Gotta-Go-Get-A-YOB!

Screameth the Bureau of Lies and Scams (BLS)

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 187,000 in August, and the unemployment rate rose to 3.8 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment continued to trend up in health care, leisure and hospitality, social assistance, and construction. Employment in transportation and warehousing declined.

Hmmmm..... so employment increased but the unemployment rate went up?

What an amusing set of alleged circumstances!

The Household Survey, unadjusted of course (which is all I ever use) declined by 555,000 jobs -- and basically all of them were not counted as "unemployed" either as the "not in labor force" number rose by 515,000.  So by the "we call you" as opposed to "we call your boss" figures there were actual job loses, not gains.

August, by the way, usually is such a month (ignoring the pandemic years) so that's not a surprise.  What this indicates is that what was probably lost was the second and third jobs rather than the primary ones, as the gain in working-age population continued apace at about 200,000 (that is, approximately all of the alleged gains) which would lead you to reasonably consider the actual gain to be a net of zero.

I've noted that the PPI data has shown softness in trade and transportation, which is a rather ill wind.  Hourly wage data showed flat-to-down in manufacturing, particularly in durables.  That was a bit surprising.  Overtime and workweek hours were essentially flat, so there's no indication of good/bad there on net, but there was plenty of shuffling around.

Of note the people getting laid off or fired appear to be in those with college degrees (Bachelors or better); among those of lesser attainment they all showed significant improvement.  Of course those with degrees, generally, are those with better spending power.  That, according to Joe Biden, means that the economy is very strong.  YMMV.

Another interesting note is that over the last year among the labor force 1.194 million people acquired a new disability.  And -- their increase in labor participation (that is, working) rose faster than those without a disability.  This implies economic distress -- doesn't prove it, but certainly implies it.  That count rose 5.4% over the last 12 months while the non-disabled civilian population rose by a much smaller 0.6%; that is, roughly 10 times the general increase in the civilian non-institutional population.  What's even worse is that among the labor force the disability rate over the last 12 months increased 16.4%.  I'll leave it to you, given which side of the line this article is posted on, as to what might be causing that (oops!)  Incidentally men in the labor force wildly outperformed (that is, worse; that number was up an astounding 20% in one year) in this metric over women.  Double-oops.  I'm sure that will all buff right out.

The market seemed to think this was a perfectly-good thing in that the S&P futures rose on these figures.

One has to wonder how a 12 month run rate of the civilian labor force having the disabled count go up 16.4% can be considered a "positive" for the stock market, but then again we do live in clown world....... so all you can do is trade the tape you get. (read more)