Friday, November 06, 2009

Mancession Update: Record Oct. Male Jobless Rate of 11.4%, Female Rate Still 1.6% Below 1982 High

Based on today's Employment Report from the BLS, the male unemployment hit an historical record high in October of 11.4%, surpassing the previous record of 11.2% in December of 1982 (see chart). The female jobless rate increased to 8.8% in October, but is still 1.6% below the record high of 10.4% established in December of 1982. The male-female jobless rate gap of 2.6% in October (11.4% - 8.8%) is just slightly below the record gap of 2.7% set in August.

11 Comments:

At 11/06/2009 10:15 AM, Blogger juandos said...

How's that hope & change working out?

CNN Money reports (still trying to carry Obama's water): The unemployment rate spiked to its highest level since 1983, much worse than expected as employers continue to trim jobs despite other signs of growth

 
At 11/06/2009 11:04 AM, Blogger Michael said...

I have read in a few different places that the way unemployment numbers are calculated changed when Clinton became president.

Are the 82 numbers comparable to 09 numbers?

 
At 11/06/2009 11:29 AM, Anonymous Junkyard_hawg1985 said...

Mark,

Based on the way the NBER has determined the end of recession in the past, this recession (mancession) still isn't over. In the past two recession calls by the NBER showed that the recession started when total employment peaks (in this case Nov 2007). The recession was determined to be over when total employment started to climb again. The October jobs report showed the seasonally adjusted total employement in the U.S. at 138.275 million. This was down from 138.864 million in September. This was a loss of 589,000 jobs. Unless the NBER uses a different methodology to call the end of the recession, this one is still going.

 
At 11/06/2009 12:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I appreciate the statistics that you present Mark. However, this administration is scaring the heck out of the producers in this country with their takeover of the private health care sector, their increased taxes and outrageous spending. I say look for another heavy round of job cuts this fall and winter.

We could pull out of this recession normally if it weren't for this socialist government.

 
At 11/06/2009 2:24 PM, Anonymous Benny "Tell It LIke It Is Man" Cole said...

Harry Truman nuked Japan, then said his biggest failing as President was not getting National Health Insurance. The top federal income tax rate through the 1950s, 1960s was 90 percent. We paid down national debt. The top tax rate was still in the 70s-percent-range into the early 1970s.
Our nation prospered throughout that time frame--indeed, some say the 1950s-1960s (except for regional Asian wars) were golden years of booming wages.
We survived the Bush Administration (although the financial system collapsed, and the third quarter of 2008 was the steepest drop in GDP in memory), and so we will survive the Obama Administration.
Maybe some woosie-business-weenies will quit if we get National Health Insurance. I think not. We have been through much worse.

 
At 11/06/2009 3:03 PM, Blogger BxCapricorn said...

One picture, one thousand words

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/unemployment-october-1948-2009.JPG

The BLS spin is worthless to these unemployed people.

 
At 11/06/2009 3:57 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"We survived the Bush Administration (although the financial system collapsed, and the third quarter of 2008 was the steepest drop in GDP in memory)"...

Hey pseudo Benny are you channeling Nancy Pelosi again?

Do some homework...

 
At 11/06/2009 4:49 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"The BLS spin is worthless to these unemployed people"...

Well BxCapricorn Paul Krugman has the perfect nanny state solution...

"I have read in a few different places that the way unemployment numbers are calculated changed when Clinton became president"...

Would you believe what you read in Shadow Government Statistics?

 
At 11/06/2009 10:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you look at the productivity numbers they show that productivity in manufacturing is growing at twice the rate of services. As a result the number of jobs in mfg will decrease. Since mfg jobs are more male and service jobs are more female one would expect this ratio. As has been observed on another blog most mfg jobs have been sliced and diced into small repetitive tasks, which is exactly what is needed to automate the tasks. The rate of automation depends upon the business case now not technological breakthrus.
We have the same issues with mfg that power equipment gave agriculture in the first 1/2 of the 20th century.
Imagine the change in construction of houses were more pre-fab so that the site work was basically assembly (at least for carpentry and potentially for other trades) Another nail in traditionally male jobs. Note that on some hotels rooms are built as place in units complete with on site work being basically plugging everything together.

 
At 11/07/2009 7:29 AM, Blogger DaveinHackensack said...

If you take into account the additional discouraged unemployed who are no longer looking for work, and the low average hours worked, unemployment looks to remain stubbornly high for some time.

Dr. Perry, this is OT, but I sent you an e-mail last week asking if you’d like to become an affiliate for site I just launched. In the event my e-mail got stuck in your spam file, I’m mentioning this here.

The site is Shortscreen.com, and it offers tools and ideas for short sellers, including a screener based on the Altman Z-Score model (actually, on that model and the Z”-Score version). I think it might be of interest to those of your readers who short stocks as part of their overall portfolio strategy.

If you agree, here is the scoop on the affiliate program.

 
At 11/07/2009 9:41 AM, Blogger Mark J. Perry said...

BxCapricorn: Those numbers should be adjusted for the size of the population/labor force. The labor force is about 2X as large now as in the 1960s, and 2.5X as large as in the 1950s. If I can find the raw data, I'll create a chart, adjusted for the size of the labor force.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home