Beginning in April 2010 the New Hampshire employment picture, the reported percentage at least, started to look a whole lot better. Having reached a high of 7.1% in February 2010, April’s 6.7% was a promising sign, a cool breeze on a hot day.
Things continued to look better through May and the preliminary June numbers are now reporting down to an even more palatable 5.9%.
If these numbers hold it would be the fourth consecutive month of improved reporting. But is it really a sign of improved employment?
Can we pop the champagne and predict even rosier employment numbers in the months to come?
Probably not.
While the number of people reporting themselves as unemployed has dropped by 8500 since the March report was released, the number of people reported in the work force over the same period dropped by 6300. That’s only a net improvement of 2200 jobs. Don’t get me wrong, adding 2200 jobs is nothing to look sideways at. And there are some signs of life in sectors outside hospitality and retail, but in the same period we added 1900 government jobs making it the largest growth sector in the state. A big junk of that is temporary census work (because hey!—Lynch cut state jobs right?) and not the kind indicative of fundamental economic and structural changes that result in the reliable, good paying, long term jobs that signal a real recovery.So I think it behooves us to go back to the declining workforce issue to get a more realistic tint on the state of the state on the matter of unemployment.
As of July 1st the physical population estimates from July 2009 to July 2010 of people 16 to 64 able to enter the workforce increased by just over 1600 people. So the declining workforce numbers used to determine unemployment rates are not a product of less people here of working age. So if you add the 6300 people lost from the workforce population figure back into the formula (and compare it the number of people reported as actually employed) the State unemployment rate goes back up to 6.7%. Take out the temp government jobs and we’re back near 7%.
Not such a rosy prescription. I’d go so far as to say that the Lynch regime is selling false hope and has in fact created a stagnating employment pool that has also sprung a slow leak. In short, the job picture has not fundamentally improved despite the declining numbers our governor is trying to stand on.
Some of that will probably become more evident by August’s report. Congress has recently passed another extension so the August and September figures (compared again to workforce populations and those reporting themselves as available to work but unemployed) along with Census workers who find themselves another number at the unemployment line, should give us a different public picture of where we are as a state structurally on the matter of employing the local population.
If there really is a new economic foundation for long term improvements, these negative factors should have a minimal affect because new jobs will gradually become available to absorb the newly unemployed, or by hiring those coming back to the benefits well who would rather be working. If not, we will see the rate plateau or a steady return to reported unemployment numbers back in the low to mid sixes. Workforce population will vary according to benefits and actual jobs available but the relationship will be key to determining the real rate of unemployment.
For now 5.9 is a mirage created by thousands who are here but nor seeking work. But you won’t find that on any press release from this governor. He’s not interested in the problem, just how to spin the picture so you won’t blame him for it before November.
