WHO GOT THE GIGS?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Jobs Report for October has been out for a week or so, and two of its top line numbers are 1) the number of jobs created in the economy increased by 194,000 during the month of September and 2) the nation's unemployment rate dropped from 5.2% in August to 4.8% in September.

I think it's fair to say that there's a widespread consensus that the report is disappointing, especially when it comes to the number of folks on the nation's payroll. While the unemployment rate landed just about where the economic Cassandras thought it would, that 194K figure fell far short of the 500,000 that pundits had been predicting. At that rate it would take another 24 months just to recoup the net loss of 5 million jobs the economy has shed since February 2020.

In this brief post, I'll dip a bit below the data to highlight who bagged those 194,000 jobs. I intentionally use the word "dip" because I stake no claim to comprehensiveness here. I will, though, take up some of the other issues in subsequent posts (like what's up with the unemployment and labor force participation rates of Black women and men). Right now, though, all I want to do is to pose and answer a simple but important question:

Who got the gigs?

WOMEN TOOK A LOST

When you dip below the data and account for the job gains in some industries and job losses in others you find that, on balance, by the time September came to a close the number of women on the payroll had dropped by 26K. Women started the month out with 73, 476 private sector gigs and ended it with 73,450. A net loss.

So, where's that 194,000 number coming from? Simple. The number of men on the nation's payroll increased by 220,000, and when you subtract women's net loss (26k) from men's net gain (220,000), you get the BLS's top line number: The economy experienced an increase of 194,000 jobs (220,000-26,000) during the month of September.

So, who got the gigs? Men. September's net gains went to them.

But I want to be careful here. The political rights chomps down on this stuff like it's Wheaties. Just take a look at social media and you'll see them all over the joint talking about how this is definite evidence of the wretchedness of what they've been dubbing the "woke economy." That is, an economy where markets are not insulated from "political interference." For them, it's evidence of the veracity of that old saw, "government bad, markets good."

Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that while markets may not be immoral they are, at least, amoral. They can't be relied upon to ensure the building of a genuine people's economy--a caring economy that ensures a gig to everyone who is able, ready, and willing to work. An economy where no one is left behind.

That's going to take intervention. That's going to take political policies that center the experiences of those who've been bearing the brunt of this economic mess. That means we're going to have to organize, advocate, and fight alongside the women and others who are at risk of being left behind. That means that, ultimately, we can't just be about parceling out and equitably sharing whatever spoils the market yields.

That means we've got to envision and build an economy where the answer to the question, who's got the gigs? is, "everyone who's able, ready, and willing to work--and they've got good gigs."

Catch you on the flip side,

Doc Greene