by Calculated Risk on 5/04/2014 08:25:00 PM

Some great analysis and graphs from Jim Hamilton at Econbrowser: Is the Fed near its target?

Monday:
• Early: the Black Knight Mortgage Monitor for March.

• At 10:00 AM ET, ISM non-Manufacturing Index for April. The consensus is for a reading of 54.0, up from 53.1 in March. Note: Above 50 indicates expansion, below 50 contraction.

Weekend:
• Schedule for Week of May 4th

• Goldman Sachs on the Labor Force Participation Rate

• Participation Rate: Trends and Cohorts

From CNBC: Pre-Market Data and Bloomberg futures: the S&P futures and DOW futures are up slightly (fair value).

Oil prices are down over the last week with WTI futures at $99.88 per barrel and Brent at $108.59 per barrel.

Below is a graph from Gasbuddy.com for nationwide gasoline prices. Nationally prices are around $3.65 per gallon (might have peaked, but still more than 10 cents above the level of a year ago).  If you click on "show crude oil prices", the graph displays oil prices for WTI, not Brent; gasoline prices in most of the U.S. are impacted more by Brent prices.

Orange County Historical Gas Price Charts Provided by GasBuddy.com

by Calculated Risk on 5/04/2014 12:59:00 PM

A frequent question is: "I've heard the participation rate for older workers is increasing, yet you say one of the reasons the overall participation rate has fallen is because people are retiring. Is this a contradiction?"

Answer: This isn't a contradiction. When we talk about an increasing participation rate for older workers, we are referring to people in a certain age group. As an example, for people in the "60 to 64" age group, the participation rate has increased over the last ten years from 51.1% in April 2004 to 55.7% in April 2014 (see table at bottom for changes in all 5 year age groups over the last 10 years).

However, when we talk about the overall participation rate, we also need to know how many people are in a particular age group at a given time. As an example, currently there is a large cohort that has recently moved into the "60 to 69" age group. To calculate the overall participation rate we need to multiple the participation rate for each age group by the number of people in the age group.


Click on graph for larger image.

This graph shows the population in each 5 year age group in April 2004 (blue) and April 2014 (red).  Note: Not Seasonally Adjusted, Source: BLS.

In April 2004, the two largest groups were in the "40 to 44" and "45 to 49" age groups. These people are now the 50 to 59 age group.

In April 2004, there were also a large number of people in the 50 to 59 age group. These people are now 60 to 69.

The following table summarizes what has happened if we follow these two cohorts (40 to 49 in April 2004, and 50 to 59 and April 2004).

Cohort 11	Apr-04	Apr-14
Population	44,508	43,455
Participation Rate	83.8%	74.9%
Labor Force	37,294	32,535
Cohort 22	Apr-04	Apr-14
Population	35,373	33,322
Participation Rate	76.1%	45.2%
Labor Force	26,915	15,065
1Cohort 1: People aged 40 to 49 in April 2004. 2Cohort 2: People aged 50 to 59 in April 2004.

So even though the participation rate for an age group is increasing, the participation rate for a cohort decreases as it moves into an older age group.  This shows we need to follow 1) the trend for each age group, and 2) the number of people in each age group.

Note in the table below that the participation rate has been falling sharply for younger age groups (staying in school - a positive for the future) - and that the population is increasing for those age groups.   This is another key trend that has been pushing down the overall participation rate.

This table is population, labor force and participation rate by age group for April 2004 and April 2014.

Populaton and Labor Force by Age Group (000s) NSA
		Apr-04	Apr-14
16 to 19 Age Group	Population	16,198	16,652
	Participation Rate	40.7%	31.1%
	Labor Force	6,600	5,174
20 to 24 Age Group	Population	20,173	22,107
	Participation Rate	74.2%	69.2%
	Labor Force	14,970	15,287
25 to 29 Age Group	Population	18,886	21,151
	Participation Rate	81.4%	79.8%
	Labor Force	15,383	16,871
30 to 34 Age Group	Population	20,027	20,877
	Participation Rate	83.4%	81.4%
	Labor Force	16,712	17,001
35 to 39 Age Group	Population	20,595	19,332
	Participation Rate	83.3%	81.9%
	Labor Force	17,151	15,841
40 to 44 Age Grou[	Population	22,683	20,232
	Participation Rate	83.9%	82.6%
	Labor Force	19,026	16,701
45 to 49 Age Group	Population	21,825	20,554
	Participation Rate	83.7%	81.4%
	Labor Force	18,268	16,737
50 to 54 Age Group	Population	19,247	22,306
	Participation Rate	80.4%	78.1%
	Labor Force	15,480	17,416
55 to 59 Age Group	Population	16,126	21,149
	Participation Rate	70.9%	71.5%
	Labor Force	11,435	15,119
60 to 64 Age Group	Population	12,499	18,441
	Participation Rate	51.1%	55.7%
	Labor Force	6,384	10,273
65 to 69 Age Group	Population	9,716	14,881
	Participation Rate	26.6%	32.2%
	Labor Force	2,585	4,792
70 to 74 Age Group	Population	8,349	10,915
	Participation Rate	15.3%	19.0%
	Labor Force	1,280	2,070
75 and older	Population	16,434	18,841
	Participation Rate	6.0%	8.3%
	Labor Force	986	1,563
Total	Population	222,758	247,438
	Participation Rate	65.7%	62.6%
	Labor Force	146,260	154,845

by Calculated Risk on 5/03/2014 06:05:00 PM

Another note on the labor force participation rate:

From Goldman Sachs chief economist Jan Hatzius:

• Since the start of the Great Recession in late 2007, the labor force participation rate has fallen by more than three percentage points, including a sharp drop in April back to the late-2013 lows. The extent of the decline has surprised many economists, ourselves included. What accounts for it, and will it continue?

• The first question is relatively easy to answer. Using an approach similar to that of a recent Philadelphia Fed study, we can show that the decline reflects a combination of 1) more retirements, 2) more disability, 3) higher school enrollment, and 4) more discouraged workers.

• The second question is more difficult, but we believe the answer is no. The most important reason is that the big increase in retirements in the last three years looks far less “structural” to us than generally believed. Many people seem to have pulled forward their retirement because of the weak job market. This leaves correspondingly fewer retirements for future years, and it means that the impact of retirements on participation is likely to become much less negative.

• The other drags on participation are also likely to abate or reverse. Inflows into disability insurance are now slowing sharply, consistent with past cyclical patterns. The school enrollment surge has started to reverse as young workers are finding better job opportunities. And stronger labor demand is likely to pull many discouraged workers back into the job market.

• If participation does stabilize or rise a bit, the decline in the unemployment rate should slow even if payroll growth stays at the sturdy levels seen in recent months. This is one key reason why we believe Fed rate hikes are still far off.

CR Notes:
1) Here is the referenced Philadelphia Fed study:

Analyzing people’s reasons for not participating in the labor force provides a relatively clear idea of the causes of declines in the labor force participation rate. The number of disabled persons has been steadily rising; retirement had not played much of a role until around 2010, at which point it started to make a large impact on the overall participation rate. In particular, the decline in the participation rate in the past one-and-a-half years (when the unemployment rate declined faster than expected) is mostly due to retirement. Furthermore, nonparticipation due to enrollment in school has been another significant contributor to the secular decline in the participation rate since 2000.

There is no question that more workers dropped out of the labor force due to discouragement during and after the Great Recession and that there are more discouraged workers now than before the recession. These facts clearly reflect the continued weakness of the U.S. labor market. However, it is not clear whether the overall participation rate will increase any time soon, given that the underlying downward trend due to retirement is likely to continue.

Several studies try to separate “cyclical” factors from “structural” factors when explaining the behavior of the participation rate. However, the foregoing analysis casts some doubt on the usefulness of such labeling. For example, the label “cyclical” often implies — whether implicitly or explicitly — that declines in the participation rate explained by “cyclical” factors will reverse as the economy improves. However, this presumption may not hold. In particular, the decision to retire is clearly affected by cyclical factors, but this decision is unlikely to be reversed.

2) Here are the most recent projections from BLS economist Mitra Toossi: Labor force projections to 2022: the labor force participation rate continues to fall. The participation rate is projected to decline for the next couple of decades.

3) Headlines that blare Workforce Participation at 36-Year Low as Jobs Climb aren't helpful. A large decline in the participation rate has been expected for some time, and those that keep saying "the participation rate is at a multi-decade low" are not contributing to the discussion. There is a question of how much of the decline is related to demographic trends (retirement, more young people staying in school are two key trends), and how much is cyclical - but some key recent research now supports my view that a majority is demographics.

by Calculated Risk on 5/03/2014 01:02:00 PM

This will be a light week for economic data.

The key reports are the Trade Balance report for March, and the ISM non-manufacturing (service) survey for April.

Also Fed Chair Janet Yellen will testify to Congress on the economic outlook.

----- Monday, May 5th -----
Early: the Black Knight Mortgage Monitor for March.

10:00 AM: ISM non-Manufacturing Index for April. The consensus is for a reading of 54.0, up from 53.1 in March. Note: Above 50 indicates expansion, below 50 contraction.

----- Tuesday, May 6th -----
8:30 AM: Trade Balance report for March from the Census Bureau.

Imports increased and exports decreased in February.

The consensus is for the U.S. trade deficit to be at $40.2 billion in March from $42.3 billion in February.

----- Wednesday, May 7th -----
7:00 AM: The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) will release the results for the mortgage purchase applications index.

10:00 AM: Testimony by Fed Chair Janet Yellen, The Economic Outlook, Before the Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress

3:00 PM: Consumer Credit for March from the Federal Reserve.  The consensus is for credit to increase $15.1 billion.

----- Thursday, May 8th -----
8:30 AM: The initial weekly unemployment claims report will be released. The consensus is for claims to decrease to 330 thousand from 344 thousand.

Early: Trulia Price Rent Monitors for April. This is the index from Trulia that uses asking house prices adjusted both for the mix of homes listed for sale and for seasonal factors.

9:30 AM: Testimony by Fed Chair Janet Yellen, The Economic Outlook, Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate

----- Friday, May 9th -----
10:00 AM: Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey for March from the BLS.

This graph shows job openings (yellow line), hires (purple), Layoff, Discharges and other (red column), and Quits (light blue column) from the JOLTS.

In February, the number of job openings (yellow) were up 4% year-over-year compared to February 2013, and Quits were up about 5% year-over-year.

10:00 AM: Monthly Wholesale Trade: Sales and Inventories for March. The consensus is for a 0.5% increase in inventories.

by Calculated Risk on 5/03/2014 08:15:00 AM

This is an unofficial list of Problem Banks compiled only from public sources.

Here is the unofficial problem bank list for May 2, 2014.

Changes and comments from surferdude808:

With four removals this week, the Unofficial Problem Bank List fell to 509 institutions with assets of $163.3 billion. A year ago, the list held 773 institutions with assets of $284.9 billion.

Actions were terminated against Ocean Bank, Miami, FL ($3.3 billion); TruPoint Bank, Grundy, VA ($441 million); and Liberty Bank, South San Francisco, CA ($219 million). First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Hammond, Hammond, IN ($40 million) found its way off the list through an unassisted merger. Next week should be light in terms of changes to the list as we will not receive an update from the OCC for another two weeks.

by Calculated Risk on 5/02/2014 06:30:00 PM

The data flow suggests Q1 was even weaker than the 0.1% real annualized growth rate reported earlier this week. From Merrill Lynch:

The advance 1Q GDP report revealed growth of only 0.1% qoq saar, about a full percentage point less than we had expected. After accounting for weaker-than-expected construction spending and nondurable inventories in March, 1Q GDP is now tracking -0.4%. This is clearly disappointing and pulls down estimates for annual GDP growth.
...
With all the optimism to start this year, nobody was predicting the economy would contract in 1Q. Based on the Blue Chip forecasts in December last year, the average forecast for 1Q was 2.5% with the top 10 highest forecasts of 3.2% and bottom 10 of 2.0%. Obviously, we were all taken by surprise by this brutally cold winter.

It seems that the economy cannot catch a break – each year there is some explanation for a lack of momentum. It was the European crisis in 2010, the US debt rating downgrade/Greek exit in 2011, gridlock in Washington in 2012 and fiscal tightening/government shutdown in 2013. But the shock from weather does not linger and actually reverses quite quickly. With the harsh winter weather in our rearview mirror, we can focus on the underlying healing of the economy, which we think has been significant.

We believe the economy is on track to bounce back, leading us to revise up 2Q GDP growth to 3.6% from 3.2%. However, this increase does not entirely offset the weakness in 1Q, leaving our forecast for annual GDP growth to slip to 2.5% from 2.7%.
...
Importantly, we think the strength in 2Q is not just a one-quarter bounce. We expect growth to remain strong, averaging 3.4% growth in both 3Q and 4Q.

by Calculated Risk on 5/02/2014 03:35:00 PM

Standard Pacific Corp. reported that net home orders (ex jvs) in the quarter ended March 31, 2014 totaled 1,311, down 6.0% from the comparable quarter of 2013. Net orders per active community last quarter were down 14.6% from a year ago. The company’s sales cancellation rate, expressed as % of gross orders, was 14% last quarter, up from 10% a year earlier. Home deliveries last quarter totaled 995, up 5.1% from the comparable quarter of 2013, at an average sales price of $449,000, up 19.7% from a year ago. The company’s order backlog at the end of March was 2,016, up 8.9% from last March. The company attributed the big YOY gain in average sales price to “general price increases within a majority of the Company’s markets, a shift to more move-up product, and a decrease in the use of sales incentives.” Standard Pacific owned or controlled 35,715 lots at the end of March, up 11.2% from last March.

Here are some summary stats for nine large publicly-traded builders.

	Net Orders			Settlements			Average Closing Price
Qtr. Ended:	3/14	3/13	% Chg	3/14	3/13	% Chg	3/14	3/13	% Chg
D.R. Horton	8,569	7,879	8.8%	6,194	5,463	13.4%	$271,230	$242,548	11.8%
Pulte Group	4,863	5,200	-6.5%	3,436	3,833	-10.4%	$317,000	$287,000	10.5%
NVR	3,325	3,510	-5.3%	2,211	2,272	-2.7%	$361,400	$330,400	9.4%
The Ryland Group	2,186	2,052	6.5%	1,470	1,315	11.8%	$327,000	$277,000	18.1%
Beazer Homes	1,390	1,521	-8.6%	977	1,127	-13.3%	$272,400	$253,300	7.5%
Standard Pacific	1,311	1,394	-6.0%	995	947	5.1%	$449,000	$375,000	19.7%
Meritage Homes	1,525	1,547	-1.4%	1,109	1,052	5.4%	$365,896	$314,363	16.4%
MDC Holdings	1,236	1,300	-4.9%	873	1,018	-14.2%	$377,000	$339,400	11.1%
M/I Homes	982	1,047	-6.2%	737	627	17.5%	$299,000	$284,000	5.3%
Total	25,387	25,450	-0.2%	18,002	17,654	2.0%	$317,582	$285,200	11.4%

For the group as a whole, net orders per active community last quarter were down about 6% from a year earlier.

The combined order backlog (in units) for these nine builders at the end of March was 36,257, up just 0.5% from last March.

While home deliveries in units for these builders last quarter were up just 2% from a year earlier, home deliveries in dollar terms were up 13.5% YOY, reflecting the sizable increases in average sales price. Most builders attributed the ASP gains to a combination of general price gains in many of their markets and a product-shift mix toward larger homes/move-up buyers. While not all builders commented on first-time buyers, comments from those that did suggest that first-time buyer purchases of new homes were down from a year ago. Operating margins on average were up significantly from a year ago, with some builders reporting their highest margins in 7-8 years.

While land/lot acquisitions varied significantly across these builders, in aggregate they increased sharply their land/lot acquisitions during the second half of 2012 through the third quarter of 2013. Longer-than-normal development timelines, however, partly related to “supply-chain” issues, limited their ability to meet the strong demand in the first half of 2013, and limited supply enabled builders to increase prices significantly last year.

Such “supply” problems should not be an issue in 2014, and in aggregate these 9 builders expect (and plan) to increase their number of active communities in 2014 at a double-digit pace. A key issue, however, will be demand: both interest rates and home prices are higher than they were in the first half of 2013, with prices up significantly in many parts of the country. As noted before, many builders hiked prices sharply because they could not meet demand in the first half of 2013. With supply issues unlikely to be an “issue” in 2014, it seems highly likely that the “pricing power” builders had in 2013 will not be evident in 2014, and in fact “effective” home prices may ease a bit as builders significantly increase their use of sales incentives from 2013’s unusually low level.

So SF home sales will probably move higher over the course of 2014, though prices will not. But the pace of increase is likely to be slower than most folks thought as the year began, and the hoped for recovery in home purchases by first-time home buyers in 2014 has not only not been seen, but it appears to have dipped somewhat from a year ago. So far the only builder to react to this trend is D.R. Horton, who is rolling out a new “express homes” product line in select markets with price targets in the $120,000 to $150,000 range. As a Horton official noted in the company’s latest conference call, the sharp price increases by builders last year had priced a “lot” of first-time buyers out of the market.

by Calculated Risk on 5/02/2014 01:55:00 PM

By request, here is an update on an earlier post through the April employment report.

Important: There are many differences between these periods. Overall employment was smaller in the '80s, so a different comparison might be to look at the percentage change.   Of course the participation rate was increasing in the '80s (younger population and women joining the labor force), and the participation rate is declining now.  But these graphs give an overview of employment changes.

The first graph shows the change in private sector payroll jobs from when each president took office until the end of their term(s).  President George H.W. Bush only served one term, and President Obama is just starting the second year of his second term. 

Mr. G.W. Bush (red) took office following the bursting of the stock market bubble, and left during the bursting of the housing bubble.  Mr. Obama (blue) took office during the financial crisis and great recession.  There was also a significant recession in the early '80s right after Mr. Reagan (yellow) took office.

There was a recession towards the end of President G.H.W. Bush (purple) term, and Mr Clinton (light blue) served for eight years without a recession.

Click on graph for larger image.

The first graph is for private employment only.

The employment recovery during Mr. G.W. Bush's (red) first term was very sluggish, and private employment was down 841,000 jobs at the end of his first term.   At the end of Mr. Bush's second term, private employment was collapsing, and there were net 462,000 private sector jobs lost during Mr. Bush's two terms. 

Private sector employment increased slightly under President G.H.W. Bush (purple), with 1,510,000 private sector jobs added.

Private sector employment increased by 20,955,000 under President Clinton (light blue), by 14,717,000 under President Reagan (yellow), and 9,041,000 under President Carter (dashed green).

There were only 1,998,000 more private sector jobs at the end of Mr. Obama's first term.  Fifteen months into Mr. Obama's second term, there are now 4,986,000 more private sector jobs than when he initially took office.

 A big difference between the presidencies has been public sector employment.  Note the bumps in public sector employment due to the decennial Census in 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010. 

The public sector grew during Mr. Carter's term (up 1,304,000), during Mr. Reagan's terms (up 1,414,000), during Mr. G.H.W. Bush's term (up 1,127,000), during Mr. Clinton's terms (up 1,934,000), and during Mr. G.W. Bush's terms (up 1,744,000 jobs).

However the public sector has declined significantly since Mr. Obama took office (down 710,000 jobs). These job losses have mostly been at the state and local level, but more recently at the Federal level.  This has been a significant drag on overall employment.

Looking forward, I expect the economy to continue to expand for the next few years, so I don't expect a sharp decline in private employment as happened at the end of Mr. Bush's 2nd term (In 2005 and 2006 I was warning of a coming recession due to the bursting of the housing bubble).

A big question is when the public sector layoffs will end.  It appears the cutbacks are mostly over at the state and local levels, but there are ongoing cutbacks at the Federal level.  Right now I'm expecting some increase in public employment in 2014.

by Calculated Risk on 5/02/2014 10:30:00 AM

First, as always, we shouldn't read too much into any one report. Also there was probably some weather related bounce back in this report (one of the reasons I took the "over" yesterday).

Through the first four months of 2014, the economy has added 857,000 payroll jobs - slightly better than during the same period in 2013 even with the severe weather early this year. (For comparison, there were 821,000 payroll jobs added during the first four months of 2013).   My expectation at the beginning of the year was the economy would add between 2.4 and 2.7 million payroll jobs this year, and that still looks about right.

Here is a table of the annual change in total nonfarm and private sector payrolls jobs since 1999.  The last three years have been near the best since 1999 (2005 was the best year for total nonfarm, and 2011 the best for private jobs).

It is possible that 2014 will be the best year since 1999 for both total nonfarm and private sector employment.

Change in Payroll Jobs per Year (000s)
	Total, Nonfarm	Private
1999	3,177	2,716
2000	1,946	1,682
2001	-1,735	-2,286
2002	-508	-741
2003	105	147
2004	2,033	1,886
2005	2,506	2,320
2006	2,085	1,876
2007	1,140	852
2008	-3,576	-3,756
2009	-5,087	-5,013
2010	1,058	1,277
2011	2,083	2,400
2012	2,236	2,294
2013	2,331	2,365
20141	2,571	2,526
1 2014 is current pace annualized (through April).

And we are almost to another milestone: total employment is now only 113,000 below the previous peak, and I expect total employment will be at a new high in May.   Of course the labor force has continued to increase over the last 6+ years, and there are still millions of workers unemployed - so the economy still has a long way to go.

Note:  Private payroll employment increased 273 thousand in April and private employment is now 406,000 above the previous peak (the unprecedented large number of government layoffs has held back total employment).


Overall this was a solid employment report.

Earlier: April Employment Report: 288,000 Jobs, 6.3% Unemployment Rate

Employment-Population Ratio, 25 to 54 years old

Since the overall participation rate declined recently due to cyclical (recession) and demographic (aging population, younger people staying in school) reasons, an important graph is the employment-population ratio for the key working age group: 25 to 54 years old.

In the earlier period the employment-population ratio for this group was trending up as women joined the labor force. The ratio has been mostly moving sideways since the early '90s, with ups and downs related to the business cycle.

The 25 to 54 participation rate declined in April to 80.8% from 81.2% in March, and the 25 to 54 employment population ratio decreased to 76.5% from 76.7%.  As the recovery continues, I expect the participation rate for this group to increase. 

Percent Job Losses During Recessions


This graph shows the job losses from the start of the employment recession, in percentage terms - this time aligned at maximum job losses.  At the recent pace of improvement, it appears employment will be back to pre-recession levels next month (Of course this doesn't include population growth).

In the earlier post, the graph showed the job losses aligned at the start of the employment recession.

Part Time for Economic Reasons

From the BLS report:

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed at 7.5 million in April. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find full-time work.

This suggests significantly slack in the labor market.  These workers are included in the alternate measure of labor underutilization (U-6) that decreased to 12.3% in April from 12.7% in March.

Unemployed over 26 Weeks

This graph shows the number of workers unemployed for 27 weeks or more.

According to the BLS, there are 3.452 million workers who have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks and still want a job. This was down from 3.739 in March. This is trending down, but is still very high.

Long term unemployment remains one of the key labor problems in the US.

State and Local Government

This graph shows total state and government payroll employment since January 2007. State and local governments lost jobs for four straight years. (Note: Scale doesn't start at zero to better show the change.)

In April 2014, state and local governments added 18,000 jobs.  State and local government employment is now up 104,000 from the bottom, but still 640,000 below the peak.

It appears state and local employment employment has bottomed.  Of course Federal government layoffs are ongoing.

by Calculated Risk on 5/02/2014 08:30:00 AM

From the BLS:

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 288,000, and the unemployment rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 6.3 percent in April, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
...
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for February was revised from +197,000 to +222,000, and the change for March was revised from +192,000 to +203,000. With these revisions, employment gains in February and March were 36,000 higher than previously reported.

Click on graph for larger image.

The headline number was well above expectations of 215,000 payroll jobs added.

The first graph shows the job losses from the start of the employment recession, in percentage terms, compared to previous post WWII recessions. The dotted line is ex-Census hiring.

This shows the depth of the recent employment recession - worse than any other post-war recession - and the relatively slow recovery due to the lingering effects of the housing bust and financial crisis.


Employment is 0.1% below the pre-recession peak (113 thousand fewer total jobs - almost back).  Private employment is now solidly above the pre-recession peak by 406 thousand.

NOTE: The second graph is the change in payroll jobs ex-Census - meaning the impact of the decennial Census temporary hires and layoffs is removed to show the underlying payroll changes.

The third graph shows the employment population ratio and the participation rate.

The Labor Force Participation Rate was decreased in April to 62.8%. This is the percentage of the working age population in the labor force. 

The participation rate is well below the 66% to 67% rate that was normal over the last 20 years, although a significant portion of the recent decline is due to demographics.


The Employment-Population ratio was unchanged in April at 58.9% (black line).

I'll post the 25 to 54 age group employment-population ratio graph later.

The fourth graph shows the unemployment rate.

The unemployment rate was declined sharply in April at 6.3%.

This was a solid employment report, and including revisions, was well above expectations.


I'll have much more later ...