But the war of words became much more complex for both sides as new January 2018 jobs’ numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed a sudden jump in Black unemployment that quickly mugged the president of any political pleasure at Black political expense. Instead of dropping further, the Black unemployment rate actually inched upward by almost a full percentage point to 7.7 percent at the top of the year, increasing from the December 6.8 percent rate Trump has boasted only days before (along with the Latino jobless rate which also found itself higher). The only other time the rate dropped to 7 percent even was in April 2000, the last year of Bill Clinton’s presidency.
A fresh headline of sobering Black jobless figures throws a cold dose of reality on the Black unemployment debate. The president and Republicans are no longer able to use it as a teasing thumb in the eye of hated Black Democrats while Black politicos themselves are now forced to go beyond #ThankObama and constructively tackle a stubborn jobless rate in their communities. While the Black unemployment rate had, indeed, dropped dramatically from its Great Recession peak of 16.5 percent in 2010 to 7.9 percent by December 2016 under President Obama (an astounding 52 percent drop), these had always been official numbers.
“Black workers—who historically have been left behind in the job market—continue to see high rates of unemployment,” argues Center for American Progress economist Kate Bahn.
“Trump’s retort reflects a fundamental ignorance of statistical significance for instance,” says Bahn. “Month-to-month changes, such as the 0.4 percentage point drop from November to December, are not statistically significant—nor verifiable—for subgroups of workers. It also overlooks the full picture of the labor market outcomes facing African Americans. Unemployment is still twice as high for Black workers than it is for White workers, at 7.7 percent compared with 3.5 percent. Young Black workers, ages 16 to 19, have an unemployment rate of 24.3 percent compared with 12.4 percent for white teen workers, which often leads to long-term reduced opportunity.”
Many jobs’ data observers have also argued that Black unemployment is actually (at the very least) double the official BLS U-3 rate once the long-term unemployed, temporarily employed and homeless are factored in – something BLS researchers show no signs of capturing.
“One thing that really complicates the debate is that a lot of data pushed out by BLS and others don’t include those who are actively looking for employment, but have been unemployed for five years or more,” notes Khadijah Lake, Chief Research Analyst for D.C.-based BE Strategy who studied the numbers for the Tribune. “In addition, these monthly stats won’t reflect many of those who lost full-time salaried jobs and are now working part-tie positions while looking for full employment.”
Lake suggests the constant tension between considering the official unemployment rate over another indicator known as the labor force participation rate can muddle the discussion on Black unemployment. The labor participation rate shows how many Americans are still in the labor force versus those considered “still in the labor force, but just out of a job.”
Some critics, particularly those looking closely at Black unemployment numbers, recommend using the labor participation rate as a much more reliable gauge of Black workforce health. That rate has dropped precipitously since the Great Recession started, from 66.2 percent in January 2008 to 62.7 percent today. That rate has not recovered since then.
In the beginning of 2008, before President Obama took office, the labor force participation rate was an even 64 percent for African Americans, according to estimates from the Economic Research branch of the Federal Reserve of St. Louis. However, that dropped steeply to a low of 60.3 percent by the end of 2013. Since then, the highest it has risen was 62.7 percent in September 2017 and it is now an even 62 percent.
Brookings Institution Race, Prosperity and Inclusion Initiative senior fellow Andre Perry presses the need for a deeper look into not only the “inequality behind the numbers” but also a micro-targeted and more precise evaluation of how Black employment is faring in cities and metropolitan areas. That would provide a better understanding and a better strategy towards addressing the problem.
“Touting numerical improvements in the aggregate tacitly deemphasizes the work on structural inequality that is still needed in order to remove inequalities and encourage inclusive economic growth,” notes Perry, who is a David M. Rubenstein fellow in the Brookings’ Metropolitan Policy Program. “Cities must continue their much-needed efforts to provide minority entrepreneurs’ access to capital, improve public school options for low-income families, increase workforce development programs, and create inclusive zoning practices for affordable housing.”
“Give credit to Black workers for disproving stereotypes that suggests they are the reason for unemployment disparity,” Perry adds.
About Post Author
