Tag: Prime-age workers

Another Employment Report Consistent with a Soft Landing

Photo courtesy of Lena Buonanno.

In recent months, the macroeconomic data has generally been consistent with the Federal Reserve successfully bringing about a soft landing: Inflation returning to the Fed’s 2 percent target without the economy entering a recession. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest Employment Situation Report, released on the morning of Friday, December 8,  was consistent with this trend. (The full report can be found here.)

Economists and policymakers—notably including the members of the Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)—typically focus on the change in total nonfarm payroll employment as recorded in the establishment, or payroll, survey. That number gives what is generally considered to be the best gauge of the current state of the labor market.

The report indicated that during November there had been a net increase of 199,000 jobs.  This number was somewhat above the expected gain of 153,000 jobs Reuters news service reported from its survey of economists and just slightly above an expected gain of 190,000 jobs the Wall Street Journal reported from a separate survey of economists. The BLS revised downward by 35,000 jobs its previous estimate for September. It left its estimate for October unchanged.  The following figure from the report shows the net increase in jobs each month since November 2021.

Because the BLS often substantially revises its preliminary estimates of employment from the establishment survey, it’s important not to overinterpret data for a single month or even for a few months. But general trends in the data can give useful information on changes in the state of the labor market. The estimate for November is the fourth time in the past six months that employment has increased by less than 200,000. Prior to that, employment had increased by more than 200,000 every month since January 2021.

Although the rate of job increases is slowing, it’s still above the rate at which new entrants enter the labor market, which is estimated to be roughly 90,000 people per month. The additional jobs are being filled in part by increased employment among people aged 25 to 54—so-called prime-age workers. (We discuss the employment-population ratio in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1, Economics, Chapter 19, Section 9.1, and Essentials of Economics, Chapter 13, Section 13.1.) As the following figure shows, the employment-population ratio for prime-age workers remains above its level in early 2020, just before the spread of the Covid–19 pandemic in the United States.

The estimated unemployment rate, which is collected in the household survey, was down slightly from 3.9 percent to 3.7 percent. A shown in the following figure, the unemployment rate has been below 4 percent every month since February 2022.

The Employment Situation Report also presents data on wages, as measured by average hourly earnings. The growth rate of average hourly earnings, measured as the percentage change from the same month in the previous year, continued its gradual decline, as shown in the following figure. As a result, upward pressure on prices from rising labor costs is easing. (Keep in mind, though, as we note in this blog post, changes in average hourly earnings have shortcomings as a measure of changes in the costs of labor to businesses.)

Taken together, the data in the latest employment report indicate that the labor market is becoming less tight, reflecting a gradual slowing in U.S. economic growth. The data are consistent with the U.S. economy approaching a soft landing. It’s still worth bearing in mind, of course, that, as Fed Chair Jerome Powell continues to caution, there’s no certainty that inflation won’t surge again or that the U.S. economy won’t enter a recession.

Glenn, Harry Holzer, and Michael Strain Analyze the Effect of Changes in Unemployment Benefits during the Pandemic

A job fair in Jackson, Mississippi (photo from the Associated Press)

As part of the Social Security Act of 1935,Congress created the unemployment insurance program to make payments to unemployed workers. The program run jointly by the federal government and the state governments. It’s financed primarily by state and federal taxes on employers. States are allowed to determine which workers are eligible, the dollar amount of the unemployment benefit workers will receive, and for how long workers will receive the benefit. 

 What’s the purpose of the unemployment insurance program? A document published the U.S. Department of Labor explains that: “Unemployment compensation is a social insurance program. It is designed to provide benefits to most individuals out of work, generally through no fault of their own, for periods between jobs…. [Unemployment compensation] ensures that a significant proportion of the necessities of life can be met on a week-to-week basis while a search for work takes place.”

But the same document also notes that unemployment compensation “maintains [unemployed workers’] purchasing power which also acts as an economic stabilizer in times of economic downturn.” By “economic stabilizer,” the Department of Labor is noting that unemployment compensation is what in Macroeconomics, Chapter 16, Section 16.1 (Economics, Chapter 26, Section 26.1) we call an automatic stabilizer. An automatic stabilizer is a government spending or taxing program that automatically increases or decreases along with the business cycle.  

As shown in the following figure, when the economy enters a recession, the total amount of unemployment compensation payments increases without the federal government or the state governments having to take any action because eligibility for the payments is already defined in existing law. So, during a recession, the unemployment insurance program helps to keep aggregate demand higher than it would otherwise be, which can lessen the severity of the recession.  

As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.3 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.3), the unemployment insurance program can have an unintended effect. The higher the unemployment insurance payment a worker receives and the longer the worker receives it, the more likely the worker is to delay searching for another job. In other words, by reducing the opportunity cost of being unemployed, unemployment insurance benefits may unintentionally increase the length of unemployment spells—the amount of time the typical worker is unemployed. 

During and immediately after the 2020 recession, the federal government increased the dollar amount of the unemployment insurance payments that workers received and extended the number of months workers could continue to receive these payments.  Under the American Rescue Plan, a law which President Biden proposed and Congress passed in March 2021, workers receiving unemployment insurance benefits received an additional $300 weekly from March 2021 until September 6, 2021. Also, under the law, people, such as the self-employed and gig workers, would receive unemployment insurance benefits even though they had previously been ineligible to receive them. (Note the resulting spike during this period in the total dollar amount of unemployment insurance benefits as shown in the above figure.)

Some state governments were concerned that the extended benefits might cause some workers to delay taking jobs, thereby slowing the recovery of these states’ economies from the effects of the pandemic. Accordingly, 18 states stopped participating in the programs in June 2021, meaning that at that time unemployed workers would no longer receive the extra $300 per week and workers who prior to March 2021 hadn’t been eligible to receive unemployment benefits would again be ineligible.

Were unemployed workers in the states that ended the expanded unemployment insurance benefits in June more likely to become employed than were unemployed workers in states that continued the expanded benefits into September? On the one hand, ending the expanded benefits would increase the opportunity cost of not having a job. But, on the other hand, because government payments to workers would decline in these states, the result could be a decline in consumer spending that would decrease the demand for labor.  Which of these effects was larger would determine whether employment increased or decreased in the states that ended expanded unemployment benefits early.

Glenn, along with Harry Holzer of Georgetown University and Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute, carried out an econometric analysis to explore the effects ending expanded unemployment benefits early had on the labor markets in those states.  They find that:

  1. Among unemployed workers ages 25 to 54 (“prime-age workers”), ending the expanded unemployment benefit program increased the number of workers in those states who moved from being unemployed to being employed by 14 percentage points.
  2. Among prime-age workers, the employment-to-population ratio in those states increased by about 1 percentage point.
  3. Among prime-age workers, the unemployment rate in those stated decreased by about 0.9 percentage point.

These estimates indicate that the effect of ending the expanded unemployment benefit program raised the opportunity cost of being unemployed more than it decreased the demand for labor by reducing the incomes of some household. But what about the larger question of whether households were made better or worse off as a result of ending the program early? The authors find that ending the program early decreased the share of households that had no difficulty meeting expenses. They, therefore, conclude that the effects on household well-being of ending the program early are ambiguous. 

The paper presenting these results can be found here. Warning! The econometric analysis is quite technical.