March Jobs Report Shows Labor Market Still Requires Federal Jobless Aid
Job opportunities have been so weak for so long that jobless workers have gotten stuck in unemployment for unprecedented lengths of time. Currently more than one-third of unemployed workers (35.8 percent) have been unemployed for more than six months—which, as the figure below shows, is far higher than at any other point on record outside of the last five years. It is important to note that the cause of today’s long-term unemployment crisis is no mystery: it is entirely explained by the length and severity of the current period of labor market weakness, along with long-term trends in long-term unemployment. In other words, the long-term unemployment crisis is exactly what we would expect given how long our labor market has been as weak as it has been. It is not the fault of individual unemployed workers failing to exert enough effort or flexibility in their job search.
Nevertheless, Congress allowed federal unemployment insurance to expire in at the end of 2013. In the first sign of progress in months, the Senate is expected to approve a temporary extension of federal unemployment insurance next week. It would be retroactive to January 1st and would extend federal jobless aid through May 31st, but is expected to face an uphill battle in the House.
The share of the unemployed who have been jobless for six months or more, 1948–2014
| Date | Share of the unemployed |
|---|---|
| 1948-01-01 | 6.4% |
| 1948-02-01 | 5.2% |
| 1948-03-01 | 4.6% |
| 1948-04-01 | 4.4% |
| 1948-05-01 | 5.1% |
| 1948-06-01 | 5.3% |
| 1948-07-01 | 4.9% |
| 1948-08-01 | 5.3% |
| 1948-09-01 | 5.5% |
| 1948-10-01 | 6.2% |
| 1948-11-01 | 4.3% |
| 1948-12-01 | 4.1% |
| 1949-01-01 | 4.1% |
| 1949-02-01 | 4.5% |
| 1949-03-01 | 3.8% |
| 1949-04-01 | 4.8% |
| 1949-05-01 | 5.1% |
| 1949-06-01 | 6.5% |
| 1949-07-01 | 7.5% |
| 1949-08-01 | 8.0% |
| 1949-09-01 | 8.6% |
| 1949-10-01 | 7.8% |
| 1949-11-01 | 10.6% |
| 1949-12-01 | 10.0% |
| 1950-01-01 | 10.0% |
| 1950-02-01 | 10.5% |
| 1950-03-01 | 11.3% |
| 1950-04-01 | 13.4% |
| 1950-05-01 | 12.3% |
| 1950-06-01 | 12.3% |
| 1950-07-01 | 10.8% |
| 1950-08-01 | 10.5% |
| 1950-09-01 | 10.6% |
| 1950-10-01 | 10.9% |
| 1950-11-01 | 9.9% |
| 1950-12-01 | 8.1% |
| 1951-01-01 | 8.0% |
| 1951-02-01 | 9.4% |
| 1951-03-01 | 7.2% |
| 1951-04-01 | 7.2% |
| 1951-05-01 | 6.9% |
| 1951-06-01 | 5.6% |
| 1951-07-01 | 6.6% |
| 1951-08-01 | 6.0% |
| 1951-09-01 | 5.7% |
| 1951-10-01 | 4.6% |
| 1951-11-01 | 7.1% |
| 1951-12-01 | 5.2% |
| 1952-01-01 | 5.5% |
| 1952-02-01 | 4.5% |
| 1952-03-01 | 4.7% |
| 1952-04-01 | 6.3% |
| 1952-05-01 | 4.3% |
| 1952-06-01 | 3.6% |
| 1952-07-01 | 3.4% |
| 1952-08-01 | 3.0% |
| 1952-09-01 | 3.3% |
| 1952-10-01 | 4.8% |
| 1952-11-01 | 3.9% |
| 1952-12-01 | 6.2% |
| 1953-01-01 | 4.8% |
| 1953-02-01 | 4.8% |
| 1953-03-01 | 5.0% |
| 1953-04-01 | 3.9% |
| 1953-05-01 | 2.9% |
| 1953-06-01 | 5.8% |
| 1953-07-01 | 4.4% |
| 1953-08-01 | 4.0% |
| 1953-09-01 | 3.8% |
| 1953-10-01 | 3.4% |
| 1953-11-01 | 4.5% |
| 1953-12-01 | 4.0% |
| 1954-01-01 | 4.9% |
| 1954-02-01 | 4.6% |
| 1954-03-01 | 6.5% |
| 1954-04-01 | 7.6% |
| 1954-05-01 | 8.5% |
| 1954-06-01 | 8.8% |
| 1954-07-01 | 9.1% |
| 1954-08-01 | 11.0% |
| 1954-09-01 | 10.6% |
| 1954-10-01 | 12.3% |
| 1954-11-01 | 12.3% |
| 1954-12-01 | 12.1% |
| 1955-01-01 | 13.3% |
| 1955-02-01 | 14.7% |
| 1955-03-01 | 13.4% |
| 1955-04-01 | 13.5% |
| 1955-05-01 | 13.1% |
| 1955-06-01 | 12.2% |
| 1955-07-01 | 11.4% |
| 1955-08-01 | 9.9% |
| 1955-09-01 | 9.2% |
| 1955-10-01 | 8.6% |
| 1955-11-01 | 9.9% |
| 1955-12-01 | 10.4% |
| 1956-01-01 | 9.6% |
| 1956-02-01 | 10.6% |
| 1956-03-01 | 8.6% |
| 1956-04-01 | 7.7% |
| 1956-05-01 | 6.9% |
| 1956-06-01 | 6.2% |
| 1956-07-01 | 7.1% |
| 1956-08-01 | 8.7% |
| 1956-09-01 | 9.1% |
| 1956-10-01 | 9.5% |
| 1956-11-01 | 8.4% |
| 1956-12-01 | 9.2% |
| 1957-01-01 | 6.5% |
| 1957-02-01 | 8.6% |
| 1957-03-01 | 8.6% |
| 1957-04-01 | 9.0% |
| 1957-05-01 | 8.7% |
| 1957-06-01 | 8.9% |
| 1957-07-01 | 9.2% |
| 1957-08-01 | 8.4% |
| 1957-09-01 | 7.4% |
| 1957-10-01 | 9.6% |
| 1957-11-01 | 8.2% |
| 1957-12-01 | 7.4% |
| 1958-01-01 | 7.7% |
| 1958-02-01 | 8.1% |
| 1958-03-01 | 7.7% |
| 1958-04-01 | 10.5% |
| 1958-05-01 | 11.6% |
| 1958-06-01 | 14.2% |
| 1958-07-01 | 16.6% |
| 1958-08-01 | 19.0% |
| 1958-09-01 | 20.7% |
| 1958-10-01 | 20.3% |
| 1958-11-01 | 19.5% |
| 1958-12-01 | 19.2% |
| 1959-01-01 | 19.4% |
| 1959-02-01 | 18.3% |
| 1959-03-01 | 18.1% |
| 1959-04-01 | 18.2% |
| 1959-05-01 | 16.7% |
| 1959-06-01 | 15.9% |
| 1959-07-01 | 14.0% |
| 1959-08-01 | 13.4% |
| 1959-09-01 | 11.8% |
| 1959-10-01 | 11.4% |
| 1959-11-01 | 12.1% |
| 1959-12-01 | 12.6% |
| 1960-01-01 | 12.9% |
| 1960-02-01 | 13.0% |
| 1960-03-01 | 11.7% |
| 1960-04-01 | 11.9% |
| 1960-05-01 | 10.8% |
| 1960-06-01 | 10.5% |
| 1960-07-01 | 10.5% |
| 1960-08-01 | 10.4% |
| 1960-09-01 | 12.0% |
| 1960-10-01 | 13.4% |
| 1960-11-01 | 12.8% |
| 1960-12-01 | 11.8% |
| 1961-01-01 | 13.6% |
| 1961-02-01 | 13.7% |
| 1961-03-01 | 14.5% |
| 1961-04-01 | 16.9% |
| 1961-05-01 | 17.7% |
| 1961-06-01 | 18.9% |
| 1961-07-01 | 19.9% |
| 1961-08-01 | 19.0% |
| 1961-09-01 | 18.0% |
| 1961-10-01 | 17.9% |
| 1961-11-01 | 17.8% |
| 1961-12-01 | 17.3% |
| 1962-01-01 | 16.5% |
| 1962-02-01 | 17.7% |
| 1962-03-01 | 16.3% |
| 1962-04-01 | 16.2% |
| 1962-05-01 | 16.5% |
| 1962-06-01 | 15.2% |
| 1962-07-01 | 14.9% |
| 1962-08-01 | 14.7% |
| 1962-09-01 | 13.1% |
| 1962-10-01 | 13.3% |
| 1962-11-01 | 11.1% |
| 1962-12-01 | 12.8% |
| 1963-01-01 | 13.3% |
| 1963-02-01 | 14.0% |
| 1963-03-01 | 14.8% |
| 1963-04-01 | 14.7% |
| 1963-05-01 | 14.4% |
| 1963-06-01 | 12.4% |
| 1963-07-01 | 13.5% |
| 1963-08-01 | 13.2% |
| 1963-09-01 | 14.0% |
| 1963-10-01 | 13.3% |
| 1963-11-01 | 12.6% |
| 1963-12-01 | 12.3% |
| 1964-01-01 | 12.5% |
| 1964-02-01 | 12.4% |
| 1964-03-01 | 12.8% |
| 1964-04-01 | 12.1% |
| 1964-05-01 | 13.4% |
| 1964-06-01 | 13.1% |
| 1964-07-01 | 14.5% |
| 1964-08-01 | 13.7% |
| 1964-09-01 | 12.4% |
| 1964-10-01 | 11.7% |
| 1964-11-01 | 12.3% |
| 1964-12-01 | 11.9% |
| 1965-01-01 | 11.1% |
| 1965-02-01 | 11.0% |
| 1965-03-01 | 10.2% |
| 1965-04-01 | 10.3% |
| 1965-05-01 | 10.2% |
| 1965-06-01 | 10.7% |
| 1965-07-01 | 9.8% |
| 1965-08-01 | 10.0% |
| 1965-09-01 | 11.1% |
| 1965-10-01 | 10.8% |
| 1965-11-01 | 10.1% |
| 1965-12-01 | 9.9% |
| 1966-01-01 | 9.9% |
| 1966-02-01 | 9.5% |
| 1966-03-01 | 9.2% |
| 1966-04-01 | 9.0% |
| 1966-05-01 | 9.5% |
| 1966-06-01 | 7.9% |
| 1966-07-01 | 7.3% |
| 1966-08-01 | 7.0% |
| 1966-09-01 | 7.1% |
| 1966-10-01 | 7.9% |
| 1966-11-01 | 7.3% |
| 1966-12-01 | 7.5% |
| 1967-01-01 | 6.9% |
| 1967-02-01 | 6.9% |
| 1967-03-01 | 6.2% |
| 1967-04-01 | 6.1% |
| 1967-05-01 | 5.3% |
| 1967-06-01 | 5.0% |
| 1967-07-01 | 5.2% |
| 1967-08-01 | 6.7% |
| 1967-09-01 | 5.4% |
| 1967-10-01 | 5.6% |
| 1967-11-01 | 5.9% |
| 1967-12-01 | 6.5% |
| 1968-01-01 | 6.6% |
| 1968-02-01 | 5.9% |
| 1968-03-01 | 6.2% |
| 1968-04-01 | 5.5% |
| 1968-05-01 | 5.0% |
| 1968-06-01 | 5.4% |
| 1968-07-01 | 5.5% |
| 1968-08-01 | 5.5% |
| 1968-09-01 | 4.9% |
| 1968-10-01 | 5.0% |
| 1968-11-01 | 4.8% |
| 1968-12-01 | 6.0% |
| 1969-01-01 | 4.9% |
| 1969-02-01 | 4.3% |
| 1969-03-01 | 4.4% |
| 1969-04-01 | 4.8% |
| 1969-05-01 | 4.7% |
| 1969-06-01 | 4.4% |
| 1969-07-01 | 5.6% |
| 1969-08-01 | 4.6% |
| 1969-09-01 | 4.9% |
| 1969-10-01 | 4.5% |
| 1969-11-01 | 5.1% |
| 1969-12-01 | 4.6% |
| 1970-01-01 | 4.5% |
| 1970-02-01 | 4.6% |
| 1970-03-01 | 5.0% |
| 1970-04-01 | 5.3% |
| 1970-05-01 | 5.9% |
| 1970-06-01 | 5.5% |
| 1970-07-01 | 5.7% |
| 1970-08-01 | 5.9% |
| 1970-09-01 | 6.3% |
| 1970-10-01 | 5.6% |
| 1970-11-01 | 6.7% |
| 1970-12-01 | 7.6% |
| 1971-01-01 | 8.5% |
| 1971-02-01 | 9.2% |
| 1971-03-01 | 9.3% |
| 1971-04-01 | 9.2% |
| 1971-05-01 | 10.2% |
| 1971-06-01 | 10.9% |
| 1971-07-01 | 11.3% |
| 1971-08-01 | 10.6% |
| 1971-09-01 | 11.0% |
| 1971-10-01 | 11.7% |
| 1971-11-01 | 11.2% |
| 1971-12-01 | 11.4% |
| 1972-01-01 | 11.7% |
| 1972-02-01 | 13.4% |
| 1972-03-01 | 12.8% |
| 1972-04-01 | 13.6% |
| 1972-05-01 | 11.9% |
| 1972-06-01 | 11.2% |
| 1972-07-01 | 10.6% |
| 1972-08-01 | 10.8% |
| 1972-09-01 | 11.2% |
| 1972-10-01 | 10.6% |
| 1972-11-01 | 10.2% |
| 1972-12-01 | 10.2% |
| 1973-01-01 | 9.5% |
| 1973-02-01 | 8.4% |
| 1973-03-01 | 8.9% |
| 1973-04-01 | 7.5% |
| 1973-05-01 | 8.0% |
| 1973-06-01 | 7.5% |
| 1973-07-01 | 6.5% |
| 1973-08-01 | 7.7% |
| 1973-09-01 | 6.8% |
| 1973-10-01 | 8.0% |
| 1973-11-01 | 8.0% |
| 1973-12-01 | 7.4% |
| 1974-01-01 | 7.2% |
| 1974-02-01 | 7.1% |
| 1974-03-01 | 7.1% |
| 1974-04-01 | 7.6% |
| 1974-05-01 | 7.5% |
| 1974-06-01 | 7.4% |
| 1974-07-01 | 7.7% |
| 1974-08-01 | 7.7% |
| 1974-09-01 | 7.2% |
| 1974-10-01 | 7.2% |
| 1974-11-01 | 7.1% |
| 1974-12-01 | 8.1% |
| 1975-01-01 | 8.3% |
| 1975-02-01 | 9.7% |
| 1975-03-01 | 9.7% |
| 1975-04-01 | 11.9% |
| 1975-05-01 | 13.0% |
| 1975-06-01 | 15.8% |
| 1975-07-01 | 17.3% |
| 1975-08-01 | 18.3% |
| 1975-09-01 | 19.6% |
| 1975-10-01 | 18.0% |
| 1975-11-01 | 21.0% |
| 1975-12-01 | 20.3% |
| 1976-01-01 | 20.8% |
| 1976-02-01 | 21.0% |
| 1976-03-01 | 20.7% |
| 1976-04-01 | 19.7% |
| 1976-05-01 | 17.5% |
| 1976-06-01 | 18.3% |
| 1976-07-01 | 16.8% |
| 1976-08-01 | 16.9% |
| 1976-09-01 | 16.0% |
| 1976-10-01 | 16.4% |
| 1976-11-01 | 16.8% |
| 1976-12-01 | 17.6% |
| 1977-01-01 | 16.6% |
| 1977-02-01 | 16.2% |
| 1977-03-01 | 16.0% |
| 1977-04-01 | 16.1% |
| 1977-05-01 | 15.6% |
| 1977-06-01 | 14.4% |
| 1977-07-01 | 14.3% |
| 1977-08-01 | 12.9% |
| 1977-09-01 | 13.7% |
| 1977-10-01 | 13.4% |
| 1977-11-01 | 13.2% |
| 1977-12-01 | 13.4% |
| 1978-01-01 | 12.6% |
| 1978-02-01 | 10.6% |
| 1978-03-01 | 11.2% |
| 1978-04-01 | 11.1% |
| 1978-05-01 | 11.3% |
| 1978-06-01 | 10.5% |
| 1978-07-01 | 10.4% |
| 1978-08-01 | 10.1% |
| 1978-09-01 | 10.2% |
| 1978-10-01 | 10.0% |
| 1978-11-01 | 8.8% |
| 1978-12-01 | 8.2% |
| 1979-01-01 | 8.8% |
| 1979-02-01 | 9.0% |
| 1979-03-01 | 9.6% |
| 1979-04-01 | 9.0% |
| 1979-05-01 | 8.8% |
| 1979-06-01 | 8.8% |
| 1979-07-01 | 7.8% |
| 1979-08-01 | 8.5% |
| 1979-09-01 | 8.6% |
| 1979-10-01 | 8.5% |
| 1979-11-01 | 9.0% |
| 1979-12-01 | 8.6% |
| 1980-01-01 | 8.3% |
| 1980-02-01 | 7.6% |
| 1980-03-01 | 9.1% |
| 1980-04-01 | 9.3% |
| 1980-05-01 | 8.9% |
| 1980-06-01 | 9.6% |
| 1980-07-01 | 10.7% |
| 1980-08-01 | 11.3% |
| 1980-09-01 | 12.0% |
| 1980-10-01 | 13.1% |
| 1980-11-01 | 14.2% |
| 1980-12-01 | 14.8% |
| 1981-01-01 | 15.7% |
| 1981-02-01 | 15.5% |
| 1981-03-01 | 15.2% |
| 1981-04-01 | 14.4% |
| 1981-05-01 | 14.0% |
| 1981-06-01 | 14.0% |
| 1981-07-01 | 13.8% |
| 1981-08-01 | 14.5% |
| 1981-09-01 | 13.5% |
| 1981-10-01 | 13.2% |
| 1981-11-01 | 12.7% |
| 1981-12-01 | 12.6% |
| 1982-01-01 | 12.6% |
| 1982-02-01 | 13.2% |
| 1982-03-01 | 13.6% |
| 1982-04-01 | 14.6% |
| 1982-05-01 | 15.5% |
| 1982-06-01 | 17.0% |
| 1982-07-01 | 16.8% |
| 1982-08-01 | 17.0% |
| 1982-09-01 | 17.8% |
| 1982-10-01 | 19.5% |
| 1982-11-01 | 19.5% |
| 1982-12-01 | 21.3% |
| 1983-01-01 | 22.9% |
| 1983-02-01 | 23.5% |
| 1983-03-01 | 24.4% |
| 1983-04-01 | 24.6% |
| 1983-05-01 | 24.9% |
| 1983-06-01 | 26.0% |
| 1983-07-01 | 24.5% |
| 1983-08-01 | 23.6% |
| 1983-09-01 | 23.5% |
| 1983-10-01 | 23.1% |
| 1983-11-01 | 22.7% |
| 1983-12-01 | 22.0% |
| 1984-01-01 | 22.4% |
| 1984-02-01 | 20.8% |
| 1984-03-01 | 20.4% |
| 1984-04-01 | 20.3% |
| 1984-05-01 | 20.0% |
| 1984-06-01 | 19.3% |
| 1984-07-01 | 18.7% |
| 1984-08-01 | 17.6% |
| 1984-09-01 | 17.2% |
| 1984-10-01 | 17.1% |
| 1984-11-01 | 17.4% |
| 1984-12-01 | 16.7% |
| 1985-01-01 | 15.5% |
| 1985-02-01 | 16.2% |
| 1985-03-01 | 16.1% |
| 1985-04-01 | 16.4% |
| 1985-05-01 | 14.8% |
| 1985-06-01 | 15.3% |
| 1985-07-01 | 15.0% |
| 1985-08-01 | 14.9% |
| 1985-09-01 | 14.8% |
| 1985-10-01 | 14.5% |
| 1985-11-01 | 16.0% |
| 1985-12-01 | 14.8% |
| 1986-01-01 | 13.9% |
| 1986-02-01 | 14.1% |
| 1986-03-01 | 14.0% |
| 1986-04-01 | 13.9% |
| 1986-05-01 | 13.8% |
| 1986-06-01 | 15.0% |
| 1986-07-01 | 14.7% |
| 1986-08-01 | 14.7% |
| 1986-09-01 | 14.8% |
| 1986-10-01 | 14.8% |
| 1986-11-01 | 14.3% |
| 1986-12-01 | 14.6% |
| 1987-01-01 | 14.3% |
| 1987-02-01 | 14.2% |
| 1987-03-01 | 14.3% |
| 1987-04-01 | 14.4% |
| 1987-05-01 | 14.8% |
| 1987-06-01 | 14.5% |
| 1987-07-01 | 13.5% |
| 1987-08-01 | 14.5% |
| 1987-09-01 | 13.9% |
| 1987-10-01 | 13.3% |
| 1987-11-01 | 13.1% |
| 1987-12-01 | 13.0% |
| 1988-01-01 | 12.5% |
| 1988-02-01 | 12.9% |
| 1988-03-01 | 12.3% |
| 1988-04-01 | 12.3% |
| 1988-05-01 | 12.5% |
| 1988-06-01 | 12.3% |
| 1988-07-01 | 11.9% |
| 1988-08-01 | 11.7% |
| 1988-09-01 | 12.3% |
| 1988-10-01 | 11.8% |
| 1988-11-01 | 10.8% |
| 1988-12-01 | 11.4% |
| 1989-01-01 | 11.0% |
| 1989-02-01 | 10.0% |
| 1989-03-01 | 10.7% |
| 1989-04-01 | 11.0% |
| 1989-05-01 | 9.9% |
| 1989-06-01 | 9.3% |
| 1989-07-01 | 9.5% |
| 1989-08-01 | 8.7% |
| 1989-09-01 | 9.1% |
| 1989-10-01 | 9.8% |
| 1989-11-01 | 9.8% |
| 1989-12-01 | 9.6% |
| 1990-01-01 | 9.7% |
| 1990-02-01 | 9.4% |
| 1990-03-01 | 9.6% |
| 1990-04-01 | 9.5% |
| 1990-05-01 | 9.5% |
| 1990-06-01 | 9.5% |
| 1990-07-01 | 9.8% |
| 1990-08-01 | 10.2% |
| 1990-09-01 | 10.6% |
| 1990-10-01 | 10.4% |
| 1990-11-01 | 10.8% |
| 1990-12-01 | 10.6% |
| 1991-01-01 | 10.9% |
| 1991-02-01 | 10.9% |
| 1991-03-01 | 11.1% |
| 1991-04-01 | 11.6% |
| 1991-05-01 | 11.9% |
| 1991-06-01 | 12.6% |
| 1991-07-01 | 12.9% |
| 1991-08-01 | 13.5% |
| 1991-09-01 | 13.7% |
| 1991-10-01 | 13.9% |
| 1991-11-01 | 15.4% |
| 1991-12-01 | 16.4% |
| 1992-01-01 | 17.5% |
| 1992-02-01 | 18.1% |
| 1992-03-01 | 18.8% |
| 1992-04-01 | 18.9% |
| 1992-05-01 | 20.6% |
| 1992-06-01 | 21.3% |
| 1992-07-01 | 21.5% |
| 1992-08-01 | 21.0% |
| 1992-09-01 | 21.5% |
| 1992-10-01 | 23.1% |
| 1992-11-01 | 20.7% |
| 1992-12-01 | 21.4% |
| 1993-01-01 | 21.2% |
| 1993-02-01 | 20.7% |
| 1993-03-01 | 20.0% |
| 1993-04-01 | 18.2% |
| 1993-05-01 | 19.6% |
| 1993-06-01 | 19.5% |
| 1993-07-01 | 19.8% |
| 1993-08-01 | 20.1% |
| 1993-09-01 | 20.2% |
| 1993-10-01 | 20.4% |
| 1993-11-01 | 21.0% |
| 1993-12-01 | 20.8% |
| 1994-01-01 | 20.1% |
| 1994-02-01 | 20.7% |
| 1994-03-01 | 21.2% |
| 1994-04-01 | 21.3% |
| 1994-05-01 | 21.3% |
| 1994-06-01 | 19.9% |
| 1994-07-01 | 19.6% |
| 1994-08-01 | 19.6% |
| 1994-09-01 | 20.0% |
| 1994-10-01 | 20.8% |
| 1994-11-01 | 19.7% |
| 1994-12-01 | 18.9% |
| 1995-01-01 | 18.3% |
| 1995-02-01 | 17.2% |
| 1995-03-01 | 18.8% |
| 1995-04-01 | 18.7% |
| 1995-05-01 | 17.5% |
| 1995-06-01 | 16.8% |
| 1995-07-01 | 16.7% |
| 1995-08-01 | 16.3% |
| 1995-09-01 | 16.9% |
| 1995-10-01 | 16.5% |
| 1995-11-01 | 16.7% |
| 1995-12-01 | 16.4% |
| 1996-01-01 | 16.2% |
| 1996-02-01 | 16.5% |
| 1996-03-01 | 18.2% |
| 1996-04-01 | 18.3% |
| 1996-05-01 | 18.1% |
| 1996-06-01 | 19.4% |
| 1996-07-01 | 18.3% |
| 1996-08-01 | 18.2% |
| 1996-09-01 | 17.4% |
| 1996-10-01 | 16.7% |
| 1996-11-01 | 15.7% |
| 1996-12-01 | 16.1% |
| 1997-01-01 | 16.1% |
| 1997-02-01 | 15.7% |
| 1997-03-01 | 15.6% |
| 1997-04-01 | 16.2% |
| 1997-05-01 | 15.7% |
| 1997-06-01 | 15.8% |
| 1997-07-01 | 16.3% |
| 1997-08-01 | 16.2% |
| 1997-09-01 | 16.2% |
| 1997-10-01 | 16.0% |
| 1997-11-01 | 14.8% |
| 1997-12-01 | 15.4% |
| 1998-01-01 | 15.7% |
| 1998-02-01 | 15.2% |
| 1998-03-01 | 14.1% |
| 1998-04-01 | 14.7% |
| 1998-05-01 | 13.8% |
| 1998-06-01 | 12.6% |
| 1998-07-01 | 13.3% |
| 1998-08-01 | 13.2% |
| 1998-09-01 | 14.5% |
| 1998-10-01 | 13.6% |
| 1998-11-01 | 14.4% |
| 1998-12-01 | 13.5% |
| 1999-01-01 | 12.0% |
| 1999-02-01 | 13.2% |
| 1999-03-01 | 12.2% |
| 1999-04-01 | 11.4% |
| 1999-05-01 | 12.4% |
| 1999-06-01 | 13.7% |
| 1999-07-01 | 12.3% |
| 1999-08-01 | 12.1% |
| 1999-09-01 | 12.0% |
| 1999-10-01 | 12.4% |
| 1999-11-01 | 11.9% |
| 1999-12-01 | 12.1% |
| 2000-01-01 | 12.7% |
| 2000-02-01 | 10.8% |
| 2000-03-01 | 11.0% |
| 2000-04-01 | 10.7% |
| 2000-05-01 | 11.1% |
| 2000-06-01 | 11.2% |
| 2000-07-01 | 12.3% |
| 2000-08-01 | 12.2% |
| 2000-09-01 | 11.5% |
| 2000-10-01 | 11.3% |
| 2000-11-01 | 10.6% |
| 2000-12-01 | 11.4% |
| 2001-01-01 | 11.3% |
| 2001-02-01 | 11.7% |
| 2001-03-01 | 11.1% |
| 2001-04-01 | 11.0% |
| 2001-05-01 | 10.0% |
| 2001-06-01 | 11.2% |
| 2001-07-01 | 10.8% |
| 2001-08-01 | 12.2% |
| 2001-09-01 | 11.5% |
| 2001-10-01 | 11.8% |
| 2001-11-01 | 13.9% |
| 2001-12-01 | 13.6% |
| 2002-01-01 | 14.6% |
| 2002-02-01 | 14.9% |
| 2002-03-01 | 15.9% |
| 2002-04-01 | 16.8% |
| 2002-05-01 | 18.8% |
| 2002-06-01 | 19.6% |
| 2002-07-01 | 19.0% |
| 2002-08-01 | 18.9% |
| 2002-09-01 | 19.1% |
| 2002-10-01 | 19.9% |
| 2002-11-01 | 20.5% |
| 2002-12-01 | 22.1% |
| 2003-01-01 | 20.5% |
| 2003-02-01 | 21.8% |
| 2003-03-01 | 21.0% |
| 2003-04-01 | 21.9% |
| 2003-05-01 | 21.6% |
| 2003-06-01 | 22.8% |
| 2003-07-01 | 22.0% |
| 2003-08-01 | 22.2% |
| 2003-09-01 | 22.5% |
| 2003-10-01 | 22.4% |
| 2003-11-01 | 23.4% |
| 2003-12-01 | 23.1% |
| 2004-01-01 | 22.7% |
| 2004-02-01 | 22.9% |
| 2004-03-01 | 23.6% |
| 2004-04-01 | 22.1% |
| 2004-05-01 | 21.9% |
| 2004-06-01 | 22.5% |
| 2004-07-01 | 20.7% |
| 2004-08-01 | 20.3% |
| 2004-09-01 | 21.4% |
| 2004-10-01 | 21.5% |
| 2004-11-01 | 21.4% |
| 2004-12-01 | 20.8% |
| 2005-01-01 | 21.2% |
| 2005-02-01 | 20.4% |
| 2005-03-01 | 21.8% |
| 2005-04-01 | 21.0% |
| 2005-05-01 | 20.1% |
| 2005-06-01 | 18.5% |
| 2005-07-01 | 18.7% |
| 2005-08-01 | 18.9% |
| 2005-09-01 | 18.9% |
| 2005-10-01 | 18.9% |
| 2005-11-01 | 18.0% |
| 2005-12-01 | 18.7% |
| 2006-01-01 | 16.7% |
| 2006-02-01 | 18.7% |
| 2006-03-01 | 18.6% |
| 2006-04-01 | 18.6% |
| 2006-05-01 | 18.9% |
| 2006-06-01 | 16.6% |
| 2006-07-01 | 18.3% |
| 2006-08-01 | 18.3% |
| 2006-09-01 | 18.1% |
| 2006-10-01 | 15.9% |
| 2006-11-01 | 16.4% |
| 2006-12-01 | 16.2% |
| 2007-01-01 | 16.3% |
| 2007-02-01 | 18.0% |
| 2007-03-01 | 18.6% |
| 2007-04-01 | 17.4% |
| 2007-05-01 | 16.5% |
| 2007-06-01 | 16.4% |
| 2007-07-01 | 18.3% |
| 2007-08-01 | 17.5% |
| 2007-09-01 | 17.5% |
| 2007-10-01 | 17.7% |
| 2007-11-01 | 18.9% |
| 2007-12-01 | 17.4% |
| 2008-01-01 | 18.5% |
| 2008-02-01 | 17.8% |
| 2008-03-01 | 16.9% |
| 2008-04-01 | 17.7% |
| 2008-05-01 | 18.3% |
| 2008-06-01 | 18.2% |
| 2008-07-01 | 18.9% |
| 2008-08-01 | 19.8% |
| 2008-09-01 | 21.3% |
| 2008-10-01 | 22.3% |
| 2008-11-01 | 21.1% |
| 2008-12-01 | 23.1% |
| 2009-01-01 | 22.6% |
| 2009-02-01 | 23.4% |
| 2009-03-01 | 24.2% |
| 2009-04-01 | 27.1% |
| 2009-05-01 | 27.0% |
| 2009-06-01 | 29.0% |
| 2009-07-01 | 34.0% |
| 2009-08-01 | 34.3% |
| 2009-09-01 | 36.6% |
| 2009-10-01 | 36.6% |
| 2009-11-01 | 39.3% |
| 2009-12-01 | 40.4% |
| 2010-01-01 | 41.6% |
| 2010-02-01 | 40.8% |
| 2010-03-01 | 43.4% |
| 2010-04-01 | 45.3% |
| 2010-05-01 | 44.9% |
| 2010-06-01 | 44.8% |
| 2010-07-01 | 44.7% |
| 2010-08-01 | 42.6% |
| 2010-09-01 | 42.2% |
| 2010-10-01 | 42.6% |
| 2010-11-01 | 42.3% |
| 2010-12-01 | 44.7% |
| 2011-01-01 | 44.0% |
| 2011-02-01 | 43.3% |
| 2011-03-01 | 44.9% |
| 2011-04-01 | 42.9% |
| 2011-05-01 | 44.7% |
| 2011-06-01 | 44.3% |
| 2011-07-01 | 44.6% |
| 2011-08-01 | 43.2% |
| 2011-09-01 | 45.0% |
| 2011-10-01 | 42.7% |
| 2011-11-01 | 43.1% |
| 2011-12-01 | 42.9% |
| 2012-01-01 | 43.1% |
| 2012-02-01 | 41.8% |
| 2012-03-01 | 41.6% |
| 2012-04-01 | 40.8% |
| 2012-05-01 | 42.6% |
| 2012-06-01 | 41.9% |
| 2012-07-01 | 40.7% |
| 2012-08-01 | 40.0% |
| 2012-09-01 | 40.4% |
| 2012-10-01 | 40.9% |
| 2012-11-01 | 39.8% |
| 2012-12-01 | 39.1% |
| 2013-01-01 | 37.9% |
| 2013-02-01 | 39.7% |
| 2013-03-01 | 39.1% |
| 2013-04-01 | 37.4% |
| 2013-05-01 | 37.4% |
| 2013-06-01 | 36.9% |
| 2013-07-01 | 37.2% |
| 2013-08-01 | 38.0% |
| 2013-09-01 | 36.9% |
| 2013-10-01 | 36.0% |
| 2013-11-01 | 37.4% |
| 2013-12-01 | 37.7% |
| 2014-01-01 | 35.8% |
| 2014-02-01 | 37.0% |
| 2014-03-01 | 35.8% |
Source: Author's analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey public data series
Certainly No Sign in March of Excessive Wage Growth Which Would Trigger Inflation
Average hourly wages of private sector workers and of production/nonsupervisory both dropped slightly in March. The chart shows year-over-year growth in hourly wages for both groups. Both are seeing growth rates far below what they were seeing before the recession started, and the “all private sector employees” series has seen no increase whatsoever in nearly three years. In recent months, many commentators have, perhaps surprisingly, raised concerns that our labor market may be tightening enough to be causing excessive wage growth that would trigger inflation. There is no sign of that here. Instead, today’s jobs report shows there remains a tremendous amount of slack in the labor market, which shifts bargaining power away from workers and keeps wages low. Employers do not have to pay substantial wage increases to get and keep the workers they need when workers lack outside options.
No Signs of a Skill Mismatch in Today’s Jobs Report
In an update to last month’s post, the table below shows the March unemployment rate, the unemployment rate in 2007, and the ratio of the two, for a variety of demographic categories and by occupation and industry. Again we see that while (as per usual) there is considerable variation in unemployment rates across groups, the unemployment rate is substantially higher now than it was before the recession started for all groups. The unemployment rate is between 1.3 and 1.7 times as high now as it was six-plus years ago for all age, education, occupation, industry, gender, and racial and ethnic groups. Elevated unemployment across the board, like we see today, means that the weak labor market is due to employers not seeing demand for their goods and services pick up in a way that would require them to significantly ramp up hiring, not workers lacking the right skills or education for the occupations or industries where jobs are available. This commentary provides a more in-depth look at this issue.
Unemployment rates of various demographic groups, 2007 and today
| 2007 | March 2014 | Ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|
| All | 4.6 | 6.7 | 1.5 |
| Male | 4.7 | 6.8 | 1.4 |
| Female | 4.5 | 6.6 | 1.5 |
| White | 4.1 | 5.8 | 1.4 |
| Black | 8.3 | 12.4 | 1.5 |
| Hispanic | 5.6 | 7.9 | 1.4 |
| Age 16–24 | 10.5 | 14.5 | 1.4 |
| Age 25–54 | 3.7 | 5.7 | 1.5 |
| Age 55+ | 3.1 | 4.7 | 1.5 |
| Workers age 25 and older | |||
| High school | 4.4 | 6.3 | 1.4 |
| Bachelor’s and advanced degree | 2.0 | 3.4 | 1.7 |
| Workers under age 25, not enrolled in further schooling | |||
| High school degree | 12.0 | 18.5* | 1.5 |
| Bachelor’s and advanced degree | 5.4 | 8.2* | 1.5 |
| Occupation | |||
| Management, professional, and related occupations | 2.1 | 3.4* | 1.6 |
| Service occupations | 5.9 | 8.3* | 1.4 |
| Sales and office occupations | 4.3 | 6.9* | 1.6 |
| Construction and extraction occupations | 7.6 | 11.6* | 1.5 |
| Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations | 3.4 | 5.2* | 1.5 |
| Production, transportation, and material moving occupations | 5.8 | 8.7* | 1.5 |
| Industry | |||
| Construction | 7.4 | 10.5* | 1.4 |
| Manufacturing | 4.3 | 6.2* | 1.4 |
| Wholesale and retail trade | 4.7 | 7.1* | 1.5 |
| Transportation and utilities | 3.9 | 6.4* | 1.6 |
| Information | 3.6 | 6.0* | 1.7 |
| Financial activities | 3.0 | 4.3* | 1.4 |
| Professional and business services | 5.3 | 7.9* | 1.5 |
| Education and health services | 3.0 | 4.6* | 1.5 |
| Leisure and hospitality | 7.4 | 9.7* | 1.3 |
* This is a 12-month average (April 2013–March 2014), since this series is not seasonally adjusted.
Source: Author's analysis of the Current Population Survey public data series
In March, the Unemployment Rate Masked Some Good News For Once
The unemployment rate held steady in March, but in a departure from the usual story in this recovery, that masked some good news. The share of the working-age population with a job ticked up by one-tenth of a percent—and the share of the prime-age population with a job, which is my favorite measure of labor market trends in recent years—ticked up by two-tenths of a percent. If more people were finding work, why didn’t the unemployment rate go down? Because more people came into the labor force. The labor force participation rate rose by two-tenths of a percent. The number of “missing workers”—workers who have left, or never entered, the labor force due to weak job opportunities—dropped from 5.7 million to 5.3 million. That is still a lot of missing workers (the unemployment rate would be 9.8% if they were counted as unemployed), and there is a great deal of month-to-month variability in the number of missing workers (meaning we can’t make too much of one’s month’s drop), but this is a step in the right direction.
Interestingly, most of the decline in missing workers in March was due to the increase in labor force participation of men under age 25. Men under age 25 had seen a steep decline in labor force participation over the prior five months, and March’s increase almost entirely reverses that decline. There are still 580,000 missing men under age 25, but again, March’s drop was a step in the right direction.
Congress Passes Up Yet Another Opportunity to Reconsider Tax Giveaways
Earlier this week, Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) unveiled his proposal to retroactively renew the “tax extenders”—a group of just more than fifty “temporary,” unrelated tax incentives, breaks, loopholes, and outright giveaways that Congress routinely extends as they lapse.
My earlier analysis of this abdication of responsible policymaking concluded that instead of renewing the entire slate of tax extenders, lawmakers should conduct a thorough review of each individual provision to see if it efficiently targets useful policy goals. They should then improve and make permanent the provisions that pass muster, and shelve those that don’t.
Taking a close look at each tax incentive on a case-by-case basis is absolutely necessary. Some of the policies, like the “active financing exception”—a loophole by which financial services firms and manufacturers can defer U.S. taxes on overseas income from specific types of financial transactions—are simply giveaways to some of America’s largest corporations. (There’s a reason why keeping this provision around is a “top lobbying priority for companies such as GE and JP Morgan.”) Meanwhile, other tax extenders seem to benefit society—such as the provision that lets teachers deduct $250 worth of school supplies they buy for their classrooms with their own money—but these are regressive, and could better accomplish their goals (in this case, decreasing the cost of school supplies as borne by teachers) outside of the tax code (say, by giving more money directly to schools). For still other provisions, like the ones that benefit thoroughbred racehorse owners or Puerto Rican rum distillers, the punchlines just about write themselves. And because the extenders would go into effect retroactively, it’s hard to claim they’re helping incentivize any particular desired behavior.
College Completion: Why Getting Kids in the Door Isn’t Enough
As we enter graduation season, the media will get flooded with stories of labor market prospects of young people, college graduates, and of course, student debt. EPI will do its fair share of flooding (with a 2014 update to our Class of 2013 paper), but one aspect that often gets overlooked are those who have started college but will never graduate. Young adults with some college but no degree are stuck in a catch-22, without the better employment opportunities and wage increases that comes with a college degree, but with a similar mountain of student debt. The number of people that fail to complete college—and the burdens this places on them—is one of the most corrosive aspects of the higher education system.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently released new data from their National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, a survey that follows women and men born between 1980 and 1984 in an effort to provide long-term information on the employment experiences and educational attainment of young people. The educational makeup of young adults by the time they are 27 is such: 28.1 percent have a college degree, 25.5 percent have a high school degree or equivalent with no further education, and 8.7 percent have not finished high school. That leaves nearly 40 percent of young adults who have some college education by age 27 (this includes individuals with an associate’s degree or any enrollment in college after high school). Put another way, of the 66 percent of young adults who began college, 37.5 haven’t completed their degree by age 27.
While it’s encouraging to see that more young adults are getting their foot in the door at colleges, you need to graduate to reap the higher wages of a college degree. This is seen most obviously in the entry-level wages young adults. Currently, entry-level college graduates (age 23-29) make $20 an hour, while young adults with some college (ages 21-27) make $12 an hour. An hourly wage of $12 is much closer to high school graduates’ wages of $10 an hour than to the wages of their college graduated peers.
What To Watch On Jobs Day: Returning to Pre-recession Employment in the Private Sector is Not That Great
Total employment in the U.S. labor market is currently more than 600,000 jobs below where it was when the Great Recession officially started in December 2007, and it likely won’t surpass its December 2007 level for several months.
But private sector employment is another story. The private sector is currently “only” 126,000 jobs below where it was when the Great Recession started, which means it is poised to surpass its pre-recession peak when the March jobs numbers are released on Friday.
That makes this a good time to note that re-attaining pre-recession employment levels is a pretty meaningless benchmark economically. Because the working-age population (and with it, the potential labor force) is growing all the time, the private sector should have added millions of jobs over the last six-plus years just to hold steady. That means that even when the pre-recession employment level is re-attained, there will still be a huge jobs gap. Every month when the employment numbers are released, we update the total gap in the labor market (which includes both the public and private sector). The figure below shows that gap just for the private sector, with a current shortfall of 5.9 million jobs. When the March numbers are released on Friday, that gap may drop to 5.8 or even 5.7 million, but we are still far, far from healthy labor market conditions.
Unemployment, Schools, Wages, and the Mythical Skills Gap
Conventional wisdom holds that the American workforce lacks the specialized skills that employers are looking for, and that this “skills gap” is the main, if not the only, explanation for our persistently high unemployment rate—especially our long-term unemployment rate. Paul Krugman helpfully exploded this idea in his New York Times column on Monday, making these key points:
- The ratio of unfilled jobs to unemployed workers today is quite low by historical standards. There are always unfilled jobs, because workers leave and employers have not yet had time or opportunity to hire replacements. This is a frictional, not structural, phenomenon. There are very few, if any, jobs today that remain unfilled because employers cannot find workers with the needed skills.
- Today’s long term unemployed have skills comparable to those of recently laid-off workers “who quickly find new jobs.” The long-term unemployed face a shortage of demand for their labor, not skill requirements beyond their education and training.
- If there really were a skills shortage, we would expect to see wages increasing in job categories where skills are allegedly in short supply. But such wages are not increasing.
Nor have wages increased for quite a while. It is especially telling that wages of college graduates, not just those of non-college educated workers, have been flat for a decade, and that young college graduates have been faring poorly, even prior to the 2008 recession. According to a recent report of the New York Federal Reserve Board, the percentage of recent college graduates “who are unemployed or ‘underemployed’—working in a job that typically does not require a bachelor’s degree—has risen, particularly since the 2001 recession. Moreover, the quality of the jobs held by the underemployed has declined, with today’s recent graduates increasingly accepting low-wage jobs or working part-time.” In other words, “skills gaps” are responsible for neither our unemployment problems nor our wage problems.
How Severe Are the Ryan Budget’s Spending Cuts?
In a post last month I compared nondefense discretionary spending (NDD) in three budget proposals: the Murray/Ryan budget deal, the administration’s budget, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus’s (CPC) budget. Nondefense discretionary spending is the part of the budget containing much of our spending on infrastructure, education, and public research and development—the part concerned with investments in the future.
House Budget Committee chair Paul Ryan released the House GOP fiscal year 2015 budget proposal today. The chart below shows nondefense discretionary spending as a percent of GDP in FY2007 (the year before the onset of the Great Recession) as a historical comparison to the various budget proposals.
For FY2015, the House GOP budget would adhere to the Murray/Ryan budget deal with NDD equivalent to 2.7 percent of GDP; the president’s NDD proposal is slightly higher at 2.8 percent of GDP and the CPC’s would be 3.8 percent of GDP. However, beginning in FY2016, the House GOP proposes to start slashing NDD spending. By FY2024 they propose that NDD spending shrink to 1.7 percent of GDP—almost half of what it was in 2007, and half of what it was during the Reagan Administration.
By Ignoring Economic Reality, Ryan Budget Would Slow Recovery, Cost Jobs
Earlier today, House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) unveiled the House Republicans’ fiscal year 2015 budget resolution. Like Chairman Ryan’s FY14 budget, this year’s model (again called “The Path to Prosperity”) aims to balance the budget within a decade—an economically nonsensical goal during a slow recovery, and one that requires damaging austerity to achieve.
In many respects, the austerity Chairman Ryan calls for this year is even more painful than in previous years. This is because Ryan is stubbornly hanging on to his goal of balancing the budget amid changing economic and political conditions, including a downward revision of $1 trillion in projected revenues over ten years and a deal he made with Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) to not change discretionary spending levels in FY15 (creating the need for more draconian cuts throughout the ten-year “budget window”), as well as an unbending refusal to increase revenues.
Five years after the end of the Great Recession, our economic recovery is plodding, not because of massive deficits (which are not currently massive—they have fallen faster than at any point in the last 60 years), but due to a lack of aggregate demand. In a demand-starved economy like ours, public spending has a high multiplier effect, meaning that for each dollar the government spends, more than a dollar is added to the economy. This is especially true when that public spending is allocated in such a way that it can circulate quickly throughout the economy—for example, through low-income support programs (which are automatic stabilizers) or infrastructure investments that would create jobs rapidly.
For that reason, pulling back spending in today’s economic environment, as Chairman Ryan proposes, would have a deleterious effect on the economy and jobs. On net, I estimate that the House budget resolution would decrease GDP by 0.9 percent and decrease nonfarm payrolls by 1.1 million jobs in fiscal year 2015, relative to CBO’s current-law baseline. The following fiscal year, when Ryan’s cuts to discretionary spending kick in, “The Path to Prosperity” would decrease GDP by 2.5 percent and cost 3.0 million jobs. And if the recovery remains sluggish, large job losses could continue under the Ryan budget in 2017 and beyond.