Believe It Or Not, Our Jobless Rate Could Be Worse

The last several posts have explored why Rhode Island has such a high unemployment rate. As of February, 2012, we have regained the dubious national rank of #2. If you saw the February labor market data for Rhode Island, the one number that probably stuck out was that our state's unemployment rate returned to 11 percent from just below that level the prior month. As for good news, the local media seemed to focus primarily on the 500 gain in payroll employment (seasonally adjusted). Actually, don't be very confident that the 500 gain will survive the data revisions associated with the release of the March data.

Actually there was good news  in the February report -- our state's manufacturing sector continues to improve. Both manufacturing employment and the workweek rose, very positive signs. And, our state's manufacturing wage continued to increase at an almost 20 percent year-over-year rate, if you are willing to believe that data (I don't!). Apparently there continues to be some life in Rhode Island's goods-producing sector, in spite of continued housing weakness!

By now, you should be aware of how many ironies permeate the existing labor market data for Rhode Island. To say this state is idiosyncratic is an understatement. So, let's delve into even more possible "confusion," focusing on labor force participation here and how its bad news has ironically translated into less horrible news for our jobless rate.

A state's labor force participation rate is the percentage of its working-age population that is in its labor force. For just about every state except Rhode Island, the labor force participation rate is pro-cyclical, meaning it changes in the same direction as overall economic activity. During recoveries, the participation rate rises, as a larger proportion of the working-age population becomes part of the labor force. Similarly, during recessions, the participation rate tends to decline, as some persons stop actively seeking work, which excludes them from being counted as part of the labor force. The reason why I noted this behavior is sadly not true for Rhode Island can be seen very readily from the following graph of our state's labor force participation rate since 2009 (click to enlarge).

Based on my Current Conditions Index, Rhode Island's present recovery began in February of 2010. As the above chart shows, Rhode Island's labor force participation rate has been declining throughout almost this entire recovery! So much for a pro-cyclical participation rate. Keep in mind, however, our state's employment rate has also been falling for quite a while (see prior post).

The irony associated with our state's declining participation rate is that it has actually kept Rhode Island's unemployment rate lower than it would have been had our state's residents not continued to drop out of the labor force. This is the "bad news translating into less horrible news" I referred to above.

All of this leads to an obvious question: How much higher would Rhode Island's unemployment rate have been were it not for the "benefit" of our declining participation rate? In order to approximate this, I performed a quick econometric simulation, assuming that our participation had not been declining from its most recent peak in April of 2010. The results are not pretty, nor are they unexpected. The chart below compares the actual and simulated unemployment rates here since 2009 (click to enlarge if you have a strong stomach!).

Instead of having an 11 percent unemployment rate for February of 2012, my simulation produced a rate of 11.6 percent. In the above chart, note the divergences between actual and simulated unemployment rates since August of last year. About the only good thing that can be concluded from this chart is that the two series have gotten closer of late. That is hardly a source of comfort, however, especially since at an 11 percent rate, Rhode Island has a national rank of second overall.

In conclusion, is Rhode Island's declining labor force participation rate a major problem? Indeed it is. Not only is it the logical result of a truly deplorable labor market, where both payroll and resident employment have been falling on a year-over-year basis for quite some time now. It may single-handedly be preventing Rhode Island from reclaiming its prior title as the highest unemployment rate in the entire United States!

A Bird's Eye View of Why RI Has Such a High Unemployment Rate

In the last several posts I analyzed the historical behavior of the number of jobs in Rhode Island, payroll employment, and the number of Rhode Island residents who are employed, resident employment. As I noted, there are significant differences between these two data series, especially since they are obtained from two separate labor market surveys.

In this post, I will provide only one chart, but that chart will allow you to understand very readily why Rhode Island's unemployment is so high and why it hasn't been falling as one would expect during a recovery. Of course, as I was writing that last sentence, I realized that there is a distinct possibility that Rhode Island is no longer in a recovery, which I discussed in the last two posts. For now, I still haven't concluded that Rhode Island has actually entered a double-dip recession, so as far as I can tell, Rhode Island is clinging to its two-year old recovery by its finger nails. I guess this makes it fortunate that we didn't raise the sales tax on finger nail establishment services last year!

I want to focus on the employment rate for Rhode Island: the ratio of resident employment to the resident working-age population. Both of these series are derived from the household survey. Ideally, this ratio should rise during recoveries, as the number of employed residents rises as a proportion of the working-age population, and fall during recessions, as employed residents become a smaller proportion of the population. But this is Rhode Island -- we don't do things like everyone else!

The chart below shows the historical behavior of the employment rate for Rhode Island since January of 2000 (click to enlarge).

When Rhode Island's payroll employment peaked all the way back in December of 2006 (a full year before the US peak), our state's employment rate reached its maximum at just below 66 percent (0.66 in the chart). It has literally been all downhill since then.

Clearly, the serious recession we experienced brought about continuous large reductions in the proportion of our state's population that is employed. However, consistent with the charts from the previous two posts, Rhode Island's employment rate has been declining throughout this entire recovery! At the end of the last recession, around late 2009 into very early 2010, the employment rate actually recovered a bit, moving back to 60 percent. Ironically, since our current (?) recovery began in February of 2010, we have seen a clear downtrend in this ratio.


The inevitable consequence of the fact that an ever-smaller proportion of Rhode Island's population remains employed (our declining employment rate) has been a high unemployment rate that seems incapable of falling below 11 percent over any prolonged period of time.

There are several ironic elements in all of this. Recall that resident employment is not restricted to jobs in Rhode Island. It includes Rhode Island residents who work either in Rhode Island or in other places. That is significant at the present time since Massachusetts is doing so much better than Rhode Island is, as its jobless rate is one we can only fantasize about here. Also, resident employment includes self-employed persons, an element that often escapes from the other labor market survey. Positive out-of-state and self-employment should have been able to at least moderate if not reverse our declining employment rate by this point. Yet it hasn't.

To conclude, let me briefly cite the math that underlies a declining ratio. The fact that the employment rate, the ratio of resident employment to our working-age population, is falling through time means that in percentage terms, resident employment has been falling relative to our state's working-age population. It doesn't take much to figure out that this has played a central element in our state's high unemployment rate.

Just When You Thought Things Here Couldn't Get Worse!!

In the prior few posts, I outlined how badly Rhode Island's payroll employment has been performing of late. In fact, in the last post I raised the possibility that Rhode Island might actually have entered a double-dip recession. While this is a distinct possibility, I am not necessarily willing to embrace that conclusion -- yet. In this post, I will show the recent behavior of the "other" kind of employment: resident employment.

What makes life interesting for persons like myself who follow Rhode Island's economy is that the two employment series are derived from different surveys.

Payroll employment comes from the Current Employment Survey (CES) for the near-term results, which are estimates of the far-more inclusive Establishment Survey. Synchronizing the results of these two surveys, which occurs with the new January data each year, is called rebenchmarking. Think of payroll employment as the number of jobs in Rhode Island, as these data are derived from surveys of employers in this state.

Resident employment is obtained from the Household Survey, which as its name implies, is a survey of Rhode Island residents obtained from individual households in this state. Values of this series too are often revised along with the new January data each year.

There are several critical differences between these data series. First, resident employment includes the number of employed Rhode Island residents, no matter where they work, whether in Rhode Island or in other places. In addition to this, resident employment includes self-employed individuals, a very critical factor to track when the state of Rhode Island's economy is changing. These two factors are capable of causing large and significant divergences between payroll and resident employment.

You saw the recent behavior of payroll employment in the prior posts. It has deteriorated during the last six months. What about the behavior of resident employment? The chart below (click to enlarge) shows Resident Employment for Rhode Island since 2009.

There are several amazing features of this chart. First, note that when the current recovery for Rhode Island began in June of 2010, resident employment was actually falling! The level of "support" for resident employment here is just above 500,000. Support held until June of 2011, when resident employment dropped below 500k. What had been support then became "resistance." Resident employment recently made a run at the new resistance line of 500k, but that attempt failed. It has now been declining for the past few months. One thing should be clear from this chat, however: resident employment in Rhode Island has been on a very well-defined downtrend throughout this entire recovery. Now that's very strange! I have always noted how idiosyncratic Rhode Island's economy is, but this is a new one even for me. Wait, though, a further look at the data in this chart produces a truly amazing graph: year-over-year changes in resident employment:

This would be a very strong chart if we were to turn it upside down. Unfortunately it has the correct orientation. The bright moments for Rhode Island, then, the relatively small number of green bars that indicate year-over-year increases, occurred during the May through November of 2010 period. I guess it is safe to say that for Rhode Island: "Those were the "good old days."

What this rather scary chart reveals is that the factor dominating changes in the household survey for a number of years now has been Rhode Island's declining population. Remember, our state's population has been shrinking consistently since July of 2004  -- yet another dubious distinction for Rhode Island. The pace of economic activity here has helped at times, as have job prospects for our residents in Connecticut and Massachusetts. However, I have to conclude that what this chart really illustrates is the set of major structural negatives and problems facing Rhode Island. At present, are we really the "masters of our own fate?" Even if we are, there are serious questions about how much longer that status would remain intact.

A Long Look Back at the Number of Employed Rhode Islanders

There are actually two different measures of employment that get published each month, although reporting generally tends to focus only on one of these. The most-frequently followed number, payroll employment, measures the number of jobs in Rhode Island. The other measure, which I have commented on in several recent posts is resident employment -- the number of Rhode Islanders who are employed.

There are several major differences between these measures, and they don't always provide the same picture of how well our state's labor market is performing. The major difference is that these come from two separate surveys. Payroll employment is derived from the Current Employment Survey (CES) until those estimated values are eventually updated and linked to the much more inclusive sample, the Establishment Survey. The realigning of these, which occurs with the release of the January date each February, is called rebenchmarking. Resident employment is derived from the Household Survey. The unemployment rate and labor force also come from this survey. It too will see data revisions when the January data are released in a few weeks.

Two other differences are highly significant. The first of these is that resident employment includes the number of jobs held by Rhode Island residents, whether they work in Rhode Island or at other locations. So, persons working in other states are included in this measure. Second, self-employment is reflected in resident employment, but not in payroll employment.

Theoretically, payroll employment is considered to be the more reliable way to track employment, based primarily on the fact that it has a much larger sample (eventually -- the Establishment Survey). But resident employment matters a great deal for Rhode Island since we "rent" so many of our residents out to nearby states for their jobs, and small businesses are such a critical part of our state's economy. Since payroll employment gets so much attention here, often to the exclusion of resident employment, in this post I will take us all the way back to the late 1970s and view resident employment since that time period.

The chart below (click to enlarge) shows how much resident employment each month has changed from the same month in the previous year (i.e., the year-over-year change).

I have made a number of annotations in this chart. The first relates to the largest rise in resident employment over this entire time span, which occurred in May of 1984. Some of you will recall that 1984 was the last year that manufacturing employment actually rose in Rhode Island, which is reflected in that large spike.

Things went downhill after that, as Rhode Island's manufacturing era ended in late 1987, and we eventually reached our largest decline up to that point as the banking crisis unfolded in 1991 (we were also in a recession at that time). We finally began to regain our footing by 1995, as declines in resident employment finally ended and it moved to its highest increase since the end of the manufacturing era.

One of the most striking features of how resident employment has behaved since 1995 has to be that  our peak increases have continued to diminish through time. The dashed red line shows this as a line of "resistance" -- lower highs through time. As for declines, had it not been for "The Great Recession," our lows would have remained somewhat contained, at decreases of around 10,000 (some containment!!). I have labelled this as a "support" line. Ironically, Rhode Island's last trough occurred in March of 2009, just as the stock market was bottoming!

According to these data, our most recent peak increase, which occurred in 2010, was also below the level we observed when payroll employment (the other measure) reached its peak all the way back in December of 2006. At the present time, the available data show that resident employment continues to decline relative to year-earlier levels by alarmingly large amounts, around 7,000.

As bad as that sounds, there is very likely to be reason for hope in this. That is also the case for the data I didn't discuss here, payroll employment. Historically, when data are revised higher in a given year, as Rhode Island saw last year, revisions the following year result in worse numbers. So, history is against us. From my reading of the set of all the economic numbers for Rhode Island that I follow, I expect the revised labor market data this year to show that our state's labor market performance has actually been better than we had been led to believe based on the data available up to this point. I haven't had the time to explore the likely levels that these revisions should take, but the upward revisions to the national data released last Friday gives further impetus to my expectation of upward revision. 

So, remember the monthly decline of about 6,000 jobs (payroll employment) a few months ago? I expect it to soon be revised away. Lately, has resident employment been as bad as the existing data and above chart show? I seriously doubt it, especially since resident employment includes Rhode Islanders who work in other states such as Massachusetts that are doing a lot better than we are. We'll just have to wait a few weeks to wait and see the final data revisions. While I expect the labor market here to have been performing better than we though, I don't expect any wild and large upward revisions, so let's not get carried away! After all, direction and magnitude are not the same thing. Had employment here been much higher than we had thought, tax revenues at this point would have risen far beyond the actual levels we have observed.

It's Not Supposed to Be Like This!

Pardon the fact that I have not posted anything for a while, I switched from Cox Cable to FiOS (ready my post about issues I was having) and had to make all the required changes associated with this. Please note that my web site has now been moved to http://www.llardaro.com .

As sooooo many people here continue to summarize Rhode Island's overall economic performance by the recent behavior of its unemployment rate, the collective grasp of how well our state's economy is actually performing continues to slip farther and farther away from reality. 

Recent gains in payroll employment here, which have at times appeared to defy gravity, seem to contradict any hint of weakness, reinforcing the declining unemployment reflects economic strength view. You might think that these large monthly employment gains have been a potential source of confusion to me, as my Current Conditions Index has continued to show a slowing pace of economic activity in Rhode Island. But as of 2011, I have been following Rhode Island's economy for twenty years. Suffice it to say that along the way I have observed and come to know all too many patterns and data combinations that reflect the idiosyncrasies of Rhode Island's economy.

But one doesn't need all this experience to know that it is always preferable to focus on a set of indicators, not any one single variable, to gain an accurate picture of Rhode Island's economic performance. That, of course, was the basis for my creating the Current Conditions Index. And even for a single indicator like payroll employment, there are often several related measures worthy of observation. 

As I have discussed in prior posts, there are two measures of overall employment for Rhode Island. The first, which I have been alluding to above, is payroll employment, the number of jobs in Rhode Island. The second is resident employment, the number of Rhode Islander residents who are working, irrespective of whether this occurs in or outside of Rhode Island. One major difference between these is the inclusion of self-employed persons in resident employment. And that difference matters a great deal in the early stages of recoveries or at turning points for the economy. 

The chart below shows the recent behavior for both employment measures here (click to enlarge):

Note that the year-over-year rate of growth for resident employment peaked before the end of 2010 and has continued to decline, becoming ever-more negative, as 2011 progressed. For payroll employment there is a very different story: after moving to a positive rate of growth in the beginning of 2011, growth continued to accelerate through June. For July there was a modest slowing in growth, before plummeting to an almost 0% growth rate in August. So, was employment here really rising or falling recently?

RESULT #1: Regarding the recent behavior of payroll employment: POSITIVE MEASUREMENT ERROR COMETH BEFORE THE FALL. 

The dramatic-appearing run up in payroll employment should therefore be viewed as spurious, overstating payroll strength. In August, think of payroll employment figure as a "burp," expelling the measurement error that had accumulated in prior months.

Next, let's link the recent declines in Rhode Island's unemployment rate to changes in employment -- but the employment measure that is in the same survey it is -- the household survey (click to enlarge):

Shouldn't the unemployment rate only fall when employment is rising? While that certainly sounds reasonable and intuitive, it is not necessarily true. First, which measure of employment is this referring to? Second, since the beginning of 2011, Rhode Island's unemployment rate has been declining along with its resident employment. 

RESULT #2: THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE CAN DECLINE EVEN WHEN RESIDENT EMPLOYMENT IS FALLING.

Obviously, there must be another force at work for this to occur, one that is obviously not intuitive. That force is the behavior of our state's labor force, as the next graph shows (click to enlarge):

Rhode Island's labor force has been declining since early 2011, along with both resident employment and the number of unemployed. The fact that the number of unemployed has been declining, even though resident employment has also been falling, is what lies at the heart of the explanation of this strange seeming combination of changes.

The math of August's numbers can be obtained from the following table (data in thousands) (click to enlarge):

Compared to last August, the number of unemployed Rhode Islanders fell by 7,000. That's the good news. But while this was occurring, Rhode Island's labor force declined by 15,200, and its resident employment dropped by 8,200. The trick to understanding this is knowing how the ultimate change in the unemployment rate is determined: the percentage change in the unemployment rate (-7.8%) is approximately equal to the difference between the percentage changes in the number of unemployed (-10.5%) and the labor force (-2.6%).  To simplify this a bit: even though the number of employed Rhode Island residents declined compared to a year ago, in percentage terms, the fall in the number of unemployed was greater than the decline in the labor force. Also, note that while the fall in resident employment was a fairly large number  (8,200), in percentage terms, this was "only" a fall of 1.6 percent, far smaller than the drop in the number of unemployed.

Let me conclude by moving from the math of these calculations and show that in spite of these percentage changes and the way the unemployment rate is calculated, the August data show that a substantial number of Rhode Island's unemployed dropped out of the labor force, presumably as they were unable to obtain suitable employment. Make no mistake, however, the simultaneous and relatively large drop in resident employment is every bit as troubling as this, as it is reasonable to conclude from this rather rare trend that thousands of self-employed Rhode Islanders also "threw in the towel" on their business enterprises. Either way, this indicates that Rhode Island has entered a period of slower economic growth, which is entirely consistent with the recent behavior of my Current Conditions Index. 

RESULT #3: ALWAYS FOLLOW A SET OF ECONOMIC INDICATORS RATHER THAN A SINGLE ONE.

May 2011 Labor Market Data

The labor market data for May of 2011 have now been released. As always, Rhode Islanders and their media focused on the unchanged unemployment rate from April, 10.9%. And, in numerous stories, employment was described as "adding 1,300 jobs compared to April." If one goes behind the numbers, as I always do, there's a lot more going on, and as always, the jobs added figure that was reported was incorrect.

Perspective: I highly recommend that persons consider not just looking at data like this by focusing on the change from one month to the next (called month-to-month, or M/M). Very often it gets revised, so what we think happened this month ends up being changed, for better or worse, the next month. While it is useful (albeit fleeting) to look at month-to-month change, it is preferable to consider both what happened compared to a year ago (called year-over-year, or Y/Y) and the one-month change.

Unemployment Rate: Looking at Rhode Island's unchanged (M/M) unemployment rate in May, 10.9%, this was well below its level last May's value of 11.7%. However, our state's labor force fell over this period, by a number roughly equivalent to the decline in the number of unemployed. Conclusion: the "improvement" in our state's jobless rate from a year ago was largely due to unemployed Rhode Islanders dropping out of the labor force which statistically lead to their no longer being counted when the rate was calculated.

Another point I need to make concerns an extreme rarity that occurred with the May data. Unemployment data along with the number of working Rhode Island residents comes from the Household Survey. Forgive me as I provide the basic labor market identity:

LF = E + U

or Rhode Island's labor force (LF) for any period is the sum of the number employed of employed Rhode Islanders (E), referred to as resident employment, plus the number unemployed (U) Rhode Islanders. Here's the rare occurrence we witnessed with the monthly data (change from April to May of 2011):

Change in LF = -1,400

Change in E = -1,400

Change in U = -100

Obviously, there is rounding error here which should be overlooked. Here's the oddity: while our state's unemployment rate remained unchanged at 10.9%, there were 1,400 fewer Rhode Island residents employed (we'll overlook the change in U here). How and why would employed Rhode Islanders drop out of the labor force? It would be very easy to explain why unemployed persons would drop out -- lack of job opportunities. But employed??? The best explanation I can come up with is that a number of self-employed Rhode Islanders weren't doing so well and packed things in (literally). I guess they then went to a status where they opted not to look for work, leading to roughly similar declines in resident employment and the labor force. Will this oddity be present when the June data are released in a month? I wouldn't at all be surprised if it disappears!

Employment: As if all of this weren't confusing enough, there are actually two separate measures of employment. The first, presented above, from the household survey, is resident employment, the number of Rhode Islanders working, whether in Rhode Island or somewhere else. There is a second survey, the establishment survey, that counts the number of jobs in Rhode Island, or payroll employment. Unlike resident employment, this measure does not count self-employment. And, in order to compare adjacent months, the data must take seasonality into account, using seasonal adjustment.

Comparing month-to-month changes in employment, for resident employment, there was a decline of 1,400 (see above). For payroll employment, the gain that was reported was 1,300. The fact that there were different changes in both measures is not uncommon. What must be taken into account, however, is that the payroll employment figure for jobs added is almost always reported incorrectly.

To give a sense for why this is so, let me change to year-over-year payroll employment change, the measure I pay most attention to since monthly changes are often modified the next month. The chart below (click to enlarge) gives the number of jobs added and jobs lost over the last year.

Let's focus on May of 2011. For that month, Rhode Island had job gains of 9,500 versus job losses of 5,300. The net change in employment (year-over-year) was therefore 4,200. The local media, however, always reports this as 4,200 jobs added, which is clearly incorrect. Since February of this year, job gains in Rhode Island have clearly accelerated. Sadly, job loss has remained stubbornly high, leading to overall employment growth (i.e., change) of less that one percent (0.9% for May). 

So, this look into the labor market data released each month should illustrate that there's a lot more going on than any simple explanation can accurately conclude. Keep in mind that there are two labor market surveys, not one, and these often reflect different forces at work and thus come to different conclusions. And, for someone who has been following all of this in depth for as long as I have, sometimes I don't even understand all of what's going on. I guess that's why God invented data revisions!