…the unemployment rate fell from 6.2% to 4.2%. And the unemployment rate continued to fall for the next two years ending up at 3.9% as of December 2000. It is…

I owe our readers a follow-up to this post. While Chad accused me of cherry picking the time frame with the suggestion the labor compensation to national income ratio for…

…consider the following. Reported employment appears to have jumped by more than 1 million from December 2002 to January 2003. However, the employment to population ratio barely increased from 62.4%…

…employment rose by 5.9%. Of course, the reason why employment rose by so little has more to do with the decline in employment after March 2001. Update: Krugman’s “A Whiff…

For the household survey types, the key number from the recent Employment Situation Summary should be the 62.4% employment-to-population rate which was unchanged. As the author of this post, I…

…in employment was overly optimistic. But Larry misrepresents what this paper was doing. Its purpose was to explain how employment growth could be weak and yet the unemployment rate could…

…House predicted average employment this year of 132.7 million. Since employment started the year at 130.2 million, this implies that they were predicting December employment of over 135 million. We’re…

Bush apologists used to note that the current unemployment rate is near the average during the Clinton years, which forgets that unemployment fell during Clinton’s Administration and has increased under…

Tomorrow morning at 8:30 the Bureau of Labor Statistics will release its estimates for the number of people working and unemployed in the US in August. There’s some expectation that…

…the employment report was stronger than expected. Are such extreme reactions to a monthly report sensible? Some movement in bond yields in response to the employment report is only natural…