6月初发布的美国就业市场报告所带来的冲击,仍在经济界、政治界和金融市场中蔓延。
就业人口增加250万人和失业率下降(尽管失业率依旧高达13.3%),使人们认为这两个指标会继续恶化的预期落空。
除了经济学家们的预测失败以外,就业报告中还引发了其他许多问题,比如怎样与失业救济申领数据统一起来,因为数据显示失业救济申领人数新增约900万人,再比如如何看待劳工部的重复数据收集问题,以及联邦薪资保护计划到底拯救了多少就业。
下文解答了其中部分问题:
等等,实际失业率真的只有16%?
有可能。按照美国劳工统计局所说,调查人员把约500万没有工作的人错误分类为就业人口,而不是暂时失业人员。如果将这些人也划为失业人口,失业率在未调整基础上将提高约3个百分点,或者达到16%左右。
4月的就业报告称,失业率可能提高约5个百分点,或接近20%。所以,5月的失业率下降和实际(非官方)失业率都高于两个月的官方数据,这两种说法都是正确的。
就业报告显示,美国有2,100万失业人口,但每周失业救济申领报告称,所有计划中持续申领失业救济的人数为3,000万人。到底出了什么问题?
失业人数实际上并非2,100万,尽管这是官方公布的数据。求职网站Indeed的经济研究总监尼克·邦克表示,如果根据上文所述的被错误分类的人数进行调整,实际失业人数应该更接近2,600万或2,700万。
这与申领失业经济的3,000万人相比依旧相差了300万或400万人。这部分缺口又该如何解释?
有许多种可能性。
首先,许多州取消了只有正在找工作的人才符合申领失业救济的资格这一要求。但对于没有在找工作的人,劳工统计局通常不会将他们视为失业人口,而是视为“非劳动人口”,这个群体比疫情之前增加了670万人。被临时裁员后可能被回聘的员工,被视为失业人员,无论他们是否正在求职。
密歇根大学(University of Michigan)经济学家、前美国劳工部首席经济学家贝齐·史蒂文森认为,另外一个潜在的原因是,许多自雇人士和零工人员没有工作,领取联邦政府新推出的疫情失业援助救济,截至5月16日的一周内,该群体共有1,070万人,但这些人也没有被归入失业人口。
史蒂文森说:“我们很难确定劳工统计局的调查中如何界定这个群体的身份,但我会将他们视为临时失业者。劳工统计局的调查显示失业率下降,按照调查中的数据,我猜测这1,070万人中,许多人没有被视为失业人口。”
有没有可能劳工统计局的调查不具有充分的代表性?
有可能。虽然机构调查(形成就业人口数据)和家庭调查的回复率都低于疫情之前的水平,但劳工统计局称,这两项调查的准确性和可靠度都符合标准。
史蒂文森依旧认为,低回复率“可能产生问题,因为这两种调查不太可能从缺失的人群中随机抽样。如果人们存在数据上无法体现的重要差异,劳工统计局不可能对他们做出充分的补偿。”
ADP的报告称企业裁员280万,它的数据是否准确?
许多经济学家根据该薪酬服务公司的客户记录,认为ADP的数据用来预测政府的就业报告并不可靠。政府的就业报告通常比ADP的报告晚两天发布。但Moody’s Analytics的首席经济学家马克·扎蒂却认为,ADP的数据实际上比劳工统计局的数据更能代表截至劳工统计局调查周的5月就业市场的真实情况。ADP报告由Moody’s Analytics编制。
事实上,美联储(Federal Reserve)在2019年的研究报告发现,将劳工统计局的就业数据和ADP报告中的一系列数据相结合,更接近实际就业状况。所以,5月的实际就业状况可能在ADP和劳工统计局的数据之间。
那么5月就业市场的真实情况如何?
假设劳工统计局的数据代表了现实情况,5月可能发生了这两件事:异常多的人被回聘或录用,同时也有异常多的人失业,只是其数量少于重新就业的人数。
美国前总统巴拉克·奥巴马任命的前劳工统计局局长埃瑞卡·格罗森表示:“我们看到失业率高的惊人。”
经济学家们可能低估了薪资保护计划下重返就业岗位的人数。小企业团体全国独立企业联盟(National Federation of Independent Business)的研究与政策分析总监霍利·韦德表示,5月中旬的会员企业调查发现,73%的企业因为薪资保护计划返聘或留住了员工。
格罗森还警告称,每周失业救济申领人数来自美国劳工部下属的另外一个部门,这个数据虽然也有一定的意义,但并不能作为一个指标,与劳工统计局的每月就业调查数据直接对比。
无论如何,虽然5月的就业市场有所好转,但失业率依旧高居不下,这仍然是大衰退以来的最高水平,而且经济活力也无法恢复到疫情之前的水平。
Indeed网站的邦克说:“美国就业市场虽然在经过疫情冲击之后有反弹的迹象,但依旧不容乐观。”(财富中文网)
译者:Biz
6月初发布的美国就业市场报告所带来的冲击,仍在经济界、政治界和金融市场中蔓延。
就业人口增加250万人和失业率下降(尽管失业率依旧高达13.3%),使人们认为这两个指标会继续恶化的预期落空。
除了经济学家们的预测失败以外,就业报告中还引发了其他许多问题,比如怎样与失业救济申领数据统一起来,因为数据显示失业救济申领人数新增约900万人,再比如如何看待劳工部的重复数据收集问题,以及联邦薪资保护计划到底拯救了多少就业。
下文解答了其中部分问题:
等等,实际失业率真的只有16%?
有可能。按照美国劳工统计局所说,调查人员把约500万没有工作的人错误分类为就业人口,而不是暂时失业人员。如果将这些人也划为失业人口,失业率在未调整基础上将提高约3个百分点,或者达到16%左右。
4月的就业报告称,失业率可能提高约5个百分点,或接近20%。所以,5月的失业率下降和实际(非官方)失业率都高于两个月的官方数据,这两种说法都是正确的。
就业报告显示,美国有2,100万失业人口,但每周失业救济申领报告称,所有计划中持续申领失业救济的人数为3,000万人。到底出了什么问题?
失业人数实际上并非2,100万,尽管这是官方公布的数据。求职网站Indeed的经济研究总监尼克·邦克表示,如果根据上文所述的被错误分类的人数进行调整,实际失业人数应该更接近2,600万或2,700万。
这与申领失业经济的3,000万人相比依旧相差了300万或400万人。这部分缺口又该如何解释?
有许多种可能性。
首先,许多州取消了只有正在找工作的人才符合申领失业救济的资格这一要求。但对于没有在找工作的人,劳工统计局通常不会将他们视为失业人口,而是视为“非劳动人口”,这个群体比疫情之前增加了670万人。被临时裁员后可能被回聘的员工,被视为失业人员,无论他们是否正在求职。
密歇根大学(University of Michigan)经济学家、前美国劳工部首席经济学家贝齐·史蒂文森认为,另外一个潜在的原因是,许多自雇人士和零工人员没有工作,领取联邦政府新推出的疫情失业援助救济,截至5月16日的一周内,该群体共有1,070万人,但这些人也没有被归入失业人口。
史蒂文森说:“我们很难确定劳工统计局的调查中如何界定这个群体的身份,但我会将他们视为临时失业者。劳工统计局的调查显示失业率下降,按照调查中的数据,我猜测这1,070万人中,许多人没有被视为失业人口。”
有没有可能劳工统计局的调查不具有充分的代表性?
有可能。虽然机构调查(形成就业人口数据)和家庭调查的回复率都低于疫情之前的水平,但劳工统计局称,这两项调查的准确性和可靠度都符合标准。
史蒂文森依旧认为,低回复率“可能产生问题,因为这两种调查不太可能从缺失的人群中随机抽样。如果人们存在数据上无法体现的重要差异,劳工统计局不可能对他们做出充分的补偿。”
ADP的报告称企业裁员280万,它的数据是否准确?
许多经济学家根据该薪酬服务公司的客户记录,认为ADP的数据用来预测政府的就业报告并不可靠。政府的就业报告通常比ADP的报告晚两天发布。但Moody’s Analytics的首席经济学家马克·扎蒂却认为,ADP的数据实际上比劳工统计局的数据更能代表截至劳工统计局调查周的5月就业市场的真实情况。ADP报告由Moody’s Analytics编制。
事实上,美联储(Federal Reserve)在2019年的研究报告发现,将劳工统计局的就业数据和ADP报告中的一系列数据相结合,更接近实际就业状况。所以,5月的实际就业状况可能在ADP和劳工统计局的数据之间。
那么5月就业市场的真实情况如何?
假设劳工统计局的数据代表了现实情况,5月可能发生了这两件事:异常多的人被回聘或录用,同时也有异常多的人失业,只是其数量少于重新就业的人数。
美国前总统巴拉克·奥巴马任命的前劳工统计局局长埃瑞卡·格罗森表示:“我们看到失业率高的惊人。”
经济学家们可能低估了薪资保护计划下重返就业岗位的人数。小企业团体全国独立企业联盟(National Federation of Independent Business)的研究与政策分析总监霍利·韦德表示,5月中旬的会员企业调查发现,73%的企业因为薪资保护计划返聘或留住了员工。
格罗森还警告称,每周失业救济申领人数来自美国劳工部下属的另外一个部门,这个数据虽然也有一定的意义,但并不能作为一个指标,与劳工统计局的每月就业调查数据直接对比。
无论如何,虽然5月的就业市场有所好转,但失业率依旧高居不下,这仍然是大衰退以来的最高水平,而且经济活力也无法恢复到疫情之前的水平。
Indeed网站的邦克说:“美国就业市场虽然在经过疫情冲击之后有反弹的迹象,但依旧不容乐观。”(财富中文网)
译者:Biz
The shock of Friday’s U.S. jobs report is still rippling through economic circles, politics and financial markets.
The 2.5 million increase in payrolls and decline in the unemployment rate—albeit to a still-sky-high 13.3%—confounded expectations for another sharp deterioration in both measures.
Beyond how economists flubbed the forecasts, the report has spurred many other questions, from how to reconcile the figures with jobless-claims numbers showing about 9 million more claiming unemployment insurance benefits, to what to make of a recurring data-collection issue by the Labor Department, to how many jobs the federal Paycheck Protection Program actually saved.
Below, we try to answer some of these questions:
Wait, so is the real unemployment rate 16%?
Kind of. As the Bureau of Labor Statistics detailed, survey-takers misclassified a lot of people—around 5 million—as employed but absent from work, rather than unemployed on temporary layoff. If you counted those people as unemployed, the jobless rate would have been about 3 percentage points higher on an unadjusted basis -- or about 16%.
The April report said the unemployment rate would have been almost 5 percentage points higher—or approaching 20%. So both of these statements are true: the rate fell in May, and the real (unofficial) unemployment rate was higher than the given figure in both months.
The jobs report showed 21 million Americans unemployed, but the weekly jobless claims report said 30 million are claiming continuing unemployment benefits in all programs. What gives?
It’s not actually 21 million, even though that’s the official number. If you adjust the figures for the misclassification detailed above, the true number of unemployed is closer to 26 million or 27 million, according to Nick Bunker, an economic research director for the jobs website Indeed.
OK, so we’re still off by 3 million or 4 million. What explains the rest of the gap?
There are several possibilities.
First, many states have waived the requirement that one be searching for work to be eligible for unemployment benefits. Yet, if people aren’t searching for work, the BLS doesn’t typically count them as unemployed—instead they’re considered “not in labor force,” with such outsiders still numbering 6.7 million people more than before the pandemic. Workers expecting to be recalled from temporary layoff are counted as unemployed whether or not they have engaged in a specific job-seeking activity.
Another potential culprit is that many of the self-employed and gig workers who are out of work and on the new federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance benefits—10.7 million people as of the week ended May 16—are being classified as something other than unemployed, according to Betsey Stevenson, a University of Michigan economist and former U.S. Labor Department chief economist.
“It’s difficult to say how they would be coded in the BLS survey, but I would count them as on temporary layoff,” Stevenson said. “But given the drop in unemployment and the numbers that the BLS survey is capturing, my guess is that many of the 10.7 million were not counted as unemployed.”
Is it possible that the BLS survey wasn’t fully representative of the population?
Yes. While it’s true that the response rates for both the establishment survey—which produces the payroll number—and the household surveys were lower than their pre-pandemic levels, the BLS said both surveys met standards for accuracy and reliability.
Still, Stevenson said the low response rates “could cause problems because they are unlikely to be a random sample of people who are missing. If they are different in important ways that aren’t visible in the data, then the BLS would not have been able to adequately compensate for them.”
What about the ADP report, which said businesses cut 2.8 million jobs?
Many economists discount the ADP figures—based on the payroll company’s customer records—as an unreliable predictor of the government’s jobs report, typically coming two days later. But Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, which compiles the ADP report, said the ADP number actually provides a better representation of the reality of the May job market as of the BLS survey week than the BLS number itself.
In fact, a Federal Reserve research paper from 2019 found that pooling the BLS payroll numbers and a series derived from ADP could come closer to the true state of employment. So it’s possible that the truth for May was somewhere in between the ADP and BLS numbers.
So, what really happened in the labor market in May?
Probably two things, assuming the BLS’s snapshot matches reality: an unusually large number of people being recalled or hired, and an unusually large—but smaller—number of people losing their jobs.
“We saw a tremendous amount of churn,” said Erica Groshen, a former BLS commissioner appointed by President Barack Obama.
Economists may have in particular underestimated the number of people rehired under the PPP aid program. Holly Wade, director of research and policy analysis at the small-business group National Federation of Independent Business, said a mid-May survey of members found that 73% said they rehired or retained workers specifically due to PPP.
Groshen also cautioned that the weekly jobless claims figures produced by a different agency in the U.S. Labor Department, while relevant, aren’t necessarily directly comparable as an indicator with the monthly employment surveys produced by the BLS.
In any case, even with some improvement in May, the unemployment rate remains extremely high—much higher than any rate seen in the Great Recession—and economic activity is nowhere close to where it was pre-pandemic.
“The U.S. labor market, while showing some signs of bouncing back from the coronavirus shock, is still in a pretty dire spot,” Indeed’s Bunker said.