in October and holding steady in November. A larger number of people voluntarily quitting their jobs indicates a strong labor market, where hiring is prevalent and workers are able to leave jobs that are not right for them and find new ones. There are still 9.1 percent fewer voluntary quits each month than there were in 2007, before the recession began. We should be hoping for a return to pre-recession levels of in voluntary quits, which would mean that fewer workers are locked into jobs they would leave if they could.
Total hires, layoffs, and quits, December 2000–November 2014
| Month | Hires | Layoffs | Quits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec-2000 | 5.395 | 1.879 | 3.044 |
| Jan-2001 | 5.801 | 2.109 | 3.39 |
| Feb-2001 | 5.434 | 1.8 | 3.284 |
| Mar-2001 | 5.619 | 2.134 | 3.178 |
| Apr-2001 | 5.335 | 1.929 | 3.191 |
| May-2001 | 5.358 | 2.007 | 3.116 |
| Jun-2001 | 5.083 | 1.924 | 2.993 |
| Jul-2001 | 5.173 | 1.941 | 2.945 |
| Aug-2001 | 5.076 | 1.878 | 2.823 |
| Sep-2001 | 4.961 | 2.056 | 2.729 |
| Oct-2001 | 5.016 | 2.222 | 2.843 |
| Nov-2001 | 4.887 | 2.12 | 2.621 |
| Dec-2001 | 4.788 | 1.881 | 2.627 |
| Jan-2002 | 4.9 | 1.84 | 2.894 |
| Feb-2002 | 4.883 | 1.97 | 2.675 |
| Mar-2002 | 4.626 | 1.765 | 2.526 |
| Apr-2002 | 4.93 | 1.9 | 2.71 |
| May-2002 | 4.923 | 1.931 | 2.722 |
| Jun-2002 | 4.821 | 1.85 | 2.602 |
| Jul-2002 | 5.014 | 1.99 | 2.688 |
| Aug-2002 | 4.881 | 1.856 | 2.607 |
| Sep-2002 | 4.87 | 1.888 | 2.608 |
| Oct-2002 | 4.803 | 1.847 | 2.563 |
| Nov-2002 | 4.941 | 1.912 | 2.497 |
| Dec-2002 | 4.93 | 1.986 | 2.647 |
| Jan-2003 | 5.008 | 1.98 | 2.489 |
| Feb-2003 | 4.681 | 1.95 | 2.498 |
| Mar-2003 | 4.444 | 1.868 | 2.428 |
| Apr-2003 | 4.689 | 2.023 | 2.387 |
| May-2003 | 4.618 | 1.977 | 2.394 |
| Jun-2003 | 4.772 | 2.136 | 2.365 |
| Jul-2003 | 4.721 | 2.053 | 2.341 |
| Aug-2003 | 4.666 | 1.979 | 2.38 |
| Sep-2003 | 4.87 | 1.893 | 2.468 |
| Oct-2003 | 4.898 | 1.889 | 2.508 |
| Nov-2003 | 4.726 | 1.812 | 2.495 |
| Dec-2003 | 4.967 | 1.951 | 2.503 |
| Jan-2004 | 4.839 | 1.913 | 2.423 |
| Feb-2004 | 4.69 | 1.838 | 2.467 |
| Mar-2004 | 5.17 | 1.889 | 2.662 |
| Apr-2004 | 5.115 | 1.911 | 2.623 |
| May-2004 | 4.951 | 1.858 | 2.482 |
| Jun-2004 | 4.949 | 1.88 | 2.666 |
| Jul-2004 | 4.858 | 1.819 | 2.67 |
| Aug-2004 | 5.129 | 1.954 | 2.639 |
| Sep-2004 | 4.984 | 1.829 | 2.593 |
| Oct-2004 | 5.122 | 1.794 | 2.585 |
| Nov-2004 | 5.204 | 1.954 | 2.818 |
| Dec-2004 | 5.239 | 1.973 | 2.772 |
| Jan-2005 | 5.187 | 1.913 | 2.83 |
| Feb-2005 | 5.203 | 1.909 | 2.675 |
| Mar-2005 | 5.207 | 1.958 | 2.854 |
| Apr-2005 | 5.291 | 1.884 | 2.765 |
| May-2005 | 5.271 | 1.911 | 2.842 |
| Jun-2005 | 5.286 | 1.967 | 2.796 |
| Jul-2005 | 5.301 | 1.862 | 2.747 |
| Aug-2005 | 5.431 | 1.878 | 2.938 |
| Sep-2005 | 5.429 | 1.902 | 3.053 |
| Oct-2005 | 5.065 | 1.717 | 2.943 |
| Nov-2005 | 5.227 | 1.639 | 2.928 |
| Dec-2005 | 5.057 | 1.735 | 2.823 |
| Jan-2006 | 5.218 | 1.719 | 2.853 |
| Feb-2006 | 5.347 | 1.721 | 3.013 |
| Mar-2006 | 5.294 | 1.63 | 3.037 |
| Apr-2006 | 5.125 | 1.743 | 2.808 |
| May-2006 | 5.47 | 1.933 | 3.049 |
| Jun-2006 | 5.256 | 1.674 | 3.034 |
| Jul-2006 | 5.357 | 1.767 | 2.943 |
| Aug-2006 | 5.208 | 1.627 | 2.95 |
| Sep-2006 | 5.213 | 1.741 | 2.914 |
| Oct-2006 | 5.17 | 1.77 | 2.936 |
| Nov-2006 | 5.469 | 1.826 | 3.096 |
| Dec-2006 | 5.19 | 1.724 | 3.083 |
| Jan-2007 | 5.195 | 1.681 | 2.975 |
| Feb-2007 | 5.178 | 1.762 | 2.995 |
| Mar-2007 | 5.287 | 1.787 | 2.985 |
| Apr-2007 | 5.153 | 1.856 | 2.89 |
| May-2007 | 5.217 | 1.725 | 2.978 |
| Jun-2007 | 5.18 | 1.83 | 2.829 |
| Jul-2007 | 5.106 | 1.797 | 2.898 |
| Aug-2007 | 5.131 | 1.841 | 2.89 |
| Sep-2007 | 5.136 | 2.071 | 2.638 |
| Oct-2007 | 5.203 | 1.911 | 2.853 |
| Nov-2007 | 5.177 | 1.924 | 2.823 |
| Dec-2007 | 5.035 | 1.794 | 2.823 |
| Jan-2008 | 4.868 | 1.823 | 2.818 |
| Feb-2008 | 4.863 | 1.875 | 2.809 |
| Mar-2008 | 4.759 | 1.842 | 2.619 |
| Apr-2008 | 4.857 | 1.854 | 2.839 |
| May-2008 | 4.604 | 1.813 | 2.639 |
| Jun-2008 | 4.782 | 2.021 | 2.62 |
| Jul-2008 | 4.467 | 1.906 | 2.495 |
| Aug-2008 | 4.58 | 2.137 | 2.375 |
| Sep-2008 | 4.297 | 1.96 | 2.417 |
| Oct-2008 | 4.454 | 2.126 | 2.443 |
| Nov-2008 | 3.899 | 2.187 | 2.083 |
| Dec-2008 | 4.271 | 2.407 | 2.129 |
| Jan-2009 | 4.111 | 2.502 | 2.04 |
| Feb-2009 | 4.004 | 2.468 | 1.959 |
| Mar-2009 | 3.697 | 2.442 | 1.804 |
| Apr-2009 | 3.87 | 2.592 | 1.731 |
| May-2009 | 3.736 | 2.118 | 1.711 |
| Jun-2009 | 3.649 | 2.123 | 1.737 |
| Jul-2009 | 3.807 | 2.237 | 1.71 |
| Aug-2009 | 3.734 | 2.063 | 1.642 |
| Sep-2009 | 3.846 | 2.095 | 1.644 |
| Oct-2009 | 3.746 | 1.972 | 1.67 |
| Nov-2009 | 3.966 | 1.863 | 1.786 |
| Dec-2009 | 3.819 | 1.981 | 1.69 |
| Jan-2010 | 3.895 | 1.871 | 1.683 |
| Feb-2010 | 3.805 | 1.79 | 1.735 |
| Mar-2010 | 4.163 | 1.861 | 1.818 |
| Apr-2010 | 4.085 | 1.677 | 1.906 |
| May-2010 | 4.38 | 1.754 | 1.779 |
| Jun-2010 | 4.078 | 1.996 | 1.91 |
| Jul-2010 | 4.12 | 2.067 | 1.846 |
| Aug-2010 | 3.916 | 1.761 | 1.864 |
| Sep-2010 | 3.991 | 1.785 | 1.888 |
| Oct-2010 | 4.063 | 1.661 | 1.877 |
| Nov-2010 | 4.13 | 1.772 | 1.821 |
| Dec-2010 | 4.17 | 1.778 | 1.943 |
| Jan-2011 | 3.901 | 1.685 | 1.814 |
| Feb-2011 | 4.048 | 1.65 | 1.872 |
| Mar-2011 | 4.246 | 1.716 | 1.988 |
| Apr-2011 | 4.216 | 1.673 | 1.933 |
| May-2011 | 4.131 | 1.694 | 1.99 |
| Jun-2011 | 4.296 | 1.849 | 1.946 |
| Jul-2011 | 4.157 | 1.749 | 1.971 |
| Aug-2011 | 4.192 | 1.719 | 2.043 |
| Sep-2011 | 4.321 | 1.766 | 2.029 |
| Oct-2011 | 4.237 | 1.747 | 1.965 |
| Nov-2011 | 4.263 | 1.77 | 1.97 |
| Dec-2011 | 4.256 | 1.717 | 1.973 |
| Jan-2012 | 4.282 | 1.654 | 1.978 |
| Feb-2012 | 4.446 | 1.772 | 2.09 |
| Mar-2012 | 4.473 | 1.666 | 2.191 |
| Apr-2012 | 4.316 | 1.828 | 2.097 |
| May-2012 | 4.43 | 1.859 | 2.162 |
| Jun-2012 | 4.35 | 1.778 | 2.141 |
| Jul-2012 | 4.257 | 1.628 | 2.092 |
| Aug-2012 | 4.44 | 1.896 | 2.119 |
| Sep-2012 | 4.232 | 1.771 | 1.941 |
| Oct-2012 | 4.357 | 1.76 | 2.043 |
| Nov-2012 | 4.465 | 1.771 | 2.095 |
| Dec-2012 | 4.343 | 1.596 | 2.138 |
| Jan-2013 | 4.389 | 1.578 | 2.301 |
| Feb-2013 | 4.551 | 1.618 | 2.268 |
| Mar-2013 | 4.301 | 1.755 | 2.103 |
| Apr-2013 | 4.457 | 1.7 | 2.238 |
| May-2013 | 4.541 | 1.783 | 2.198 |
| Jun-2013 | 4.418 | 1.662 | 2.199 |
| Jul-2013 | 4.525 | 1.666 | 2.305 |
| Aug-2013 | 4.592 | 1.701 | 2.346 |
| Sep-2013 | 4.701 | 1.783 | 2.381 |
| Oct-2013 | 4.512 | 1.547 | 2.426 |
| Nov-2013 | 4.574 | 1.511 | 2.448 |
| Dec-2013 | 4.578 | 1.702 | 2.417 |
| Jan-2014 | 4.516 | 1.703 | 2.368 |
| Feb-2014 | 4.699 | 1.596 | 2.475 |
| Mar-2014 | 4.706 | 1.638 | 2.461 |
| Apr-2014 | 4.77 | 1.701 | 2.467 |
| May-2014 | 4.738 | 1.656 | 2.487 |
| Jun-2014 | 4.791 | 1.657 | 2.484 |
| Jul-2014 | 4.934 | 1.726 | 2.547 |
| Aug-2014 | 4.742 | 1.619 | 2.51 |
| Sep-2014 | 5.075 | 1.653 | 2.753 |
| Oct-2014 | 5.101 | 1.757 | 2.712 |
| Nov-2014 | 4.990 | 1.612 | 2.618 |

Note: Shaded areas denote recessions.
Source: EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey
Job-Seekers-to-Job-Openings Ratio Continues its Downward Trend in November
The number of job openings hit 5.0 million in November, according to this morning’s Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary (JOLTS)—a slight increase from 4.8 million in October. Meanwhile, according to the Census’s Current Population Survey, there were 9.0 million job seekers, which means there were 1.8 times as many job seekers as job openings in November—the lowest since January 2008. A rate of 1-to-1 would mean that there were roughly as many job openings as job seekers. In a stronger economy, the ratio would be smaller, but we are definitely moving in the right direction.
This slight decline in the jobs-seekers-to-job-openings ratio is a continuation of its steady decrease, since its high of 6.8-to-1 in July 2009, as you can see in the figure below. The ratio has fallen by 0.8 over the last year.
At the same time, the 9.0 million unemployed workers understates how many job openings will be needed when a robust jobs recovery finally begins, due to the 5.8 million potential workers (in November) who are currently not in the labor market, but who would be if job opportunities were strong. Many of these “missing workers” will go back to looking for a job when the labor market picks up, so job openings will be needed for them, too.
Furthermore, a job opening when the labor market is weak often does not mean the same thing as a job opening when the labor market is strong. There is a wide range of “recruitment intensity” with which a company can deal with a job opening. If a firm is trying hard to fill an opening, it may increase the compensation package and/or scale back the required qualifications. On the other hand, if it is not trying very hard, it might hike up the required qualifications and/or offer a meager compensation package. Perhaps unsurprisingly, research shows that recruitment intensity is cyclical—it tends to be stronger when the labor market is strong, and weaker when the labor market is weak. This means that when a job opening goes unfilled when the labor market is weak, as it is today, companies may very well be holding out for an overly-qualified candidate at a cheap price.
The job-seekers ratio, December 2000–November 2014
| Month | Unemployed job seekers per job opening |
|---|---|
| Dec-2000 | 1.1 |
| Jan-2001 | 1.1 |
| Feb-2001 | 1.3 |
| Mar-2001 | 1.3 |
| Apr-2001 | 1.3 |
| May-2001 | 1.4 |
| Jun-2001 | 1.5 |
| Jul-2001 | 1.5 |
| Aug-2001 | 1.7 |
| Sep-2001 | 1.8 |
| Oct-2001 | 2.1 |
| Nov-2001 | 2.3 |
| Dec-2001 | 2.3 |
| Jan-2002 | 2.3 |
| Feb-2002 | 2.4 |
| Mar-2002 | 2.3 |
| Apr-2002 | 2.6 |
| May-2002 | 2.4 |
| Jun-2002 | 2.5 |
| Jul-2002 | 2.5 |
| Aug-2002 | 2.4 |
| Sep-2002 | 2.5 |
| Oct-2002 | 2.4 |
| Nov-2002 | 2.4 |
| Dec-2002 | 2.8 |
| Jan-2003 | 2.3 |
| Feb-2003 | 2.5 |
| Mar-2003 | 2.8 |
| Apr-2003 | 2.8 |
| May-2003 | 2.8 |
| Jun-2003 | 2.8 |
| Jul-2003 | 2.8 |
| Aug-2003 | 2.7 |
| Sep-2003 | 2.9 |
| Oct-2003 | 2.7 |
| Nov-2003 | 2.6 |
| Dec-2003 | 2.5 |
| Jan-2004 | 2.5 |
| Feb-2004 | 2.4 |
| Mar-2004 | 2.5 |
| Apr-2004 | 2.4 |
| May-2004 | 2.2 |
| Jun-2004 | 2.4 |
| Jul-2004 | 2.1 |
| Aug-2004 | 2.2 |
| Sep-2004 | 2.1 |
| Oct-2004 | 2.1 |
| Nov-2004 | 2.3 |
| Dec-2004 | 2.1 |
| Jan-2005 | 2.2 |
| Feb-2005 | 2.1 |
| Mar-2005 | 2.0 |
| Apr-2005 | 1.9 |
| May-2005 | 2.0 |
| Jun-2005 | 1.9 |
| Jul-2005 | 1.8 |
| Aug-2005 | 1.8 |
| Sep-2005 | 1.8 |
| Oct-2005 | 1.8 |
| Nov-2005 | 1.7 |
| Dec-2005 | 1.7 |
| Jan-2006 | 1.7 |
| Feb-2006 | 1.7 |
| Mar-2006 | 1.6 |
| Apr-2006 | 1.6 |
| May-2006 | 1.6 |
| Jun-2006 | 1.6 |
| Jul-2006 | 1.8 |
| Aug-2006 | 1.6 |
| Sep-2006 | 1.5 |
| Oct-2006 | 1.5 |
| Nov-2006 | 1.5 |
| Dec-2006 | 1.5 |
| Jan-2007 | 1.6 |
| Feb-2007 | 1.5 |
| Mar-2007 | 1.4 |
| Apr-2007 | 1.5 |
| May-2007 | 1.5 |
| Jun-2007 | 1.5 |
| Jul-2007 | 1.6 |
| Aug-2007 | 1.6 |
| Sep-2007 | 1.6 |
| Oct-2007 | 1.7 |
| Nov-2007 | 1.7 |
| Dec-2007 | 1.8 |
| Jan-2008 | 1.8 |
| Feb-2008 | 1.9 |
| Mar-2008 | 1.9 |
| Apr-2008 | 2.0 |
| May-2008 | 2.1 |
| Jun-2008 | 2.3 |
| Jul-2008 | 2.4 |
| Aug-2008 | 2.6 |
| Sep-2008 | 3.0 |
| Oct-2008 | 3.1 |
| Nov-2008 | 3.4 |
| Dec-2008 | 3.7 |
| Jan-2009 | 4.4 |
| Feb-2009 | 4.6 |
| Mar-2009 | 5.4 |
| Apr-2009 | 6.1 |
| May-2009 | 6.0 |
| Jun-2009 | 6.2 |
| Jul-2009 | 6.8 |
| Aug-2009 | 6.5 |
| Sep-2009 | 6.2 |
| Oct-2009 | 6.5 |
| Nov-2009 | 6.3 |
| Dec-2009 | 6.1 |
| Jan-2010 | 5.5 |
| Feb-2010 | 6.0 |
| Mar-2010 | 5.8 |
| Apr-2010 | 5.0 |
| May-2010 | 5.1 |
| Jun-2010 | 5.3 |
| Jul-2010 | 5.0 |
| Aug-2010 | 5.0 |
| Sep-2010 | 5.2 |
| Oct-2010 | 4.8 |
| Nov-2010 | 4.9 |
| Dec-2010 | 5.0 |
| Jan-2011 | 4.8 |
| Feb-2011 | 4.6 |
| Mar-2011 | 4.4 |
| Apr-2011 | 4.5 |
| May-2011 | 4.5 |
| Jun-2011 | 4.3 |
| Jul-2011 | 4.0 |
| Aug-2011 | 4.3 |
| Sep-2011 | 3.9 |
| Oct-2011 | 4.0 |
| Nov-2011 | 4.2 |
| Dec-2011 | 3.7 |
| Jan-2012 | 3.5 |
| Feb-2012 | 3.7 |
| Mar-2012 | 3.3 |
| Apr-2012 | 3.5 |
| May-2012 | 3.4 |
| Jun-2012 | 3.3 |
| Jul-2012 | 3.5 |
| Aug-2012 | 3.4 |
| Sep-2012 | 3.4 |
| Oct-2012 | 3.2 |
| Nov-2012 | 3.2 |
| Dec-2012 | 3.4 |
| Jan-2013 | 3.3 |
| Feb-2013 | 3.0 |
| Mar-2013 | 3.0 |
| Apr-2013 | 3.1 |
| May-2013 | 3.0 |
| Jun-2013 | 3.0 |
| Jul-2013 | 3.0 |
| Aug-2013 | 2.9 |
| Sep-2013 | 2.8 |
| Oct-2013 | 2.8 |
| Nov-2013 | 2.6 |
| Dec-2013 | 2.6 |
| Jan-2014 | 2.6 |
| Feb-2014 | 2.5 |
| Mar-2014 | 2.5 |
| Apr-2014 | 2.2 |
| May-2014 | 2.1 |
| Jun-2014 | 2.0 |
| Jul-2014 | 2.1 |
| Aug-2014 | 2.0 |
| Sep-2014 | 2.0 |
| Oct-2014 | 1.9 |
| Nov-2014 | 1.8 |

Note: Shaded areas denote recessions.
Source: EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey and Current Population Survey
Single-Digit Black Unemployment May Not be So Far Away
Double-digit black unemployment rates have been the norm for the past six years. However, following another solid month of job growth in December 2014, the black unemployment rate fell to 10.4 percent—just half a percentage point away from single digits. In a previous post, I highlighted the strong labor market gains made by people of color in 2014, based on every major economic indicator, including the unemployment rate, employment-to-population ratio (EPOP) and labor force participation. From December 2013–December 2014, African Americans had the largest increase in both labor force participation rate and EPOP of any demographic group. Combined with the fact that unemployment rates for whites (4.8 percent) and Hispanics (6.5 percent) have moved steadily closer to pre-recession levels, it’s not unreasonable to assume that, if 2014 labor market trends continue into 2015, black employment could really get a boost.
By projecting the 2014 average monthly change in the size of the black labor force and the number of unemployed black workers through 2015, I calculated a projected monthly black unemployment rate. I also used monthly averages over the past two years, both by level and percent change. Based on these estimates shown in the figure below, the black unemployment rate could finally fall below 10 percent by mid-2015.
2015 projected black unemployment rates based on 2013 and 2014 trends in labor force and unemployed
| Date | 2014 avg level change/mo | 2013-2014 avg level change/mo | 2014 avg percent change/mo | 2013-2014 avg percent change/mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec-2014 | 10.4% | 10.4% | 10.4% | 10.4% |
| Jan-2015 | 10.3% | 10.3% | 10.3% | 10.3% |
| Feb-2015 | 10.2% | 10.1% | 10.2% | 10.2% |
| Mar-2015 | 10.1% | 10.0% | 10.1% | 10.1% |
| Apr-2015 | 10.0% | 9.9% | 10.0% | 10.0% |
| May-2015 | 9.9% | 9.7% | 9.9% | 9.9% |
| Jun-2015 | 9.7% | 9.6% | 9.8% | 9.8% |
| Jul-2015 | 9.6% | 9.4% | 9.7% | 9.7% |
| Aug-2015 | 9.5% | 9.3% | 9.6% | 9.5% |
| Sep-2015 | 9.4% | 9.1% | 9.4% | 9.4% |
| Oct-2015 | 9.3% | 9.0% | 9.3% | 9.3% |
| Nov-2015 | 9.2% | 8.9% | 9.2% | 9.2% |
| Dec-2015 | 9.1% | 8.7% | 9.1% | 9.1% |

Source: EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics' Current Population Survey public data series
Will the Supreme Court Annihilate One of the Most Effective Tools for Battling Racial Segregation in Housing?
The U.S. Supreme Court could be on the verge of issuing a major setback to racial integration efforts. In two weeks, it will hear oral arguments regarding whether the federal government and states should be permitted to pursue policies that perpetuate or exacerbate racial segregation in housing—even where no intent to segregate is proven.
The segregation of low-income minority families into economic and racial ghettos is one cause of the ongoing achievement gap in American education. Students from families with less literacy come to school less prepared to take advantage of good instruction. If they live in more distressed neighborhoods with more crime and violence, they come to school under stress that interferes with learning. When such students are concentrated in classrooms, even the best of teachers must spend more time on remediation and less on grade-level instruction.
The Economic Policy Institute, together with the Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society at the University of California, have organized a large group of housing scholars—historians and other social scientists—to sign a friend-of-the-court brief urging that housing policies perpetuating segregation should be banned.
Little Sign of a Tightening Labor Market
A drop in the unemployment rate from 5.8 percent in November to 5.6 percent in December could mean one of two things. It could mean that more people are getting jobs. Or, it could mean that people have given up looking and left the labor force. These days, the truth lies somewhere in between. Looking at December’s jobs report, however, it’s pretty clear that the primary reason the unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent is a declining labor force.
Over 70 percent of the decline in the number of unemployed people between November and December was due to a drop in the labor force. The labor force participation rate fell from 62.9 percent to 62.7 percent between November and December. And, the employment-to-population ratio (the share of the population working) held constant at 59.2 percent.
Even with the decline in labor force participation, the unemployment rate in December 2014 remains elevated compared to 2007, which had an average rate of 4.6 percent. The table below compares the unemployment rates between today and 2007 across various demographic groups.
You can see that no one demographic group has been spared by the weak economy. Compared to 2007, unemployment is elevated for groups that typically face higher-than-average joblessness, such as people of color, younger workers, and those with only a high school degree. But unemployment is disproportionately higher (i.e. the ratio between the years is larger) for those with a college degree or working in “Management, professional, and related occupations.”
At an Average of 246,000 Jobs a Month in 2014, It Will Be the Summer of 2017 Before We Return to Pre-recession Labor Market Health
Dramatically falling employment in the Great Recession and its aftermath has left us with a jobs shortfall of 5.6 million—that’s the number of jobs needed to keep up with growth in the potential labor force since 2007. Each year, the population keeps growing, and along with it, the number of people who could be working. To get back to the same labor market we had before the recession, we need to not only make up the jobs we lost, but gain enough jobs to account for this growth.
The chart below projects out the potential labor force into the future. In December, the economy added 252,000 jobs; average monthly job growth in 2014 was 246,000 jobs. This is a clear improvement over the last several years, but the reality is that if we add 246,000 jobs a month going forward, it will take until August 2017 to hit the employment level needed to return the economy to the labor market health that prevailed in 2007.
Yes, job growth increased in 2014—in fact, job growth has gotten stronger each consecutive year in the recovery—and I’m optimistic that we will continue to see job growth that strong or stronger in the upcoming months. The high of the last year occurred in November, with today’s revisions bringing the number of jobs added in that month up to 353,000. If we were to create that number of jobs—the highest monthly number of the recovery—every month, we would return to pre-recession labor market health in August 2016. That’s awfully optimistic, and yet, still nearly 9 years since the recession began.
