Unemployment: France, Germany -- November 11, 2024

Locator: 48737EU.

France: 

Germany:

Two North Dakota Cities, #1 and #2, Lowest Unemployment In The United States

From Midland, Texas, comes this news: Lowest unemployment rates in the nation with two cities in North Dakota in #1 and #2 spots.

Bismarck, N.D. 2.3
Fargo, N.D. 2.6
Ames, Iowa 2.7
Iowa City, Iowa 2.8
Lincoln, Neb. 2.9
Logan, Utah 2.9
Sioux Falls, S.D. 2.9 -- I always find this interesting
Midland, TX 2.9 -- the third oil play (after the Bakken and the Eagle Ford)

It's easy to think that the unemployment rate in Bismack/Fargo is due to the Bakken, but obviously the Bakken does not explain the Iowa, South Dakota, or Nebraska cities. Obviously there is something else at work here.  I have a hunch that would connect three dots but I've learned that everyone has an opinion on these sorts of things, so not much use in more idle chatter.

The Fed: Reading The Tea Leaves; The New Normal; Unemployment, Jobs

The new normal: 6.5% unemployment.

Before the Great Recession: never exceeded 5%.

While the Federal Reserve has set its benchmark at 6.5 percent, that is significantly higher than the unemployment rate in the year before the start of the Great Recession, which never exceeded 5 percent. Returning to pre-recession normal will necessarily take even longer.

The Fed has established a "new normal" for unemployment: 6.5%. 

How long will it take to get back to pre-recession employment numbers? Bottom line -- it appears the Fed feels that will "never" happen.

Between November, 2011, and November, 2012, the average number of jobs added each month: 220,000. At that rate, we get back to 6.5% in 2Q15.

Unemployment/full employment calculators here.

If the economy adds about 208,000 jobs per month, which was the average monthly rate for the best year of job creation in the 2000s, then it will take until August 2020 – or eight years – to close the jobs gap. Given a more optimistic rate of 321,000 jobs per month, which was the average monthly rate of the best year of job creation in the 1990s, the economy will reach pre-recession employment levels by December 2016 – not for another four years. 

Jobs gap, by state.

First-Time Unemployment Claims Increase; Breaks A 5-Week Streak

Just two days ago, I wrote about the unemployment picture getting worse.

Today it was reported that first-time unemployment claims increased last week for the first time in five weeks.

Initial claims for jobless aid rose by 12,000 to a seasonally adjusted 465,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. Many economists had expected a flat reading or small drop.

As usual, the standard line: the numbers surprised the analysts.

Initial claims for jobless aid rose by 12,000 to a seasonally adjusted 465,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. Many economists had expected a flat reading or small drop.

As Warren Buffett said this past week: we are still in a recession.

Monthly Unemployment Numbers -- Not Getting Better (August, 2010)

The job picture got worse in 27 states -- this is a worse report than last month. In fact it's much worse considering the recession ended last June (2009), and considering the number of states whose unemployment actually worsened.

A total of 27 states reported higher unemployment rates in August, nearly double the 14 that saw increases in July, the Labor Department said in its monthly report on state unemployment Tuesday.

North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska continue to report the lowest unemployment among the states.

And two of these three states have no oil.

And one of these three states has much less productive farmland than the other two. And no oil.

Getting back to the unemployment report: thirteen states now belong to the "10% club." Last month it was "only" eleven states.  The two new states to join the "10% or greater unemployment" are Kentucky and Georgia.

Nevada, Michigan, and California are #1, #2, and #3, respectively.

With regard to the "recession ending in June of last year, I am pretty much convinced, that within the strict definition of a recession (a decline in two or more consecutive quarters) we are headed for a second recession in the very near future or we are already back in a recession. Even if we don't hit the mark exactly (a decline in two or more consecutive quarters) the growth is going to be so anemic that for all practical purposes, it would be considered a recession by most folks. The GDP is reported out to tenth or hundredth percentage; I don't feel a change of a few tenths or hundredths of a percent is statistically significant nor reproducible. It's hard to convince me that the recession ended last June when GDP is graphed with inflation taken into account: this graph suggests an obvious downturn for the past two quarters. [Update, September 23, 2010: I must be in good company. Warren Buffett agrees -- we are still in a recession. And Congress deciding not to vote on extending tax cuts tells me the recession will get worse. It's as much psychological as anything, and businesses are very, very nervous; they won't hire.]

Politically, would it have been better for the recession not to have ended last June? To me, going forward, incumbents are faced with two equally bad situations: a) explaining to their constituents why 15% still don't have jobs when we are no longer in a recession; of, b) explaining why they let the US economy slip into another recession so soon after the most recent recession (the so-called "double dip").