One final visual look at the Employment situation that’s worth looking at: The chart below shows the recession decrease in Employment from the peak of NFP per Household:



Chart Courtesy Spencer England Equity Review (SEER).


Spencer England points out when showing employment in cycles (like the prior few charts) it is preferred to index the numbers to a comparable scale to reflect labor force growth rather than in thousands.

Category: Data Analysis, Employment

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

5 Responses to “Household Employment from Peak”

  1. James says:

    Absolutely, changes in the size of the employment force must be factored in. Also, it would
    be interesting to see comparisons when U6 data is included, at least where that data existed. Finally,
    also not factored in – and a growing trend – are those who are considered “fully employed” but have been furloughed. Without this the unemployment numbers would certainly increase. We’re seeing a lot of this in California government. Here in King County, Washington, most county employees have been furloughed for 10 days in 2009- one two week pay check.

  2. Todd says:

    With the rate of decline, and expected slow recovery, It might take 6 years or more to reach peak.

    Another thought:
    You know how MSM promotes a Boomer turns 50 every second back in the 90′s, then a boomer turns 60 every second in 00′s. We’ll be approaching a boomer reaches SS full benefits in 2-3 years. If the boomers start dropping out of the workforce at any significant rate, it could be a long time before we see employment getting back to 100.

  3. DoctoRx says:

    This is the first consumer recession since 1990-91. Thus the carnage in consumer-related “stuff” makes sense.
    Adding in a synchronized global recession harming exports gives a double-barreled shot. The 2008 recession began 7 years after the 2001 capital goods recession, so there were plenty of excesses just in those 7 years to work off. So much of life is cyclical. If we pull together and follow Barry’s advice above to preserve the system but remember that what are being called “banks” in this debate are very large holding companies that own as part of their holdings depository institutions (real banks), then we won’t cry if the holding companies vanish.

  4. RogerB says:

    I would agree with Spencer England’s comment to view employment data in index form in order to address the scaling issue. That said, I quibble with their presentation for two reasons: (1) starting the current recession’s index at Dec 2007 introduces a seasonality bias, (2) averages mask the interesting cyclical and secular dynamics of each individual recession – they are not all the same.

    I offer the following images (links) as an alternative perspective. This is hardly an exhaustive or conclusive statement on the nature of this recession – that will only be determined in hindsight.

    Both images show the BLS Employment Level (NSA) data indexed to the month of peak employment for each of the identified periods – typically this occurs in the summer. To align the calendar time all indexes start in July of the respective years. The monthly count is the duration from July. (So month 6 = January of the next year, etc.) The black line shows the current cycle.

    There appears to be two ways to view the data.

    (1) Stick with the “official” recession start of December 2007; mark the current index starting at July 2007 (Jul07 = 100).

    - Using July 2007 as the starting point suggests, mid-2007 to 2008 followed a shallow employment recession similar to 2001. But the 2001/02 cycle stayed shallow and recovered to par (100) at the 24 month mark.
    - The current cycle is reaching similar deeps of relative employment loss at the 18 month mark as the cycles starting in 1948, 1953 and 1981. However, it should be noted that these levels were essentially flat from the previous winter period. No previous cycle had a significantly lower trough in the 18 month mark as compared to the month 6 mark. This appears unique to the current cycle, if we stick to this count.

    (2) The alternative view is to ignore 2007 and start the employment index at Jul 2008 (i.e. effective peak employment date)

    - Using July 2008 as the head of the index results in a employment cycle that aligns with the recession cycles of 1948, 1953, 1960, 1974, 1981. Before anyone cheers this alignment, note that it implies a shifting of the recession’s inception to a later date. It therefore suggests that the employment levels will be flat at best for the next year (into winter 2010) and that reaching par (100) could take up to three years (as with the 1990 cycle) until 2011.

    PS. Kudos on the blog.