Regulars of my blog know that I love to dig into the Bureau of Labor Statistics employment projections (who doesn't?). The Bureau recently published their latest projections, for 2010-20, which provide a look into the future of the job market... one that's pretty reliable, at least in terms of the composition of employment. That is, since they assume full employment, you can't count so much on the predicted quantities here, but their track record on what kinds of jobs by industry and occupation is good. Not perfect, of course... they can't foresee technological changes, like the spread of websites like Travelocity, which did a number on their travel-agent predictions a few years back.
So, here are just a few highlights, but this is one of those moments where you'll want to break out the chips and salsa and just stroll through these tables yourselves (which the Bureau makes awfully easy as they're all collapsed into a few spreadsheets -- I'm not announcing my candidacy, but if I were president, here's an agency budget I'd add to).
Everybody Doesn't Have to Be a Rocket Scientist
To hear policy makers go on about the alleged skills mismatch between what employers demand and what workers supply, you'd think all the new jobs are going to require at least a four-year degree. But look at the list of the occupations expected to add the most jobs over the next decade, ranked in order of the number of jobs BLS predicts they'll add (here are the top 15).
For sure, there are jobs requiring college or more, including nurses (#1), teachers, and physicians. But most do not. The chart below just takes the first three occupations expected to add the most jobs and plots there educational composition as of 2010. Nurses skew right but the others skew left.
Now, before the skill freaks come after me, let me be very explicit: first, who's to say that the skill demands for a food prep worker or cashier will be the same in 2020 as in 2010? Skill requirements could go up or down. Second, and more importantly, we're often better off -- and I include the worker herself in "we" -- if people within these occupational categories have more skills and training. As I've said before, a home health aide with an associate's degree in gerontology studies is a better home health aide, one who adds more value, add one who should earn a higher wage.
But based on a lot of what we hear, I suspect the average guy or gal on the street would be surprised to see the occupations on that list.
Productivity Effects
I found this next figure awfully interesting as well.
It plots job growth by industry against output growth. Thus, where each industry dot locates is a function of its productivity growth.
Dots in the upper right quadrant above the 45-degree line are industries with positive productivity growth expected to add jobs. Those like information (publishing, broadcasting, telecom) or financial services are expected to add a lot more growth than jobs. Those below the line, like health care and education, are big job creators, but are productivity constrained. [Note: this isn't an obviously bad thing -- we could make our teachers a lot more "productive" by tripling class size.]
Then there are those industries in the upper left where output grows faster than employment. They're "too productive" at least in terms of job creation.
Note that the Bureau predicts the loss of manufacturing jobs over the decade -- actually, just 73,000 over 10 years, but what's up with that? It's not worse trade outcomes: they predict goods' exports will exceed imports. It's just a continuation of long-term trend -- a trend that worsened in the 2000s, but has picked up a little steam in recent months.
Can policy change that result? Perhaps some, but I wouldn't expect that manufacturing dot to move too far to the right (i.e., towards much more employment growth). But unlike some others, including one of my favorite economists out there, I think we should try. The sector is important not just for job growth -- though those are very important too -- but for its contribution to R&D, productivity, and the ability to unwind our trade imbalances.
Next: some of BLS's workforce predictions. I know!... I can hardly wait either!
This post originally appeared at Jared Bernstein's On The Economy blog.
When Reagan deregulated every industry. And grew government like nothing we had ever seen before. This was the beginning of what has become today.. ;-)
Perhaps your dislike of Reagan has clouded your memory. Deregulated every industry, huh?? Not in this reality.
Another White House problem from this in the CBO report: "The share of unemployed more than six months — referred to as the long-term unemployed — topped 40% for the first time - The highest since 1948, when such data began to be collected; it has remained above that level ever since."
The CBO data aren't isolated. Gallup reports that its unemployment rate based on weekly surveys stands at 9%, while underemployment is at a hefty 19%.
Chronic unemployment worse than Great Depression - CBS Evening News - CBS News
"...About 6.2 million Americans, 45.1 percent of all unemployed workers in this country, have been jobless for more than six months - a higher percentage than during the Great Depression..."
The 9% Gallup represents an unadjusted number, not a seasonally adjusted number. A year ago, that Gallup unemployment number was above 10% while the BLS number was 8.9%. February is a low employment number, so the BLS number is usually 1 to 1.2% lower than the Gallup number.
The number of long-term unemployed people is a problem, but that doesn't mean that the employment picture as a whole is not improving.
FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM
OsiXs (Revolution 2.0)
Why hasn't Huffpo reported the new Gallup unemployment numbers for mid February?
U.S. Unemployment Increases in Mid-February
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_103.htm
Not sure where exotic dancers and porn stars would fall in the BLS categories.
Fantastic, it’s working, but that is about the only thing that is if it were true. The number of people looking for work, underemployed, unemployed is approximately 19%. The number for black youth unemployment is 40%.
Thank God we have progressives.
Are those all really considered "occupations" - or are many just jobs of last resort? Other than RNs and teachers, few of these jobs pay a living wage. And plenty of them are bound to be filled by grads with heavy student-loan debt.
The fact that most newly created jobs in the next decade will be low-skilled, and will pay accordingly, is hardly cause for celebration.
Do this and watch the job growth. And Medicare can make sure it doles out $ to health care organizations that don't send radiographs of tax paying citizens to India...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/second-thoughts-on-free-trade.html
Second Thoughts on Free Trade - New York Times
"...Yet in that essay of 70 years ago, Keynes himself was beginning to question some of the assumptionÂs supporting free trade. The question today is whether the case for free trade made two centuries ago is undermined by the changes now evident in the modern global economy.
Two recent examples illustrate this concern. Over the next three years, a major New York securities firm plans to replace its team of 800 American software engineers, who each earns about $150,000 per year, with an equally competent team in India earning an average of only $20,000. Second, within five years the number of radiologisÂts in this country is expected to decline significanÂtly because M.R.I. data can be sent over the Internet to Asian radiologisÂts capable of diagnosing the problem at a small fraction of the cost.
[snip]
We are concerned that the United States may be entering a new economic era in which American workers will face direct global competitioÂn at almost every job level -- from the machinist to the software engineer to the Wall Street analyst. Any worker whose job does not require daily face-to-faÂce interactioÂn is now in jeopardy of being replaced by a lower-paidÂ, equally skilled worker thousands of miles away..."
How prescient.
A movement is about to commence. P