Monday, December 17, 2007

Goldilocks Sets Record: 51 Months of Job Growth

According to the BLS labor report on December 7, "Nonfarm payroll employment continued to trend up in November (94,000), and the unemployment rate held at 4.7%."

What didn't get reported anywhere in the media (that I could find), and was only reported by the White House, is that November 2007 marked the 51st straight month of employment growth, setting an all-time record for the longest continuous run of job growth on record (back to 1939, see chart above). The previous record of continuous job growth was set back in the July 1986 to June 1990 period, when there were 48 straight months of employment growth.

Bottom Line: In each of the last three months (September, October, and November), the Goldilocks economy has set new all-time records for continous monthly job growth, and yet this has gone virtually unreported. Never before in U.S. history have we experienced an extended period of job growth like in the last four years, and all we hear about are recessionary fears, and gloom and doom.

9 Comments:

At 12/17/2007 9:40 AM, Anonymous holymoly said...

I are confuzed. Why do most of the little bars at the end of the graphy-thing seem to be so much lower now than 10 years before?

 
At 12/17/2007 10:04 AM, Blogger Mark J. Perry said...

U.S. population growth from 1991-1999 averaged 1.23% annually vs. only .97% average per year in the last four years, so a 27% greater growth in population in the 1990s could explain higher employment growth.

 
At 12/17/2007 10:10 AM, Anonymous holymoly said...

Interesting. So how many new jobs do we need per month to keep up with population growth? Is it possible that even though the seasonal adjustment models say we're +94,000 jobs in Nov., that:

a) that's just the model talking;
or
b) we might still be falling further behind because +94,000 isn't enough?

 
At 12/17/2007 10:30 AM, Anonymous bob wright said...

Another contributor is that unemployment has been lower in this recovery than the previous recovery; there is therefore less ground to make up.

 
At 12/17/2007 10:48 AM, Anonymous holymoly said...

Bob Wright -

Check your data -- unemployment rates were lower in the late 1990s:

Series Id: LNS14000000QSeasonal AdjustedSeries title: (Seas) Unemployment RateLabor force status: Unemployment rateType of data: PercentAge: 16 years and over

Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Annual
1997 5.2 5.0 4.9 4.7
1998 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.4
1999 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.1
2000 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.9
2001 4.2 4.4 4.8 5.5
2002 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.8
2003 5.9 6.1 6.1 5.8
2004 5.7 5.6 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.1 5.0 5.0
2006 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.5
2007 4.5 4.5 4.7

 
At 12/17/2007 10:50 AM, Anonymous holymoly said...

Mark -

Something about your previous comment left me scratching my head. So, the population growth *rate* in PERCENTAGE terms is lower now. But isn't the BASE now bigger? Can you show me that the population is adding fewer INDIVIDUALS each year now than in the 1990s?

 
At 12/17/2007 10:52 AM, Anonymous holymoly said...

Bob Wright --

Wait, now that I posted, I see what you mean. You're saying that the hole left at the end of the Bush I administration was deeper, so that's why this recovery is shallower by comparison. Sorry -- my previous post is irrelevant to that comment.

 
At 12/17/2007 11:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't have a job (which is why I have time to waster here.)

In my extended neighborhood I see many without jobs. Some are retired, some are retired rather than admit being unemployed by age discrimination, some are unemployed but, by the buggered up govmn't statistics won't show up as unemployed. Nine people, who we depend on greatly, actually have jobs.

 
At 12/17/2007 11:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The 'birth/death' model accounts for over half of ALL jobs created since 2004. 'Birth/death' jobs are a farce.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home