U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

72–183 2012

S. HRG. 112–264 

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: OCTOBER 2011 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 4, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Joint Economic Committee 

( 

(II) 

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE 

[Created pursuant to Sec. 5(a) of Public Law 304, 79th Congress] 

SENATE 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania, 

Chairman 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

PAT TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas, Vice Chairman 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, M.D., Texas 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

WILLIAM E. HANSEN, Executive Director 

ROBERT P. O’QUINN, Republican Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS

Hon. Maurice D. Hinchey, a U.S. Representative from New York ...................... 1 

Hon. Kevin Brady, Vice Chairman, a U.S. Representative from Texas .............. 2 

WITNESSES

Dr. Keith Hall, Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics, accompanied by: 

Dr. Michael Horrigan, Associate Commissioner for Prices and Living Conditions, Bureau of Labor Statistics; and Mr. Jack Galvin, Acting Deputy 

Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics ......................................................... 5 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Prepared statement of Vice Chairman Kevin Brady ............................................ 20 

Prepared statement of Dr. Keith Hall, together with Press Release No. 

USDL–11–1576 ..................................................................................................... 21 

Chart submitted by Vice Chairman Brady titled ‘‘Monthly Change in Government Payrolls Seasonally Adjusted January 2008–October 2011’’ .................. 60 

Chart submitted by Vice Chairman Brady titled ‘‘Monthly Change in Private 

Payrolls Seasonally Adjusted January 2008–October 2011’’ ............................ 61 

Chart submitted by Vice Chairman Brady titled ‘‘Monthly Change in Private 

Payrolls Seasonally Adjusted January 2008–September 2011’’ ....................... 62 

Letter dated November 22, 2011, transmitting Dr. Keith Hall’s response 

to Representative Carolyn Maloney ................................................................... 63 

Letter dated December 1, 2011, transmitting Dr. Keith Hall’s response to 

Representative Michael C. Burgess .................................................................... 67 

(1) 

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: OCTOBER 

2011 

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2011 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, 

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 210, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Maurice Hinchey presiding. 

Representatives present: Brady, Burgess, Mulvaney, Hinchey, 

and Maloney. 

Staff present: Ted Boll, Robert O’Quinn, Sean Ryan, Gail 

Cohen, Cary Elliott, Will Hansen, Colleen Healy, and Jesse 

Hervitz. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAURICE D. HINCHEY, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK 

Representative Hinchey. Gentlemen, thank you very much. 

We are about to start. We are under a little pressure because we 

are going to have votes coming up sometime probably within the 

next half-hour. So let me just open with a few statements. 

First of all, Chairman Casey couldn’t be here today, and I am 

very pleased to stand in for him this morning. 

I would like to welcome Commissioner Hall back this month and 

also welcome Acting Deputy Commissioner Jack Galvin, who is 

joining Commissioner Hall and Dr. Horrigan at the table for the 

first time today. 

Thank you very much for being here, all three of you. I appreciate it. 

Dr. Galvin previously served as associate commissioner for employment and unemployment statistics from 1998 to September 

2011 and in other senior positions at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

In the past few weeks, we have gotten several economic reports, 

including today’s employment report, which have shown a mixed 

economic picture. The data are better than a few months ago but 

not strong enough to significantly bring down the unemployment 

rate. 

On the positive side, the 2.5 percent increase in gross domestic 

product in the third quarter was stronger than the growth achieved 

during the first half of the year, showing movement in the right, 

appropriate direction. However, real disposable personal income declined in the third quarter, indicating that consumers are continuing to feel the pressure of stagnant wages. 

2 

The ISM Manufacturing Index reading of 50.8 percent in October 

marked the 27th consecutive month of expansion in the manufacturing sector. But the sector, so important to our economic growth, 

decelerated slightly from September, 51.6 percent in the reading. 

As today’s employment numbers show, economic growth is still 

not strong enough to make significant headway cutting into the unemployment rate. More than nine quarters into the recovery, unemployment remains at 9 percent, officially 9.1 percent, and more 

than 42 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for 6 

months or more. We need to move from discussion of the American 

Jobs Act to passing legislation that will help to create jobs and 

strengthen this economy. 

Before I turn to today’s employment report, I want to highlight 

a few actions we could take to bolster the economy. 

First of all, we should provide new incentives for small firms to 

hire. Chairman Casey has introduced legislation which creates a 1- 

year quarterly tax credit equal to up to 20 percent of the total increase in employee wages. Also, we should extend and expand the 

employee payroll tax cut, which is set to expire at the end of the 

year. This will boost demand, create jobs, and strengthen our economy. 

We must support our State and local governments, which have 

been forced to lay off hundreds of thousands of workers, including 

teachers and first responders, to meet balanced-budget requirements. 

The House should take up legislation already passed by the Senate to crack down on China’s currency manipulation. And we need 

to strengthen U.S. manufacturing by creating a national manufacturing strategy that supports manufacturing companies and workers in our country. 

There are a number of other things that we could say here, but 

I want to just wrap it up and ask Mr. Brady for some statements. 

Mr. Brady, thank you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN BRADY, VICE 

CHAIRMAN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS 

Vice Chairman Brady. Commissioner Hall, I want to thank 

you for spending your morning with us as we review the employment situation. For some time now, you have had the difficult job 

of being the bearer of bad news as many hardworking Americans 

have desperately sought a sustained economic recovery. You will be 

happy to know that we don’t shoot the messenger here in Washington, at least not yet. 

I would like to begin with some potential hope for our economy 

following two dismal quarters of anemic growth. Real gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of 2.5 percent in the third quarter of this year. So, finally, America’s economy is marginally larger 

than it was when the recession began in December of 2007. 

Unfortunately, the outlook going forward looks less rosy. Projections of future economic growth for the balance of this year and 

next have been significantly lowered by the Fed as well as international economic organizations. The turbulence from a potential 

financial crisis in Europe could still precipitate a double-dip recession here—a very real threat which could have been avoided had 

3 

poor economic policies from the White House not resulted in a very 

weak and a very slow recovery. 

Equally troubling is this jobless recovery. More than 2 years 

after the recession officially ended, there are 6.4 million fewer payroll jobs in America than when the recession began and more than 

5.9 million Americans are long-term unemployed. The President’s 

policies are simply not working. 

By comparison, the Reagan expansion which followed the similarly deep 1981–1982 recession outperforms Obama’s economy by 

all metrics, including economic growth and job creation. The difference is the Reagan expansion occurred in a political environment 

that fostered private business investment and encouraged Americans to work and save. 

President Reagan’s policies were a favorable tailwind. In contrast, the American economy now confronts policy headwinds. Virtually every step of the way, President Obama and congressional 

Democrats have increased, not decreased, uncertainty that Americans and American businesses have faced. This uncertainty has 

discouraged businesses from making investment in new buildings, 

equipment, and software that would create millions of new jobs and 

cause a rapid fall in the unemployment rate. Instead, Washington 

should create a political environment that incentivizes Americans 

to work and save and incentivizes American businesses to invest. 

Then Washington should get out of the way. 

This is the first employment hearing since President Obama’s 

proposal for a second round of stimulus spending that would require massive new borrowing from foreign entities, creating debt 

which future generations of hardworking Americans would have to 

pay for. Stimulus II is not paid for. It will add billions more to the 

national debt and is wrongly focused on creating taxpayer-funded 

government jobs. 

Not only can we not afford it, but it is a glaring admission that 

the first stimulus failed. Remember, we still have 1.3 million fewer 

American jobs than when the original stimulus began. That is 1.3 

million fewer Americans working than when the stimulus began. 

Enough is enough. Hardworking Americans deserve a fresh start. 

America needs to grow jobs, not grow the Federal Government. Ultimately, private business investment drives private-sector payroll 

job growth. Businesses make their investments based on the outlook for the long term, not just the next year. The President’s proposal, which even Senate Democrats quickly rejected, seeks to spur 

investment through temporary tax reductions but does little to encourage businesses to increase their investments over time. 

Rather than Washington taking more of what Americans earn, 

our Nation craves a simple, fair Tax Code that increases the incentives for Americans to work and save and for American businesses 

to invest. This requires a permanent reduction in the effective marginal tax rates on both capital and labor. 

Moreover, tax reform should help and not hinder American businesses who want to invest here in America. As I have proposed, 

Washington should immediately lower the tax gate to allow American firms competing successfully overseas to bring home their 

profits that are stranded abroad so these firms can invest in AmerVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:53 Feb 22, 2012 Jkt 072183 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\72183.TXT DPROCT
4 

ica—in new jobs, in new research and development, new expansions, and financial stability. 

Repatriation, as it is called, is a free market stimulus of nearly 

$1 trillion that will create up to 3 million American jobs, increase 

Federal tax revenues, and boost the economy by between 1 and 4 

percent. Now, that is a stimulus America can get behind. 

I urge President Obama to join congressional Republicans in supporting a comprehensive, bipartisan tax reform that results in a 

permanent reduction in marginal tax rates. 

Twice in my lifetime I have seen the benefit of such plans, first 

under Kennedy and then under Reagan. Both men trusted in the 

American people. Put another way, they placed their faith in the 

marketplace, which is nothing more than the collective judgment of 

the American people as to where to invest their money. Their 

sound economic policies fueled the economic booms of the 1960s 

and the 1980s and the 1990s. Kennedy and Reagan helped spawn 

entirely new industries, kept our great Nation first in research and 

development, patents, inventions, and entrepreneurship. 

President Obama has a real chance to be a game-changer here, 

or, as he likes to say, a transformational President. All he needs 

to do is follow his predecessors’ lead. Republicans in Congress are 

ready and willing to work with the President to create real jobs 

along the Main Streets across America. 

With that, Dr. Hall, I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Brady appears in the 

Submissions for the Record on page 20.] 

Representative Hinchey. Thank you very much. 

Because of the fact we are going to have votes very shortly, we 

ask unanimous consent to have written statements and we will 

have those statements as time goes on. 

Representative Hinchey. First of all, I would like to introduce 

Commissioner Hall. 

Dr. Keith Hall is the commissioner of labor statistics for the U.S. 

Department of Labor. BLS is an independent national statistical 

agency that collects, processes, analyzes, and disseminates essential statistical data to the American public, the U.S. Congress, 

other Federal agencies, State and local governments, businesses, 

and labor. 

Dr. Hall also served as chief economist for the White House 

Council of Economic Advisors for 2 years under President George 

W. Bush. Prior to that, he was chief economist for the U.S. Department of Commerce. Dr. Hall also spent 10 years at the U.S. International Trade Commission. 

Dr. Hall received his B.A. degree from the University of Virginia, 

his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in economics from Purdue University. 

Dr. Hall, Mr. Galvin, Dr. Horrigan, please. Thank you. 

5 

STATEMENT OF DR. KEITH HALL, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF 

LABOR STATISTICS, ACCOMPANIED BY: DR. MICHAEL 

HORRIGAN, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR PRICES AND 

LIVING CONDITIONS, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS; AND 

MR. JACK GALVIN, ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS 

Commissioner Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the employment and unemployment data. 

This microphone doesn’t work. 

Representative Hinchey. Do the best you can. 

Commissioner Hall. Nonfarm payroll employment continued to 

trend up in October, and the unemployment rate, at 9 percent, was 

little changed. Over the past 12 months, payroll employment has 

increased by an average of 125,000 per month. 

In October, private-sector employment increased by 104,000, with 

continued growth in professional and business services, leisure and 

hospitality, health care, and mining. Government employment continued to trend down. 

Employment in professional and business services continued to 

trend up in October. In recent months, there have been modest job 

gains in temporary help services and in management and technical 

consulting services. 

Employment in leisure and hospitality continued to trend up over 

the month. Since a recent low in January of 2010, the industry has 

added 344,000 jobs. 

Health care employment edged up by 12,000 in October, following a gain of 45,000 in September. The 2-month average increase of 29,000 was in line with the industry’s recent trend. In October, offices of physicians gained 8,000 jobs. 

Construction employment was down by 20,000 in October, largely 

offsetting a gain in the prior month. Both over-the-month movements largely occurred in nonresidential construction industries. 

Employment in other major private-sector industries changed little 

in October. 

Employment in government continued to trend down. State government, excluding education, lost 16,000 jobs over the month. Employment in both State government and local government has been 

falling since the second half of 2008. 

Turning now to measures from our survey of households, the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 9 percent in October. The jobless rate has held in a narrow range from 9.0 to 9.2 

percent since April. In October, there were 13.9 million unemployed 

persons, little changed from the prior month. The number of persons jobless for 27 weeks and over declined by 366,000 to 5.9 million, or 42.4 percent of total unemployment. 

The employment-to-population ratio, at 58.4 percent, was little 

changed in October. Among the employed, those working part-time 

for economic reasons fell by 374,000, to 8.9 million. 

The labor force participation rate, at 64.2 percent, was unchanged over the month. Thus far in 2011, the participation rate 

has held at about 64 percent. 

6 

Among those outside of the labor force—persons neither working 

nor looking for work—the number of discouraged workers in October was 967,000, down from 1.2 million a year earlier. 

In summary, nonfarm payroll employment continued to trend up 

in October. The unemployment rate was little changed at 9 percent. 

My colleagues and I would now be glad to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Commissioner Hall, together with 

Press Release No. USDL–11–1576, appears in the Submissions for 

the Record on page 21.] 

Representative Hinchey. Anything else? 

Commissioner Hall. No. 

Representative Hinchey. Just a couple of questions. First of 

all, how would you characterize the state of the labor market 

today? 

Commissioner Hall. Well, I think the first thing, and it is an 

important thing, there is continued job growth. In fact, since the 

labor market trough in, let’s say, February of 2010, from March on 

we have had continuous job growth, if you take out the temporary 

effects of Decennial Census workers being hired and fired for the 

Decennial. We have had steady job growth; it just hasn’t been 

strong. 

I think my best characterization now is that we seem to be growing jobs at about 125,000 a month, we have over the past year. Actually, that is job growth, but it is still not enough job growth to 

start really making headway. It is keeping up or close to keeping 

up with the population, which means it is not strong enough to 

start lowering the unemployment rate. 

Representative Hinchey. Uh-huh. 

As we know, prior to losing jobs in August and September, the 

manufacturing sector had added jobs for 9 straight months and has 

been a source of strength for the recovery. 

In your view, how important is the manufacturing sector to employment in other sectors? And why do you believe the employment 

growth has slowed or stopped in recent months in manufacturing? 

And is it typical to see strong growth, then a couple of months 

where there is no job growth, and then a resumption of the earlier 

growth? 

Commissioner Hall. Well, the manufacturing sector does have 

fairly strong linkages to other sectors. In particular, particularly 

with wholesale trade, management of companies and enterprises, 

services to buildings and dwellings, truck transportation, and food 

service and drinking places, those are probably the top industries 

that are related to manufacturing. So manufacturing is important. 

The importance goes beyond just manufacturing. 

I am not sure I can tell you why employment growth has 

stopped. It did pick up, start to pick up, again this month. I think 

the more remarkable thing, to be honest, is that it has been growing at all, because if you look at any of the recent recessions, job 

loss in manufacturing has not recovered. Manufacturing just hasn’t 

recovered at all from recent past recessions. So the fact now that 

we have had some job growth is encouraging. 

And you are right, in terms of the fluctuation of growth and not 

growth, that is not uncommon in any industry. And I think what 

you are seeing with manufacturing is just some variation in the 

7 

growth. And it is not really strong growth, but it is pretty consistent growth, I think. 

Representative Hinchey. Yeah, it is—the fact of the matter is, 

I think, that the growth is very, very slow, and the unemployment 

rate is still 9 percent. And there are an awful lot of things that 

could be done, that should be done, to try to stimulate this economy. 

If you look at different sectors, we are now more than 2 years 

into the economic recovery, but unemployment is still far, far too 

high. During the great recession, the construction and manufacturing sectors were hard-hit, while education and health services 

added jobs throughout the recession in every month but one; that 

was March of 2009. 

In the past year, what are the sectors that are continuing to face 

weakness in employment? And have any sectors shown new 

strength in the past year? 

Commissioner Hall. By far the weakest sector continues to be 

government employment. Over the past year, government employment has dropped by about somewhere over 300,000 jobs. That has 

been split between State government and local government. 

A number of other industries have had either little growth or little job loss over, say, the past year—for example, utilities, financial 

activities, in construction and other services. Those are all industries that have had relatively flat over the past year. 

The industries that have had the biggest job growth, professional 

business services has had over half a million jobs over the past 

year; education and health services, as you mentioned, mostly 

health services, that has grown by over 400,000 jobs; and then we 

have had some job growth in places like manufacturing, a couple 

hundred thousand jobs in manufacturing; leisure and hospitality 

we have had some job growth. 

So the strong growth, anyway, is not widespread, and a number 

of industries haven’t had very strong growth at all, but we are having a little growth in a couple of industries. 

Representative Hinchey. Well, thank you, Commissioner Hall. 

Mr. Brady. 

Vice Chairman Brady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

If you are one of the 25 million Americans who are out of work 

and can’t find a full-time job, today’s numbers are disheartening 

yet again. 

But, Commissioner, at this monthly rate of a net 80,000 job 

growth, how long would it take for us to return to the unemployment levels before the recession? 

Commissioner Hall. Well, the short answer is never. To keep 

up with just the population growth, you probably need, my estimate is around 130,000 jobs. So at 80,000, you are not quite even 

keeping up with population. So, in fact, over a long time period, 

you might even see the unemployment rate edge back up. 

Vice Chairman Brady. So, you made the comment that for the 

past year we are averaging less than the 130,000 as well. So if we 

looked at the broader picture, the past 12 months, the answer still 

would be, we are never going—at this pace, never going to get back 

to the point before this recession began. 

Commissioner Hall. That is right. 

8 

Vice Chairman Brady. Can I ask you about the number of 

workers who are actually in the workforce today? It has recently 

hit 30-year lows. It has been a long time since we have had this 

low a percentage of people in the workforce. 

It has ticked up very slightly here in the last month or so. Do 

you expect that to continue? And isn’t that one of the indicators of 

restoring a healthy economy that, today, we just don’t see? 

Commissioner Hall. Yeah, I wouldn’t want to speculate about 

expectations, but the point—that it is a valid point. I think the 

labor force is probably something on the order of 4 million below 

what it would be under normal times. 

And I think, to get strong job growth, we are going to have to 

see this sort of confidence in the economy where people need to get 

back in the labor force, and we need to see the labor force start to 

grow again, and that just hasn’t happened. 

Vice Chairman Brady. Well, Chairman, because I know the 

votes are coming shortly, I would like to cut my time short so we 

can get more questions in. 

Representative Hinchey. Thank you. 

Mrs. Maloney. 

Representative Maloney. Welcome. 

I always like to start with the good news. What are the bright 

spots in the report today? 

Commissioner Hall. Well, we do have job growth, and we do 

have the job growth in a few industries. Mining added some jobs, 

and retail trade added some jobs, professional business services, 

education, leisure and hospitality. 

And, you know, we have had a pick-back-up, I think, in temporary help services. And the reason I focus on that is that that 

very often is a leading indicator of a pickup in job growth. And for 

a little while there, the job growth in temporary help services flattened out, we got none. And it seems to be picking up a little bit, 

and that is good news. 

And then the unemployment rate, you know, it was essentially 

unchanged, but it did tick down a little bit. At least our point estimate went from 9.1 to 9.0. I am not sure I would put a lot of stock 

into that because it is a very small change, but that could be an 

encouraging sign. 

Representative Maloney. This recession has, in some ways, 

been characterized as a man’s recession because of the big losses 

we have seen in manufacturing and construction. So I am worried 

about how these employment gains for women during this recovery 

are doing, especially due to the losses in the State and local government, which you mentioned was roughly 300,000. 

Can you tell me how women are faring in the past 2 years or 

during this recession? And if you have the numbers, fine; if not, if 

you can get it to us, we would love it. 

Commissioner Hall. Okay. I can get you the numbers. I can 

generally characterize it, though. 

Representative Maloney. Okay. 

[Letter dated November 22, 2011, transmitting Dr. Keith Hall’s 

response to Representative Carolyn Maloney appears in the Submissions for the Record on page 63.] 

9 

Commissioner Hall. Although this has been termed a man’s recession because so many more men lost jobs than women, women 

did lose a significant number of jobs. And that actually doesn’t always happen. In the last couple of recessions, the employment by 

women didn’t really go down very much. 

And then the other end of that is, in the recovery so far, it really 

has been mostly men in the recovery. There have been very few 

women re-employed in the recovery so far, and for exactly the reason you cited, I think. Women, in particular, are over-represented 

in government, particularly local government, and they actually 

have fairly strong representation in financial activities, and that 

hasn’t recovered very strongly. 

Representative Maloney. Could you characterize—and this is 

my last question so that Dr. Burgess can get in some questions. 

It has been characterized also as the credit recession. And how 

is this different from other recessions? Particularly, didn’t other recessions have trouble with access to credit? Why is this called the 

credit recession? 

Commissioner Hall. I think it is fair to say that that—it is fair 

to say that the real depth of this recession, and length—it has been 

very, very deep and very long—has been due, in large part, to the 

credit markets. At least that is the way it appears to me. That is 

what makes it probably a great recession as opposed to a recession, 

has been the credit markets. 

Representative Maloney. But didn’t other recessions have 

challenges with access to credit? 

Commissioner Hall. Not to the extent that this recession did. 

In fact, that is a really—— 

Representative Maloney. And the causes were different. What 

do you say was the cause of this recession? 

Commissioner Hall. I think in the early stages it was what you 

might call a wealth effect. I think people lost housing value and 

they lost wealth, and that sort of started to cause consumer demand to drop off. 

But it really got bad when the credit markets locked up. And 

once credit markets locked up and businesses started having trouble getting loans—— 

Representative Maloney. So the financial crisis. 

Commissioner Hall. Yes, exactly. 

Representative Maloney. Thank you. 

Representative Hinchey. Unfortunately, we have about 5 minutes for the votes that are on the floor. Do you have time to stay 

here for a little while? There are two votes, and we will be right 

back after these votes. 

Commissioner Hall. Sure, absolutely. 

Representative Hinchey. All right. Thank you very much. 

[Recess.] 

Representative Hinchey. Well, thank you very much, gentlemen, for waiting for us. This session of votes is over, but there is 

a new session coming up shortly. And we want to just thank you 

very much for everything you are doing. 

I want now to ask Mr. Mulvaney if he has some interesting questions. 

10 

Representative Mulvaney. I have questions. I don’t know if 

they are interesting or not. We will find out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Commissioner Hall, is it possible—you hear a lot of discussion in 

this town as to what life would have been like with or without 

whatever it is that we do. In this particular circumstance, it is with 

or without the stimulus. 

Is it possible to estimate what the unemployment rate would 

have been without the stimulus program? 

Commissioner Hall. Yeah, that is—generally, what we do is, 

sort of, reality-based. So what we are doing is we are trying to give 

you our best picture of where the economy is. Our surveys really 

aren’t designed to, sort of, get reasons of things from people when 

we send out a survey, especially our establishment survey. So there 

is really no way for us to collect data on what would have been 

without the stimulus or without anything really. 

Representative Mulvaney. The CBO recently put out a report 

that said that the unemployment rate would have been between 0.3 

points to 1.1 point higher than it otherwise would have been. Are 

you familiar with that report at all or not? 

Commissioner Hall. A little bit, yes. 

Representative Mulvaney. And how are you familiar with it, 

sir? 

Commissioner Hall. I have some notion of the sort of methodology that they have used and, sort of, how they are arriving at 

that number. 

Representative Mulvaney. Do you think it is fairly sound, 

being familiar with their methodology? 

Commissioner Hall. Yeah, it certainly is sound in the sense 

that it is using common methodology that economists use. And, you 

know, what they are essentially doing is they are taking estimates 

of the impact things have had in the past, government spending 

has had in the past, and sort of applying it to the current situation, 

doing it that way. 

The difficulty of that, of course, is that it is sort of a model estimate, and it really is very much based on assumptions and views 

about how the economy works. 

So, while the methodology is fairly standard and et cetera, again, 

it is not really giving you data, it is not really giving you anything 

like what we give you with the employment numbers. 

Representative Mulvaney. Got you. If you take their numbers—we are at 9.1 percent this morning, is that where we are? 

Commissioner Hall. Yes. 

Representative Mulvaney. Then someplace—according to 

them, it would be between 9.4 and 10.2. That is their range of 0.3 

percent to 1.1 percent. 

Are there any set of circumstances, any set of reasonable assumptions, that anybody could come out and say that the unemployment rate today would be 15 percent but for the stimulus program? Is there any way, you know, in any reasonable analysis, you 

could get to that number? 

Commissioner Hall. I don’t know. I don’t want to try to characterize that. It is making assumptions that the economy was going 

11 

to get a lot worse than it did get and a lot worse than anybody was 

forecasting. So, in that sense, it is a stretch. 

Representative Mulvaney. Have you seen any scientific or 

educational or intellectual-backed studies that have justified a 

claim that the unemployment rate would be 15 percent today but 

for the stimulus program? 

Commissioner Hall. Yeah, it is just that the sort of work that 

can be done is pretty similar to what the CBO did, and that is with 

a model and with some assumptions about what they believe would 

be the typical effect of government spending. You get an answer 

that way. 

Representative Mulvaney. Have you seen any reputable studies that would lead you to believe or that would show that the unemployment rate today would be 15 percent but for the stimulus 

program? 

Commissioner Hall. No, but I haven’t looked. And I am not 

sure I would call—if the CBO—was the CBO estimating that? 

Representative Mulvaney. No, that is actually Mrs. Pelosi’s office this morning. 

Commissioner Hall. Oh, okay. Yeah, I haven’t looked at that 

study. I haven’t looked at other studies. 

Representative Mulvaney. Do you think there is a study? 

Commissioner Hall. I really have no idea. 

Representative Mulvaney. So you have never heard of any 

study that would say that unemployment would be 15 percent? 

Commissioner Hall. No, but we are pretty focused on the real 

data, so I am not looking. 

Representative Mulvaney. I am focused on the real data, as 

well. I just sort of wondered if this had anything to do with real 

data, and it sounds like it doesn’t. 

I will yield back my time and hope we get a second round of 

questions on some other topics. Thank you. 

Representative Hinchey. Thank you very much. 

I will just ask a couple of simple questions. 

The relationship between regulation, the connection between regulation and job loss—we understand there are a lot of different 

theories out there as to why the labor market has been slow to recover. Some point to the weak overall economic growth. Some say 

there is too much uncertainty and that is preventing firms from 

hiring. Others say there is too much regulation. 

I saw a piece recently in The New York Times which referenced 

data BLS collects on why businesses carry out mass layoffs. Interestingly enough, government regulation was listed by businesses as 

a reason for the layoffs just 0.2 percent of the time in the first half 

of 2011, just 0.2 percent of the time in 2010 and 2009. 

By contrast, lack of demand was given—lack of demand, particularly, was given as the reason for 29.7 percent of layoffs in the first 

half of 2011, 30.6 percent in 2010, 39.1 percent in 2009. Other surveys by small business groups get similar results. 

I wonder, have you seen any data to suggest regulation is interfering with hiring? 

Commissioner Hall. I am not sure too much of our data addresses that point. This is, sort of, again, back to the issue of, you 

12 

know, we collect the data; we don’t do a lot of things that would 

tell us why things happen. 

The study you are referring to actually is based on BLS data. We 

have something called a Mass Layoff Statistics program. And what 

we do there is, any time there are 50 unemployment claims, or initial unemployment claims, over a 5-week period, we actually call 

up that establishment and verify that they have laid off 50 or more 

workers in a month, and we define that as a mass layoff. 

And once we identify a mass layoff, then we send them a questionnaire and ask why. And the data you are quoting is from this 

program. And so, for these mass layoffs—we had about 18 masslayoff events, for example, in 2010. Some of them cited government 

regulation as the reason. 

All right, so, while that is absolutely true and this does give you 

some insight on it, one thing to just sort of keep in mind is, that 

is only talking about mass-layoff events. Smaller events wouldn’t 

be captured there, and there would be no effect of regulation on job 

growth, holding back job growth or something like that. 

But, I mean, this does give you some information. It is just sort 

of limited. Other than that, I don’t think we have a lot that informs 

you about regulations’ impact on employment. 

Representative Hinchey. So—oh, Mr. Burgess. Nice to have 

you back. Please. 

Representative Burgess. Thank you. 

Commissioner Hall, you were talking a moment ago before we 

broke about the manufacturing sector and beginning to see some 

upticks there and then the influence of the other sectors on the 

manufacturing sector. And I am particularly interested in what is 

broadly characterized as in the mining, which would include the oil 

field expansions. 

And some of the bright spots in the country are areas where domestic production of oil and natural gas has really come forward 

in a big way in literally the last decade, sort of the last 15 years. 

But do you have any thoughts on areas like the Bakken Shale 

in North Dakota, the Barnett Shale where I live, Eagle Ford Shale 

in South Texas, Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, the effect that 

the development in these areas has had, not just on the mining sector, but on the manufacturing sector? 

Commissioner Hall. Yeah, and I don’t know a lot about the 

specifics. This month we had about 6,000 jobs in mining. 

It is not a big sector, it is not a lot of employment, but that has 

been supporting employment. In places like—you mentioned North 

Dakota. North Dakota has the lowest unemployment rate in the 

country, and it seems to be largely based on growth in mining employment. So that may or may not—that may be related. I just 

don’t know enough about the specifics. 

Representative Burgess. Well, there are, of course, concerns 

about doing it properly and having all the necessary environmental 

controls, and I don’t disagree with that. But I will just tell you, in 

North Texas, where the Barnett Shale is, where I live, we found 

out about the recession a year after it started. December of 2007, 

I believe, is when the economists pinpoint the start of the recession 

nationally. We were probably January of 2009 before it really beVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:53 Feb 22, 2012 Jkt 072183 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\72183.TXT DPROCT
13 

came evident in that part of Texas that, in fact, there was a problem. 

I don’t think the entire economy can recover on the strength of 

this one sector, and so I agree with you that the numbers, compared to the overall economy, may be small. But I am certainly 

concerned that some of the things that I am seeing happen on the 

regulatory side, particularly through the Environmental Protection 

Agency, could be damaging. And this, I think, has to be part of our 

recovery. 

Last month, or really just a week and a half ago, I did an economic development summit in a part of Fort Worth that I represent that is fairly economically challenged. And we had some 

business owners—we actually had Richard Fisher, who is the president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, come and talk to us, and 

it was fairly revealing. 

Now, a quote from Dr. Fisher: ‘‘Those with the capacity to hire 

American workers, small business as well as large, publicly created 

or private, are immobilized, not because they lack entrepreneurial 

zeal or do not wish to grow, not because they can’t access cheap 

and available credit, rather they simply cannot budget or manage 

for the uncertainty of fiscal and regulatory policy.’’ 

Is that a statement that you would generally agree with? 

Commissioner Hall. I think I would like to not comment on 

that sort of thing, given my role. 

Representative Burgess. Very well. Okay. I will, then. And I 

think he is right on the mark. 

And I guess the bigger question for up here, I mean, here we are 

receiving some numbers, and the numbers today look better than 

they have perhaps in previous months, but then, by your own admission, at this rate of growth, to get back to pre-2008 levels, we 

are not going to get there. And not just for the last month, but if 

you broaden it out to the past 12 months, 3 years into this administration, continuing to follow the trajectory, we don’t get back to 

pre-recession levels. 

But I guess the bigger question is—and I had some small-business owners as part of that economic development summit, and, I 

mean, they kept talking about the crushing burden of paperwork, 

the uncertainty regarding financial regulations, health-care regulations, environmental regulations. And, you know, it is no great surprise they are in a hunker-down mode because they just don’t know 

what the future is going to bring. 

I hope when we have these visits in the future that you bring 

good news to us, but, honestly, I think we have a lot of work to 

do on the regulatory end here in the People’s House. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. 

Representative Hinchey. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Brady. 

Vice Chairman Brady. Well, I know a vote is on, so I will be 

brief. 

Commissioner, you mentioned at this rate of 80,000 jobs and at 

last year’s rate of 125,000 jobs we literally will never get back to 

our pre-recession levels. 

Don’t we need about 250,000 jobs a month to really begin whittling down the unemployment rate? And even then, it would take 

14 

a number of years, roughly 2, 3 years, do you think, at that height 

and rate for us to really start to bring this down? 

Commissioner Hall. Yeah, actually, I like your number of about 

a quarter-million jobs to start to make headway. But even at that 

rate, it may be more than 3 years. 

Vice Chairman Brady. Gosh. 

Commissioner Hall. It is—— 

Vice Chairman Brady. Longer than that. 

Commissioner Hall. It may be longer than that. 

Vice Chairman Brady. Yeah. Look, I want this economy to recover. I think the Obama economy has been disheartening for people. We have to have a fresh start. 

Let me ask you this. Recently, Senate Majority Leader Reid 

made the comment that jobs along Main Street are doing fine; it 

is government jobs that he is worried about. But I took a look at 

your numbers for the past 3 years since this recession began, and 

it appears we have lost more than 4 million jobs along Main Street 

and have lost a little less than 700,000 in government jobs. And we 

have a chart that shows here what the difference is. And, obviously, the private-sector job loss has been considerably greater than 

that within government. 

[Chart titled ‘‘Monthly Change in Government Payrolls Seasonally Adjusted January 2008–October 2011’’ appears in the Submissions for the Record on page 60.] 

[Chart titled ‘‘Monthly Change in Private Payrolls Seasonally Adjusted January 2008–October 2011’’ appears in the Submissions for 

the Record on page 61.] 

[Chart titled ‘‘Monthly Change in Private Payrolls Seasonally Adjusted January 2008–September 2011’’ appears in the Submissions 

for the Record on page 62.] 

So, just sort of fact-checking the Senator’s comments, is it accurate to say that in this recession public-sector jobs have been hit 

harder by this downturn than private-sector jobs? 

Commissioner Hall. No, it isn’t. I would say the private sector 

has been hit very hard by this recession. 

Vice Chairman Brady. As we go forward and look for a way 

to get out of this, out of the Obama economy, isn’t it private-sector 

growth that traditionally has brought us back into the more stable 

economy and created the sustainable recovery I think we are all 

hoping for? 

Commissioner Hall. Sure, absolutely. The private sector has 

most of the jobs, and that is absolutely true. If you want to look 

at the health of the economy, you look at the private-sector job 

growth. 

Vice Chairman Brady. Commissioner, thanks for being here 

today. I know we are anxious for the day you bring us some good 

news going forward. So, thanks. 

Representative Hinchey. Mr. Mulvaney. 

Representative Mulvaney. Very briefly, to follow up on what 

Vice Chairman Brady just said, if 250,000 jobs per month is that 

goal—and I think we all agree that more is better and less is 

worse. But if 250,000 is sort of the target—the data I have in front 

of me only goes back to mid-2009. How many times since January 

15 

of 2009 has the economy created more than 250,000 jobs in a 

month? 

I only have one in front of me, which is—— 

Commissioner Hall. Right. 

Representative Mulvaney [continuing]. Sometime in the 

spring of 2010. But, again, my data doesn’t go all the way back to 

the beginning of this administration. So, since January of 2009, 

how many times has the economy created more than 250,000 jobs 

in a month? 

Commissioner Hall. I see 2 months, but, to be honest, both of 

those months were Census was hiring temporary workers for the 

Decennial. If you take out those Census effects, I am not sure we 

had any months where we had a quarter of a million jobs. 

Representative Mulvaney. So, since 2009, January of 2009, 

since the Obama administration took over, we have never generated 250,000 jobs on a monthly basis, on a permanent basis, 

when you make exceptions for the Census hiring? 

Commissioner Hall. I believe that is—I don’t have the exact 

numbers in front of me, but I believe that is correct. 

Representative Mulvaney. And to follow up on the other thing 

Mr. Brady mentioned regarding the Federal hiring. We just heard 

some interesting testimony yesterday in the Oversight and Government Regulation Committee that said that—and to follow on what 

you said, Mr. Vice Chairman—there is 12 percent more Federal 

workers since this recession began. There are 14.8 percent more, 

that is 275,000 more, workers in the executive branch and 100,000 

more civilian workers at the Department of Defense since this recession began. 

So I was glad to hear you say you think that the private sector 

has taken it on the chin a little bit heavier than the public sector. 

Because, certainly, if you go back to the beginning of this recession, 

there are actually more government workers at the Federal level 

than there were when things began. 

So, thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Representative Burgess. Would you yield to me? 

Representative Mulvaney. And I will yield to Mr. Burgess the 

balance of my time. 

Representative Burgess. It is interesting about, backing up, 

the Census data where the job growth did see 250,000. I recall 

those hearings where we had those discussions. 

The health care sector that you reference in your report to us 

today, those are private-sector jobs, correct? This does not reflect 

government growth in the public sector. 

Commissioner Hall. Correct. 

Representative Burgess. It doesn’t reflect government jobs in 

the health-care sector, is that correct? 

Commissioner Hall. No, that is—yeah, the government jobs in 

the health sector are in government jobs. 

Representative Burgess. One of the things that has continued 

to worry me, when we started the recession there were essentially 

two areas that were not affected. One was health care. Has the 

growth in health-care job creation, has that continued to be where 

it was pre-recession? 

16 

Commissioner Hall. That is a good question. My recollection is 

that it has been roughly that. I don’t think—if it slowed down, it 

didn’t slow down by much. So I am guessing—I will have to get 

back with you on that for sure, but I think it has been pretty much 

pre-recession growth. 

Representative Burgess. If I could ask you to get back to the 

committee on that. 

Commissioner Hall. Okay. Sure. 

Representative Burgess. If you could also, over that same time 

period, track the growth in public-sector health-care employment— 

because, as you know, there have been some big changes in the policy side of health care that have occurred over the last 15 months— 

it would be interesting to see that, as well. 

Commissioner Hall. Okay. 

[Letter dated December 1, 2011, transmitting Dr. Keith Hall’s response to Representative Michael C. Burgess appears in the Submissions for the Record on page 67.] 

Representative Burgess. Thank you, Chairman, for the indulgence. I yield back. 

Representative Hinchey. Thank you very much. 

One of the points that I think we should focus on is that the last 

administration didn’t create private-sector jobs. That healthy jobcreation rate of 250,000 per month was absent during the previous 

administration. 

Commissioner Hall. That is absolutely correct. The expansion 

between the two recessions this time was not very strong, and we 

did not exceed 250,000. I don’t know if we exceeded it—we must 

have once or twice, but if we did, we didn’t do it very much. That 

is correct. 

Representative Hinchey. I just have one last question. The 

first decade of the 21st century has been characterized by rising income inequality in addition to the loss of jobs—the loss of jobs, unemployment, and then rising income inequality, the rich getting 

richer while middle-class incomes are being stagnated. 

I am worried that the unemployment rate is exacerbating this inequality. Do you have any information on the characteristics of the 

unemployed, such as, for example, whether they tended to have 

worked in lower-wage jobs? 

Commissioner Hall. Not directly, but I really do think we have 

a pretty good proxy, and that is by education. Because the education levels really are very closely related to income and wages 

and labor force participation and unemployment rates. And the 

higher the education, the better off you are. 

So there is a pretty significant difference. So if you get, for example, people with less than a high school diploma, their current unemployment rate is 13.8 percent, and they have been much—it is 

much higher than people with, say, a bachelor’s degree, at 4.4 percent. 

Representative Hinchey. Thank you very much. I appreciate 

the answers you have given to all of these questions. The Members 

deeply appreciate it. 

We have about 3 minutes to go back and do some more votes, so 

we will adjourn the committee now. 

17 

Thank you. I deeply appreciate it. Thank you very much. I look 

forward to doing it again soon. 

[Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(19) 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

20 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN BRADY, VICE CHAIRMAN, JOINT

ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

Commissioner Hall, I want to thank you for spending your morning with us as 

we review the employment situation. For some time now, you’ve had the difficult 

job of being the bearer of bad news as many hardworking Americans have desperately sought a sustained economic recovery. You’ll be happy to know that we 

don’t shoot the messenger here in Washington. 

I’d like to begin with some potential hope for our economy. Following two dismal 

quarters of anemic growth, real gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of 

2.5 percent in the third quarter of this year. Finally, America’s economy is marginally larger that it was when the recession began in December 2007. 

Unfortunately, the outlook going forward looks less rosy. Projections of future economic growth for the balance of this year and next have been significantly lowered 

by the Fed as well as international economic organizations. The turbulence from a 

potential financial crisis in Europe could still precipitate a double-dip recession 

here—a very real threat which could have been avoided had poor economic policies 

from the White House not resulted in a very weak and slow recovery. 

Equally troubling is this jobless recovery. More than two years after the recession 

officially ended, there are 6.4 million fewer payroll jobs in America than when the 

recession began in December 2007, and more than 5.9 million Americans are longterm unemployed. 

The President’s policies are just not working. By comparison, the Reagan expansion, which followed the similarly deep 1981–1982 recession, outperforms the 

Obama economy by all metrics, including economic growth and job creation. The difference is that the Reagan expansion occurred in a political environment that fostered private business investment and encouraged Americans to work and save. 

President Reagan’s policies were a favorable tailwind. 

In contrast, the American economy now confronts policy headwinds. Virtually 

every step of the way President Obama and Congressional Democrats have increased, not decreased, the uncertainty that Americans and American businesses 

face. This uncertainty has discouraged businesses from making the investments in 

new buildings, equipment, and software that would create millions of new jobs and 

cause a rapid fall in the unemployment rate. Instead, Washington should create a 

political environment that incentivizes Americans to work and save and incentivizes 

American businesses to invest. Then, Washington should get out of the way. 

This is the first employment hearing since President Obama’s proposal for a second round of stimulus spending that would require massive new borrowing from foreign entities, creating debt, which future generations of hardworking Americans 

would have to service. Stimulus II is not paid for. It will add billions more to the 

national debt and is wrongly focused on creating taxpayer-funded government jobs. 

Not only can we not afford it, but it is a glaring admission that the first stimulus 

failed. Remember, we still have 1.3 million fewer American jobs than when the 

original stimulus began; a million and a half fewer jobs. Enough is enough. Hardworking Americans deserve a fresh start. 

America needs to grow jobs, not grow the federal government. Ultimately, private 

business investment drives private sector payroll job growth. Businesses make their 

investment based on the outlook for the next decade, not just the next year. The 

President’s proposal—which even Senate Democrats quickly rejected—seeks to spur 

investment through temporary tax reductions, but does little to encourage businesses to increase their investment over time. 

Rather than Washington taking more of what Americans earn, our nation craves 

a simple, fairer tax code that increases the incentives for Americans to work and 

save and for American businesses to invest in new buildings, equipment, and software. This requires a permanent reduction in the effective marginal tax rates on 

both capital and labor. 

Moreover, tax reform should help instead of hinder American businesses who 

want to invest in America. As I have proposed, Washington should immediately 

lower the tax gate to allow American firms competing successfully overseas to bring 

home their profits that are stranded abroad so that these firms can invest in America: in new jobs; research and development; expansions; and financial stability. Repatriation is a free-market stimulus of nearly $1 trillion that will create up to three 

million American jobs, increase federal tax revenues and boost the economy by between one and four percent. 

Now that’s a stimulus America can get behind. 

I urge President Obama to join Congressional Republicans in supporting a comprehensive, bipartisan tax reform that results in a permanent reduction in marginal 

tax rates. Twice in my lifetime, I have seen the benefits of such plans: first under 

21 

Kennedy, and then under Reagan. Both men trusted in the American people. Put 

another way, they placed their faith in the ‘‘marketplace’’ which is nothing more 

than the collective judgment of the American people as to where to invest their 

money. Their sound economic policies fueled the economic booms of the 1960s and 

the 1980s and 1990s. Kennedy and Reagan helped spawn entirely new industries 

and kept our great nation first in R&D, patents, inventions, and entrepreneurship. 

President Obama has a real chance to be a ‘‘game changer,’’ here, or, as he likes 

to say a ‘‘transformational’’ president. All he needs do is follow his predecessors’ 

lead. 

Republicans in Congress are ready and willing to work with the President to create real jobs along the Main Streets across America. 

With that, Dr. Hall, I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. KEITH HALL, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF LABOR

STATISTICS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the employment and unemployment data 

we released this morning. 

Nonfarm payroll employment continued to trend up in October (+80,000), and the 

unemployment rate, at 9.0 percent, was little changed. Over the past 12 months, 

payroll employment has increased by an average of 125,000 per month. 

In October, private-sector employment increased by 104,000, with continued 

growth in professional and business services, leisure and hospitality, health care, 

and mining. Government employment continued to trend down. 

Employment in professional and business services continued to trend up in October (+32,000). In recent months, there have been modest job gains in temporary 

help services and in management and technical consulting services. 

Employment in leisure and hospitality continued to trend up over the month 

(+22,000). Since a recent low in January 2010, the industry has added 344,000 jobs. 

Health care employment edged up by 12,000 in October, following a gain of 45,000 

in September. The two-month average increase of 29,000 was in line with the industry’s recent trend. In October, offices of physicians gained 8,000 jobs. 

Mining employment continued to expand in October (+6,000). Since October 2009, 

mining has added 152,000 jobs, largely due to gains in support activities for mining. 

Construction employment was down by 20,000 in October, largely offsetting a gain 

in the prior month. Both over-the-month movements largely occurred in nonresidential construction industries. Employment in other major private-sector industries 

changed little in October. 

Employment in government continued to trend down (¥24,000). State government, excluding education, lost 16,000 jobs over the month. Employment in both 

state government and local government has been falling since the second half of 

2008. 

Average hourly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 5 

cents to $23.19 in October, following a gain of 6 cents in September. Over the past 

12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by 1.8 percent. From September 

2010 to September 2011, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPIU) increased by 3.9 percent. 

Turning now to measures from our survey of households, the unemployment rate 

was essentially unchanged at 9.0 percent in October. The jobless rate has held in 

a narrow range from 9.0 to 9.2 percent since April. In October, there were 13.9 million unemployed persons, little changed from the prior month. The number of persons jobless for 27 weeks and over declined by 366,000 to 5.9 million, or 42.4 percent 

of total unemployment. 

The employment-population ratio, at 58.4 percent, was little changed in October. 

Among the employed, those working part time for economic reasons fell by 374,000, 

to 8.9 million. 

The labor force participation rate, at 64.2 percent, was unchanged over the month. 

Thus far in 2011, the participation rate has held at about 64 percent. 

Among those outside of the labor force—persons neither working nor looking for 

work—the number of discouraged workers in October was 967,000, down from 1.2 

million a year earlier. 

In summary, nonfarm payroll employment continued to trend up in October 

(+80,000). The unemployment rate was little changed at 9.0 percent. 

My colleagues and I now would be glad to answer your questions. 

22 


Insert offset folio 4 here 72183.004
23 


Insert offset folio 5 here 72183.005
24 


Insert offset folio 6 here 72183.006
25 


Insert offset folio 7 here 72183.007
26 


Insert offset folio 8 here 72183.008
27 


Insert offset folio 9 here 72183.009
28 


Insert offset folio 10 here 72183.010
29 


Insert offset folio 11 here 72183.011
30 


Insert offset folio 12 here 72183.012
31 


Insert offset folio 13 here 72183.013
32 


Insert offset folio 14 here 72183.014
33 


Insert offset folio 15 here 72183.015
34 


Insert offset folio 16 here 72183.016
35 


Insert offset folio 17 here 72183.017
36 


Insert offset folio 18 here 72183.018
37 


Insert offset folio 19 here 72183.019
38 


Insert offset folio 20 here 72183.020
39 


Insert offset folio 21 here 72183.021
40 


Insert offset folio 22 here 72183.022
41 


Insert offset folio 23 here 72183.023
42 


Insert offset folio 24 here 72183.024
43 


Insert offset folio 25 here 72183.025
44 


Insert offset folio 26 here 72183.026
45 


Insert offset folio 27 here 72183.027
46 


Insert offset folio 28 here 72183.028
47 


Insert offset folio 29 here 72183.029
48 


Insert offset folio 30 here 72183.030
49 


Insert offset folio 31 here 72183.031
50 


Insert offset folio 32 here 72183.032
51 


Insert offset folio 33 here 72183.033
52 


Insert offset folio 34 here 72183.034
53 


Insert offset folio 35 here 72183.035
54 


Insert offset folio 36 here 72183.036
55 


Insert offset folio 37 here 72183.037
56 


Insert offset folio 38 here 72183.038
57 


Insert offset folio 39 here 72183.039
58 


Insert offset folio 40 here 72183.040
59 


Insert offset folio 41 here 72183.041
60 


Insert offset folio 1 here 72183.001
61 


Insert offset folio 2 here 72183.002
62 


Insert offset folio 3 here 72183.003
63 


Insert offset folio 42 here 72183.042
64 


Insert offset folio 43 here 72183.043
65 


Insert offset folio 44 here 72183.044
66 


Insert offset folio 45 here 72183.045
67 


Insert offset folio 46 here 72183.046
68 


Insert offset folio 47 here 72183.047
69 


Insert offset folio 48 here 72183.048
70 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 49 here 72183.049