MAY UNEMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES | 20-25%

U.S. Unemployment Rate, 2010-2020. The May figure was predicted to be
off the chart. [P.S. The BLS actually reports it defined to 13.3 percent.]

Thursday, June 4, 2020—Forecasters like to say: "If you give a number, don't give a date. If you give a date, don't give a number." Especially, don't forecast a definite number the day before.

However, these rules have been broken recently by people who have strong views about what the U.S. unemployment number will be at 8:30 a.m. tomorrow.

Scariest number: 25 percent. The unemployment rate of 25 percent is scary, because that (or a smidgeon above) was the peak unemployment of the Great Depression. This rate occurred in the early months of 1933. That would meet one test for deciding whether we are in the Second Great Recession or the Second Great Depression. The economy (GDP) has already suffered two quarters of decline. The big question is whether the decline will continue, which would be likely if the country saw a second wave of coronavirus infections. Paul Krugman has argued that to call what we are in a Depression would require four quarters of decline.

Most economic observers dismiss the idea that we are in a Depression, because they expect the economy to recover quickly as soon as coronavirus cases level off or a vaccine is developed that would allow the public to resume a normal life.

The following are examples of people who have gone on record as fearing that the May 2020 unemployment number to be announced in the morning will be as high as 25 percent:

• Fed Chairman Jay Powell (and it's his job to be well informed on the topic).
• Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.
• Goldman Sachs.
• Forbes Magazine's Chuck Jones.

Consensus: 20 percent. Most commentators, if they give a projected unemployment number, are like CNN's Anneken Tappe, who thinks the rate will be most likely about 20 percent. Which is bad enough, and off the chart above. We will know soon enough.

To understand what is happening, behind the unemployment number itself, I recommend looking at U-6 as well as U-3.

Measure	Apr. 2019	Feb. 2020	Mar. 2020	Apr. 2020	May 2020
U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)	3.6	3.5	4.4	14.7	20%? 25%?
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force	7.3	7.0	8.7	22.8	25%? 30%?

The number that is ordinarily reported is U-3. In 1933, that was the only number available. But U-6 provides details (insofar as any sample of 50,000 households in the U.S. economy can provide details) of people who are neither employed nor unemployed, an interesting group of potential workers.

The level of U-6 unemployment will bear careful watching because of the number of Americans who are on the Payroll Protection Plan and other special programs that obscure the data.

(Hat tip to Dr. Jurgen Brauer, Geoffrey Hilton and Dr. Farid Heydarpour for their assistance with this post.) 

JOBS BY STATE | Every state lost jobs. CA, NY, TX lost the most.

This map is interactive at the source (BLS).

May 22, 2020—In April 2020, jobs (nonfarm payroll employment) decreased in every one of the 50 states and in the District of Columbia.

The most-affected states were primarily ones with more population and more density.

States with Largest Job Losses

The three states with the largest job declines were California, New York and Texas.

California lost 2.34 million jobs, New York lost 1.83 million (more precisely, 1,827,300 net nonfarm payroll jobs) and Texas lost 1.30 million.

The three states with the largest percentage loss of jobs were Michigan, Vermont and New York. Michigan lost 22.8 percent of its jobs. Vermont lost 19.6 percent and New York lost 18.8 percent. See Tables E and 3 of the Bureau of Labor Statistics release this morning.

Which Sectors Lost the Most Jobs in New York State?

The hardest-hit industry sector in New York was Leisure and Hospitality, which lost, between March and April 2020, 548,500 jobs, or 64.1 percent of all of its payroll jobs in New York State. This of course reflects Governor Andrew Cuomo's well-advised shutdown order.  Health care workers and teachers jobs declined by much less, only 10.9 percent. Financial and information services, and government, appear to have maintained their staffing, presumably through use of the Internet.

Industry	March	April	Decline	Percent decline
Mining and Logging	4.8	4.8	0.0	0.0
Construction	383.8	234.1	149.7	39.0
Manufacturing	435.9	355.3	80.6	18.5
Trade, Transport, Utilities	1,513.0	1181.5	331.5	21.9
Information	275.8	267.5	8.3	3.0
Financial Activities	700.5	685.6	14.9	2.1
Professional and Biz Svces	1,373.1	1178.3	194.8	14.2
Educational, Health Svces	2,182.1	1944.9	237.2	10.9
Leisure and Hospitality	855.9	307.4	548.5	64.1
Other Services	411.6	291.1	120.5	29.3
Government	1,500.1	1438.9	61.2	4.1
Total	9,636.6	7,889.4	1,747.2	18.1

Source: BLS data (first two columns), computations (second two columns) by CityEconomist. The BLS payroll data by state are not seasonally adjusted.

Over the past twelve months (April 2019 to April 2020), New York lost 1,904,900 payroll jobs. In April, New York’s private sector lost 1,764,600 private payroll jobs compared with March, and over the past twelve months it lost 1,845,700 private payroll jobs.

Trajectories by State

Imperial College of London has published a tracking report for each U.S. state that shows how the trajectory of outbreaks diverges. At the time of release, 24 states, mostly in the midwest and south, had “uncontrolled” outbreaks, meaning the reproduction (infection) rate of the virus was above 1.

Unemployment by State

The unemployment rate in April rose to the highest level in Nevada, 28.2 percent, followed by Michigan, 22.7 percent, and Hawaii, 22.3 percent. The rates, which are seasonally adjusted, set new series highs in 43 states. All state series begin in 1976. The information is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics this morning, along with an interactive map of state unemployment rates.

Unemployment rates in Hawaii and Nevada exceeded their previous series highs by more than 10.0 percentage points each. Connecticut had the lowest unemployment rate, 7.9 percent. All together, 27 states and the District of Columbia had unemployment rates lower than the national average of 14.7 percent and 10 states had higher rates (the other 13 state rates were not significantly different from that of the nation). This information is in Tables A, B and 1 of the BLS release.

In April, the largest unemployment rate increases occurred in Nevada (+21.3 percentage points), Hawaii (+19.9 points), and Michigan (+18.4 points). Rates rose over the month by at least 10.0 percentage points in an additional 17 states. The smallest over-the-month jobless rate increases occurred in Nebraska (+4.3 percentage points) and Connecticut (+4.5 points). This information is from Table C in the BLS release.

The largest unemployment rate increases from April 2019 occurred in Nevada (+24.2 percentage points) and Hawaii (+19.6 points), and Michigan (+18.4 points). Another 21 states experienced increases of 10.0 points or more. The smallest over-the-year rate increases occurred in Connecticut (+4.2 percentage points) and Minnesota (+4.9 points). See Table D in the BLS release.

New York's unemployment rate rose by 10.4 percentage points to 14.5 percent in April. New York’s labor force participation rate fell to 58.3 percent in April from 60.2 percent in March.

PANDEMIC | How Nonprofits Are Helped by the CARES Act

In the Trenches against
the Coronavirus.

March 28, 2020–Two weeks ago the White House and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) seemed to be on the front line of the U.S. defense against the novel coronavirus, aka COVID-9.

But we in New York State are more focused at this point on the daily briefings of Governor Andrew Cuomo. What matters to us is our theater of the war and the specifics of the progress of the war. The Governor is the one matching hospital beds and PPE and ventilators and staff to where they are most needed to slow down the spread of the disease.

The trenches in this war are the hospitals, their emergency rooms (ERs) and intensive care units (ICUs). Many of these hospitals are nonprofit organizations, as are employers of home health care and visiting nurses groups, which are nonprofits. Often they get left out of laws, as they were in the case of the Tax Act of 2017.  Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY12) wrote a bill last year to rectify the situation; it is H.R. 3323, the Nonprofit Relief Act, now with the House Ways and Means Committee.

So I was curious how the nonprofits fared with the new $2 trillion relief. The National Council of Nonprofits has prepared an excellent summary of the law as it applies to all nonprofits (i.e., charitable foundations with 501-c-3 status under IRS regulations), and I can do no better than to show their analysis below. I do so with their permission:

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act 

CARES Act (Pub. L. 116-132)

On Friday, March 27, the House unanimously passed and the President signed into law the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, a $2 trillion economic stimulus law intended to provide immediate relief for individuals, nonprofits, businesses, and state and local governments. The CARES Act is the third law enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

What’s in the Act for Nonprofits

The CARES Act provides significant funding for governments, businesses, hospitals, schools, and social support programs. Below are key provisions of sector-wide interest to charitable nonprofit organizations.

Paycheck Protection Program Loans (emergency SBA 7(a) loans): Creates an emergency loan program providing loans of up to $10 million for eligible nonprofits and small businesses, permitting them to cover costs of payroll, operations, and debt service, and provides that the loans will be forgiven in whole or in part under certain circumstances. Section 1102.

• General Eligibility: Available to entities that existed on February 15, 2020 and had paid employees or paid independent contractors.
• Nonprofit Eligibility: Available for charitable nonprofits with 500 or fewer employees (counting each individual – full time or part time and not FTEs). The law does not disqualify nonprofits that are eligible for payments under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (Medicaid), but does require that employees of affiliated nonprofits may be counted toward the 500 employee cap, depending on the degree of control of the parent organization.
• No Personal Guarantee: No personal guarantee or collateral will be required in securing a loan.
• Loan Amount: The lesser of $10 million or 2.5 times the average total monthly payroll (including benefits) costs from the one-year period prior to the date of application.
• Loan Use: Loan funds can be used to make payroll and associated costs, including health and retirement benefits, facilities costs, and debt service.
• Loan Forgiveness: Employers that maintain employment for the eight weeks after the origination of the loan, or rehire employees by June 30, would be eligible to have their loans forgiven, essentially turning the loan into a grant. Section 1106.

Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL): Creates emergency grants for eligible nonprofits and other applicants with 500 or fewer employees enabling them to receive checks for $10,000 within three days. Section 1110. (The National Council of Nonprofits has posted a side-by-side comparison of the loan programs.)

Self-Funded Nonprofits and Unemployment: Only reimburses self-funded nonprofits for half of the costs of benefits provided to their laid-off employees. This is explained in a recent blog article. Section 2103.

Charitable Giving Incentive: 

- Creates a new above-the-line deduction (universal or non-itemizer deduction that applies to all taxpayers) for total charitable contributions of up to $300. The incentive applies to cash contributions made in 2020 and can be claimed on tax forms next year. Section 2204. 

- The law also lifts the existing cap on annual contributions for those who itemize, raising it from 60 percent of adjusted gross income to 100 percent. For corporations, the law raises the annual limit from 10 percent to 25 percent. Food donations from corporations would be available to 25 percent, up from the current 15 percent cap. Section 2205.

                                         

Employee Retention Payroll Tax Credit: Creates a refundable payroll tax credit of up to $5,000 for each employee on the payroll when certain conditions are met. The entity had to be an ongoing concern at the beginning of 2020, experienced a whole or partial shutdown, and had seen a drop in revenue of at least 50 percent in the first quarter compared to the first quarter of 2019. The availability of the credit would continue each quarter until the organization’s revenue exceeds 80 percent of the same quarter in 2019. For tax-exempt organizations, the entity’s whole operations must be taken into account when determining eligibility. Notably, employers receiving Paycheck Protection Program loans would not be eligible for these credits. Section 2301.

Delayed Payment of Payroll Taxes: Allows employers to delay payment of the employer portion payroll taxes in 2020; payable in equal halves at the end of 2021 and 2022. Section 2301.

Economic Stabilization Fund: Creates a loan and loan guarantee program for industries like airlines to keep them solvent through the crisis. It sets aside $454 billion for “eligible business” which is defined as “a United States business that has not otherwise received economic relief in the form of loans or loan guarantees provided under” the legislation. It is expected, but unclear, whether charitable nonprofits qualify under that definition for stabilization loans. Mid-sized nonprofits and businesses that have between 500 and 10,000 employees are expressly eligible for loans under this provision. Although there is no loan forgiveness provision in this section, the mid-size business loans would be charged an interest rate of no higher than two percent and would not accrue interest or require repayments for the first six months. Nonprofits accepting the mid-size business loans must retain at least 90 percent of their staff at full compensation and benefits until September 30.  Section 4003.

Other Significant Provisions of the CARES Act

Direct Payments to adults of $1,200 or less and $500 per child ($3,400 for a family of four) to be sent out in weeks. The amount of the payments phases out based on earnings of between $75,000 and $99,000 ($150,000 / $198,000 for couples). Section 2201.

Expanded Unemployment Insurance: Includes coverage for workers who are furloughed, gig workers, and freelancers. Increases payments by $600 per week for four months on top of what state unemployment programs pay. Section 2104.

Amendments to the New Paid Leave Mandates: Lowers the amounts that employers must pay for paid sick and family leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act* (enacted March 19) to the amounts covered by the refundable payroll tax credit – i.e., $511 per day for employee sick leave or $200 per day for family leave. Sections 3601 and 3602.

Significant Spending: The law also calls for large infusions of cash to the following sectors:

• $150 billion for a state, tribal, and local Coronavirus Relief fund
• $130 billion for hospitals
• $30 billion for education
• $25 billion for transit systems

Legislative Resources

• Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, H.R. 748 legislative text
• A section-by-section for unemployment insurance and tax policy
• A section-by-section for health policy
• A section-by-section for appropriations
• A section-by-section for banking policy

_________________

* See: Analysis of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. Also, browse the National Council of Nonprofits collection of resources for nonprofits dealing with the impact of COVID-19.

SUFFOLK, NY | Job Growth – A Zero for Zeldin

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, data released May 23,
2018. www.bls.gov.

The Congressman from CD 1 in Suffolk County, New York, was first elected in 2014, and reelected in 2016. 

He has made creating jobs a central part of his program, one of the main issues highlighted on his own web site.

He said in 2016 he would go to Washington, work with the Tea Party to reduce environmental and other regulations, and "help grow our economy and create more good paying jobs".

So how's it going with that, Mr. Zeldin?

Numbers just came out today for the fourth quarter of 2017. They show that Suffolk County ranked 309th out of the 347 largest counties for growth during 2017, comparing fourth quarter 2017 with the fourth quarter of the previous year.

The growth rate was Point One Percent. That's one-tenth of one percent. That is statistically equivalent to Zero.

Compare that with Brooklyn (King's County), which grew 41 times as fast, 4.1 percent, and ranked 14th out of the 347 largest counties.

Zeldin has had two terms to prove he can make a difference in job growth. I would say he flunks his own test. He has not helped grow the economy. He has not "created more good-paying jobs". Time's up!

LABOR MARKET | Dana Chasin Update 268

Two months ago, teachers in West Virginia began a statewide strike that would last for weeks.  It would pay off, winning gains for educators who have endured some of the lowest wages and worst benefits in the country. Yet the stuck wages afflicting so many workers stand alongside a 45-year low in new unemployment claims last week.  What explains this disparity? What in fact are the prevailing labor and wage conditions in the country? What are the political implications for November? The following comments are from an email from Dana Chasin, posted here by permission.

Inspired by the efforts in West Virginia, teachers across the country’s low-wage states have initiated job action. Tens of thousands of teachers have walked out across Oklahoma, Arizona, Kentucky, and Colorado to protest low wages, poor benefits, and shrinking education funding.  Tensions are simmering in North Carolina and Mississippi, and calls for action in Texas and Indiana suggest that the wave of teacher strikes is likely far from over.

Americans overwhelmingly support teachers’ demands for higher wages.  Over 50 percent of the country would support higher taxes to raise teachers’ wages.  Perhaps this support is attributable to familiarity. If the grievances that these educators cite to justify labor action sound familiar, that’s because stagnant wages and declining benefits have come to define the American labor market conditions in recent years.

For Most, Stuck Wages

As with red-state teachers, a vast majority of Americans rely on their paychecks and employer-provided benefits to make ends meet, and these have hardly improved in decades.  

Between 1950 and 1970, Americans enjoyed a post-war boom that saw wages grow in line with the broader economy.  Economists have long thought that if worker productivity rises, wages will also increase in kind. The three decades after WWII supported this notion.  Over this period, wages rose by 91 percent, almost exactly in step with the 97 percent rate growth in national productivity.

In 2016, American workers were 75 percent more productive than they were in 1973, but had only seen their take home pay rise 12 percent in that time. American workers have seen their share of productivity gains collapse.

Paradox:  Plentiful Work, Slow Wage Growth

President Trump and congressional Republicans say that the stable and historically low unemployment rate is their doing, not that they inherited an economy that saw steady reductions in unemployment for five straight years.

Real wages have been stagnant for even longer, but Trump is not taking credit here.  In many cases even the declines seen in unemployment rates are concentrated predominantly in low-wage, low-quality job sectors.  While the economy has been adding jobs, in many places around the country these jobs tend to pay the minimum wage. Regional differentials in labor markets can also confuse national-level statistics.

A Look Behind The Numbers

Beyond this, while today’s unemployment rate is certainly low, this can obscure real problems in the labor market.

During the Great Recession, the labor force participation rate fell from 67 percent to 63 percent.  Many people fell into underemployment or lost faith in the notion that any opportunities existed for them. The size of the workforce has remained around 63 percent since, suggesting fewer opportunities and a lingering disillusionment among those that have fallen out of the workforce.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) quantifies an alternative measure of slack in the labor market that takes the above categories of workers into account. While the unemployment rate (measuring only those seeking jobs within the last four weeks as being unemployed) is 4.1 percent, another measure reveals a more substantial underutilization of the workforce.  When taking into account the workers who are involuntarily part-time, marginally attached workers, and discouraged workers, the U-6 unemployment rate is 8.3 percent today – more than twice that of the conventional measure.

New Ideas About Bargaining Power

There is considerable debate as to why incomes have stagnated for as long as they have. Some theorists see “market-exogenous” changes in technology and globalization to explain the rise of inequality.  In this formulation, advances in shipping and information technologies allowed capital unfettered access to the entire world’s labor supply, causing a shift in production from high wage areas to low wage areas.

More recently, economists and policy thinkers have turned their attention to the role of market power or labor market concentration in wage analysis.  This theory focuses on concentration as a driving factor in wage stagnation. Market concentration accounts for 10-15 percent of annual wage losses, suggesting that workers’ wage bargaining power is weakening in certain robust labor markets.

The last forty years has seen a retreat from policies and institutions that support the relative bargaining power of workers. The decline of American unions is an oft-cited reason for the erosion of workers’ bargaining position vis-a-vis employers, but other factors tether employees to low wages as well, including:

• a retreat from the pursuit of full employment by policymakers
• the predominance of noncompete clauses in low wage environments
• salary history disclosure requirements
• public infrastructure degradation and a dearth of mass transportation options.

The concentration of labor markets and the collapse of worker power have played an important part in the divergence between labor productivity and wage growth, and can at least partially explain the why wages are hardly responding to very low unemployment rates.

Labor Market Not Monolithic for Midterms

America is comprised of very diverse economies across many regions. While technological changes and shifting market power have depressed employment levels and wages overall, the composition of local economies determine the effect those developments have on a local workforce.  Regional economies with significant vulnerability to trade competition have seen commensurate declines in employment. Those exposed to technological change have undergone a reorganization of the local workforce.  Those that have experienced market consolidation have seen other deleterious effects.

President Trump and Congressional Republicans may try to take credit in the run-up to the November midterm elections for the nation’s continued low unemployment rate.  But their claims will likely fall on deaf ears in communities where trade competition have depressed employment and where laborers have lost negotiation power relative to their employers.  After cutting taxes overwhelmingly for the corporations and the wealthiest, the GOP hasn’t shown many voters yet the benefits they were promised; instead, they continue to struggle with continually stagnant wages and precious few good jobs.  But with all the GOP tax talk, they increasingly perceive another threat to their retirement security, which we will address next time.

To be added to the news digest assembled by Dana Chasin and the 20/20 team, go here.

JOBS | Average Increase Nov-Jan, 192,000

Nonfarm Payroll (BLS)

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 200,000 in January. However, the net increase in total nonfarm payroll employment was revised down for November-December:

• The November increase was revised down from 252,000 to 216,000.
• The December increase was revised up from 148,000 to 160,000.
• The net change was that gains in payroll jobs in November and December combined were 24,000 fewer than previously reported.
• After revisions, job gains averaged 192,000 per month over the last 3 months. A moving average is more reliable for payroll job changes. Each month, prior data is revised based on additional reports and recalculation of seasonal factors. Noise in the reported numbers is especially likely during the annual BLS benchmark process at the end of each  year.

Employment continued to trend up in construction, food services and drinking places, health care, and manufacturing:.

• Construction added 36,000 jobs in January, with most of the increase occurring among specialty trade contractors (+26,000). Employment in residential building construction continued to trend up over the month (+5,000). Over the year, construction employment has increased by 226,000.

• Food services and drinking places employment continued to trend up in January (+31,000). The industry has added 255,000 jobs over the past 12 months.

• Health care continued its long and steady record of adding jobs in January (+21,000), with a gain of 13,000 in hospitals. In 2017, health care added an average of 24,000 jobs per month.

• Manufacturing continued to add jobs (+15,000). Durable goods industries added 18,000 jobs. Manufacturing has added 186,000 jobs over the past 12 months.

• Other major industries were little changed, including mining, wholesale trade, retail trade, transportation and warehousing, information, financial activities, professional and business services, and government.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls declined by 0.2 hour to 34.3 hours in January. In manufacturing, the workweek declined by 0.2 hour to 40.6 hours, while overtime remained at 3.5 hours. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged down by 0.1 hour to 33.6 hours.

In January, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 9 cents to $26.74, following an 11-cent gain in December. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 75 cents, or 2.9 percent. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 3 cents to $22.34 in January.

The January unemployment rate was 4.1 percent for the fourth consecutive month. The number of unemployed persons was 6.7 million, changed little over the month. Full data are at www.bls.gov. Among major worker groups, the unemployment rate for Blacks increased to 7.7 percent in January, and the rate for Whites declined to 3.5 percent.

In January, 1.7 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, little changed from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

Among the marginally attached, there were 451,000 discouraged workers in January, little changed from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.2 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in January had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.

EMPLOYMENT | UK Rate Goes to 75.3% High

London, September 14, 2017 – The UK employment rate, a robust indicator of national job creation, has surged above 75 percent.

As of July it is 75.3 percent of the working-age population. The ratio in London is consistently lower, by 1-2 percentage points, than the national ratio.

The UK is right behind, and challenging, Germany on this indicator. The number is current as of July 2017. The UK created 379,000 jobs during the year ending in July. The numbers are reported by the Office for National Statistics. 

The employment ratio is more stable measure than unemployment because it does not depend on assessments by surveyors and interviewees to determine whether someone else in the same household is employed or seeking a job.

JOBS | Two Job Numbers for Trump to Beat (Updated Jan. 6, 2017)

Trump visits Obama at the White House. 

It is understood among the cognoscenti that the Democrats managed the economy better for most Americans than the Republicans in the new millennium.

The problem for the Democrats in the 2016 election was voters who switched parties between 2012 and 2016. They were predominantly non-college-educated, from the least-well-educated states.

They picked up on the plain-language appeals and promises of candidate Donald Trump. The Democratic arguments were pitched to their college-educated base.

Perhaps the Democratic appeal to voters should have been based on a smaller number of performance indicators. President-elect Trump has promised to increase jobs. Two broad indicators–as opposed to anecdotal evidence from individual companies–might suffice to measure the success of his administration.

We can even use the BLS November job numbers [Jan. 6, 2017: see below for update, which changes little] for clear and independent benchmarks against which the economic performance of our presidents can properly be measured. The final report on the Obama Administration will be issued on January 6, subject to revision, but the December numbers, based on November reporting (and prior months for their seasonal adjustment), are not likely to change much from November.

Two Key Indicators

Here are the two key long-term numbers against which Obama's economy can be compared with the Bush economy of eight years ago and the Trump economy of two and four years hence:

1. Unemployment =  a rate of 4.6 percent in November

This is arrived at by dividing the number of unemployed, 7.4 million in November, of whom 1.9 million have been unemployed for 27 or more weeks, by the labor force (employed + unemployed), 159.5 million.

This compares with 7.3 percent in December 2004, the last month of the George W. Bush administration. (The numbers are easily found by punching into Google the two words  Unemployment and FRED. This will take you to the super-user-friendly St. Louis Fed database, God bless them.) That is a reduction of 2.7 percentage points. This compares with an increase of 3.4 percentage points during the Bush 43 administration and a decrease of 3.5 percent during the Clinton administration:

• Clinton vs. Bush 43: Better by 3.5 - (-3.4) = 6.9 percentage points.
• Obama vs. Bush 43: Better by 2.7 - (-3.4) = 6.1 percentage points.

2. Employment-population ratio = a rate of 59.7 percent in November.

This number is arrived at by dividing the number of civilian noninstitutional employed, 152.1 million, by the civilian noninstitutional population, 254.5 million.

This number is solid for long-term comparisons because it is not affected by answers to the unemployment survey. The labor force participation rate is dependent on the unemployment rate in the definition of the labor force. The employment-population ratio is not affected by any long-term change in the definitions of the unemployed or in the conduct of the monthly surveys of the labor force.

In December 1992 when President Clinton came to office, the employment-population rate had been falling and was at 61.4 percent. It rose during his administration to 64.3 percent, an increase of 2.9 percentage points. Under G. W. Bush, the rate fell by 3.3 percentage points to 61.0 percent. Under Obama the rate fell further to 59.7 percent, a drop of 1.3 percentage points. So here is the record of this measure:

• Clinton vs. Bush 43: Better by [2.9 - (-3.3)] = 6.2 percentage points.
• Obama vs. Bush 43: Better by [3.3 - 1.3] = 2.0 percentage points.

On both measures, the last two Democratic administrations outperformed the Bush 43 administration, by a lot.

Update, Jan. 6, 2017

Here are the final numbers for November, which arguably should still be the baseline, seasonally adjusted, if the incoming President wants to take credit for changed expectations in December (or his opponents do). Here also are the December seasonally adjusted numbers. Either way, from here on, it is President Donald Trump's baby–TrumpCare, TrumpEconomy and all.