pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 9 replies \ @jamalderrick OP 17 Dec \ parent \ on: BLS Reality Check: Unemployment by Race (Seasonally Adjusted) Politics_And_Law
You and I already went through this debate on the Black women employment data. #1291753 We clearly interpret the labor force dynamics differently.
Your argument here (that employment-population ratio stayed flat at 58.5 vs 58.6) doesn’t address why the unemployment rate itself spiked from 6.4% to 8.3% for Black workers while White unemployment barely moved (3.8% to 3.9%).
Labor force participation explains the mechanism, but it doesn’t explain the disparity in magnitude, which is what my chart shows.
It’s not really a debate. Unemployment is the combination of not being employed and being in the labor force.
The labor force is everyone who is employed or looking for work.
The share of black workers who had jobs didn’t change. So, the increase in unemployment has to come from more black people trying to find work.
I said I don’t know why that would have happened. The chart you’re referencing doesn’t explain why it happened either.
reply
We mostly agree on the math: unemployment rises when labor force growth outpaces job growth (unemployed = labor force − employed).
But BLS A-2 YoY shows this wasn’t “just population.” The Black population rose about 800k, yet the labor force rose 1.011M, meaning many more people entered the workforce or started actively looking. Employment rose +512k, so jobs were created. The issue is absorption: the remaining ~499k show up as higher unemployment, and “not in the labor force” fell ~210k, which is a real participation shift, not a mirage.
That’s why the gap matters: Black unemployment jumped 6.4%→8.3% while White barely moved 3.8%→3.9%. The next question is why absorption lagged so much more. My hypothesis is policy-driven sector exposure, especially public administration/government-adjacent work, education, healthcare, and grant/contract-funded nonprofits, where freezes or cuts hit new entrants first.
reply
meaning many more people entered the workforce or started actively looking.
That was my point. I’m not really sure what you think our disagreement is.
Your hypothesis seems reasonable to me but it doesn’t explain the decrease in people outside the labor force. The first thing I’d check there is whether it matches benefits cuts or perhaps preparing for someone in the household to be laid off.
As to why White unemployment barely moved, I pointed out that there was an increase in the outside of the labor force group. So, for some reason more of the people without jobs weren’t looking for work.
reply
It bothers me when we act like this is a mystery. Since January 2025, the administration has implemented policies that squeeze government-adjacent job pipelines:
• EO 14151 ordered agencies to terminate DEI/“equity action” offices and end “equity-related” grants/contracts and related requirements for contractors/grantees. 
• EO 14173 revoked EO 11246, and DOL/OFCCP was directed to stop holding federal contractors to affirmative-action obligations. 
• Schedule F was reinstated (as “Policy/Career”), easing reclassification/removal of policy-influencing roles. 
That hits education/health/social services/contractors, where Black workers can be disproportionately displaced, and the resulting openings can be filled by other groups (including White workers).
reply
The purpose of careful empirical research is to subject our assumptions to scrutiny.
These data show that the most active margin is between unemployment and non-participation. It does not appear that many jobs have been lost by either group over the past year.
Whites do not appear to be taking black jobs. Rather, unemployed whites appear to be dropping out of the workforce while blacks are increasingly trying to join it.
reply
You’re focusing on “jobs lost,” but the data show “jobs not created fast enough for entrants.” That’s why Black unemployment jumps while White barely moves. Net job loss is the wrong yardstick; the issue is the absorption gap.
And I’m not saying “White people took Black jobs.” Jobs don’t have skin color. I’m saying the pipelines that kept access fair, especially in public-sector and federally funded hiring/contracting, have been weakened, raising barriers that hit Black workers harder.
reply
You said that black workers are displaced from jobs resulting in openings being filled by white workers, amongst others.
That’s not what is shown here. Job growth kept sufficient pace for employment rates to hold steady. What changed significantly is the share of people without jobs who are seeking them.
That’s an interesting story that may well be related to the factors you’re raising but you seem fixated on a different narrative.
reply
I’m not on a different “narrative". I’m working from a different set of facts. You’re describing the identity; I’m pointing to the mechanism that likely changed: sector pipelines and policy. If we want to test it, the next step is to look at sector-by-sector hiring and grant/contract flows. Otherwise we’ll keep circling around the same definitions.