1.8% Unemployment Rate for March. That is insane. (Birmingham, Carolina: credit, wages)

[Nemean]

Originally Posted by bhamblazer

So a labor force of 566.7 thousand and an estimated metro population of 1,116 thousand gives us a labor force participation rate of 51%.

Am I doing that right? If so that's below the state rate of 56.7% and well below the national rate of 62.6%. If we were at least at the state rate, there would be 66k more people working in the metro. Think about how transformative that would be for the economy. It seems like the participation rate is what our leaders should be trying to tackle.

Originally Posted by MinivanDriver

Found the link:https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vaul...rate-explained


According to this website: "The labor force participation rate refers to the percentage of people age 16 and older who are in the labor force."

Tying these together with this, since the demographics group 15-19 year-olds together, labor participation age population is between 827k-897.9k. So, with a labor force of 566.7, that'd mean a participation rate between 63.1%-68.5%.

I'm not sure if that sounds right or not.

[MinivanDriver]

Originally Posted by Nemean

Tying these together with this, since the demographics group 15-19 year-olds together, labor participation age population is between 827k-897.9k. So, with a labor force of 566.7, that'd mean a participation rate between 63.1%-68.5%.

I'm not sure if that sounds right or not.

Your guess is as good as mine.

[bfmx1]

Originally Posted by MinivanDriver

If I understand correctly, I think the Labor Force Participation rate could be low for a number of reasons from aging demographics to longer time in education to early retirement to women opting to not work outside the home.



However, given the fact that anyone able-bodied with a pulse can find a job in Birmingham right now, I don't think discouraged workers figure heavily into the mix.

This is absolutely not true for white collar opportunities. I know this for a fact. In my field of Finance/FP&A there is a startling lack of job opportunities. Friends of mine in this field will agree, we get alot of recruiter inmails with job opportunities outside of Birmingham but almost never any in Alabama.

This is indicative of an unhealthy corporate presence in the metro. There are plenty of blue collar or hourly opportunities, but very little for someone with a business/accounting/finance degree.

Yes there are SOME opportunities but they're rarely "good" and we're very gun-shy about taking them knowing there isn't a good plan B in Birmingham. You take that ONE job and you better love it because you won't be able to jump ship unless you move.

Unemployment rate is very low but it's a poor indicator of a cities overall economic health.

[ben young]

Your counted on the Unemployment rolls only for 18 months . After that your not counted at all . Hence if enough folks are dropped because they cant find work , it looks like more folks are working and then Unemployment figures go down.
Joey says he did that .

[OldBankhead]

Did "Joey" change the labor board's methodology? Is it not the same when the thief/traitor/grifter/rapist was in power? If not then what's the true number?

What's the practical reason for worrying about someone not working after 18 months? Is that not a reasonable amount of time to assume they just don't want to or can't work and aren't actively looking? If they are that stubborn and have the means to hold out that long because they can't get the exact position/job/salary they want, they aren't typical unemployed people worth worrying about.

[bfmx1]

It's also easy to have lower unemployment numbers when population isn't growing at a proper rate. Those who can't find work leave. Those who stay make something work. That doesn't mean it's a good job. I have many friends, including my self in the past, that have taken crap jobs because it's all that was available. Few options! There's a "healthy" unemployment rate of between 3% and 5%. Anything lower than that means companies cannot find suitably skilled labor. There are fewer "good" job openings.

It's like saying I'm six feet tall, isn't that a good thing? Yes, but not if I'm also 500 pounds.

[steveklein]

Originally Posted by OldBankhead

What's the practical reason for worrying about someone not working after 18 months? Is that not a reasonable amount of time to assume they just don't want to or can't work and aren't actively looking? If they are that stubborn and have the means to hold out that long because they can't get the exact position/job/salary they want, they aren't typical unemployed people worth worrying about.

The practical reason is a desire to shift overall policy. There are millions, if not tens of millions, of Americans who choose not to work because they can get by because of the taxpayers who do work, and that rubs lots of people the wrong way.

[drive carephilly]

Originally Posted by bhamblazer

Agreed, but is labor force/total population not how you calculate the participation rate? If it is then children & retired people would be contemplated in the state and national numbers as well.

It doesn't count kids under 16 (lots of high schoolers work part time) but it would count college students and retirees even if they're not working part time.

But we have a good sense of the number of people on Social Security and the number of college students so it's relatively easy to subtract out those sets.

The very low unemployment is basically down to 4 things:

1. A strong economy combined with
2. Rapidly retiring boomers
3. Very low immigration for the last 3 years
4. Declining labor force participation

it's a shrinking labor pool, which I'm mostly fine with because it's good for wages

https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/202...h=d2f983c244ed

but people, mostly men, sitting on the sidelines, playing video games and getting high, collecting SSI isn't good for the country. It's actually a problem in all developed countries and had been growing for +25 years but here we are

https://www.richmondfed.org/publicat...istrict_digest

[Nemean]

So, uh... it looks like the unemployment rate dropped in April. Average weekly wages looks to have risen a notable bit as well, in state and more so in metro.

Wages in the metro alone were up significantly last month, as they were statewide.

Alabama’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 2.2% in April, according to the Alabama Department of Labor. It’s a new record low in a growing series of record lows for the state. It was 2.3% in March and 2.5% in April 2022. The U.S. unemployment rate was 3.4% this April.

And the number of people in the workforce was at a record high in April, according to the Alabama governor’s office, reaching 2.29 million, roughly 3,400 greater than in March.

The state’s labor force participation rate also moved in the right direction, according to the labor department. It was 56.8% in April, up from 56.7% in March. But it was 57.2% in April 2022. The U.S. labor force participation rate was 62.6% in April.

Average weekly earnings for the state were $1,023.12 in April, up from $992.10 in March and $995.44 in April 2022. For the Birmingham-Hoover metro, average weekly earnings were $1,105.54 in April, up from $1,066.72 in March and $1,066.95 in April 2022.

On a seasonally unadjusted basis, the unemployment rate in in the Birmingham-Hoover metro was 1.6% in April, down from 1.8% in March and 1.9% in April 2022.

Unfortunately labor participation rate mentioned is statewide instead of metro, and total labor force isn't mentioned either.

[RocketDawg]

Originally Posted by Nemean

So, uh... it looks like the unemployment rate dropped in April. Average weekly wages looks to have risen a notable bit as well, in state and more so in metro.



Unfortunately labor participation rate mentioned is statewide instead of metro, and total labor force isn't mentioned either.

That information is available, for the Birmingham and for other metros in the state and nation. Here's the Birmingham MSA. https://www.bls.gov/regions/southeas...ingham_msa.htm