The US Bureau of Labor Statistics recently released September 2010 Unemployment data for the 372 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) it surveys. According to the BLS the non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for the Boise-Nampa MSA was 9.0% for the month of September, a decrease of -0.1% from September 2009. Over that period, the number of unemployed workers in the Boise area rose by +300, from 26,400 to 26,100, while the labor force rose from 289,300 to 290,700. The unemployment rate fell -0.1% from August 2010.
At 9.0% Boise’s seasonally unadjusted unemployment rate was lower than the national average (9.2%), but remained stubbornly higher than the state average (8.3%) and most other areas surveyed within the state. Boise’s -0.1% year-over-year change in the unemployment rate was also less dramatic than the national average (-0.3%) but greater than the average of the Idaho cities surveyed (0.0%). Of special note was that three of the five Idaho MSA’s surveyed reported declining year-over-year September unemployment rates.
GRAPH: Bureau of Labor Statistics
In September, 212 of the 372 MSAs had unemployment rates lower than a year earlier and 222 MSAs had lower unemployment rates than Boise. The MSAs with the lowest unemployment rates nationally were Bismarck ND (2.8%) and Fargo ND (3.3%). Those with the highest rates were El Centro CA (30.4%) and Yuma AZ (27.2%).
The largest decrease in the year-over-year rate was seen in Elkhart-Goshen IN (-3.1%) while the largest increases were in Yuma AZ (+3.3%) and Yuba City AZ (+2.4%).
Boise-Nampa MSA Unemployment Rate
GRAPH: Bureau of Labor Statistics



























Nov 11th
Economic Insight: Harmonic Notes e-newsletter, November 2010
Author: Kenn Lamson
Comments: 0
The data released since the last edition of the Harmonic Notes e-newsletter in mid-September suggests continued slow growth but feels a bit wobbly, like that recovering surgical patient we analogized in the last note. The data is anything but one-sidedly positive to be sure, and many worry that pressures like the ongoing foreclosure crisis could sideswipe the nascent economic recovery.
DATA OVERVIEW
- The major negative factor facing consumers is, of course, stubbornly (intractably?) high unemployment levels. Also, home sales have recently been mixed, with sales of new homes flat but sales of existing homes rebounding. On an absolute level, however, sales across the board remain at historically low levels.
+ Retail sales again came in stronger than expected, as did other measures of consumer spending. Also, the Consumer Price Index stayed flat at about 1.0% year-over-year and barely positive month-over-month as the economy shows evidence of disinflation but not the dreaded deflation. Observers got a nice surprise with the release of the October jobs data, which showed a much stronger-than-expected jump of +151K (+159K private payrolls). While Average Hourly Earnings rose only modestly, Average Weekly Hours rose +0.1 hour.
- Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization were reported worse than expected and CapU remains flat at a very low level.
+ The ISM Manufacturing and Service Indices both jumped unexpectedly and both remain solidly in expansionary territory. Business productivity rebounded in 3Q10 as costs were flat. With such a high unemployment rate it’s clear there’s no wage-based inflation pressure.
- Exports rose less than imports the August trade gap resumed its widening trend.
- The initial report on third quarter GDP growth showed a slight quarter-over-quarter improvement, from 1.6% in 2Q10 to 2.0%. This rate is substandard and at risk for “failure to launch.” Further, much of the growth in the third quarter appeared to come from inventory restocking, not more sustainable sources. Also, our favorite coincident macroeconomic indicator, the Chicago Fed National Economic Activity Index, fell back into negative territory after rebounding a month earlier.
+ Our favorite leading indicator, the ECRI Weekly Leading Indicator, has continued its gradual improvement; after a precipitous decline for about nine months beginning late 2009, it’s risen slightly since mid-year.
GDP growth (white, right scale); Chicago Fed National Activity Index (yellow, left scale); Economic Cycle Research Institute Weekly Leading Indicator (blue, right scale)
HOPEFUL GLIMPSES
It appears as though the economic teeter-totter has risen ever so slightly from being fully pegged down on the negative side, where it remained for an uncomfortably long time. Both anecdotal and quantitative evidence offer glimpses of hope:
ISM Manufacturing Index, 5 years ending October 2010
BROWN SHOOTS
While the worst storms may be behind, that’s obviously not the same as having clear sailing ahead. There remain plenty of things about which to worry:
QUANTITATIVE EASING (round II)
The more positive tone of the recently released data buttresses the assertion in our last newsletter that a double-dip recession isn’t in the cards, a situation that’s more certain now that the Fed is on the scene with the cleverly acronym-ed QE2. Shorthand for the Fed’s purchase of bonds in order to drive down interest rates, the recently announced $900 billion quantitative easing program is the 800 pound gorilla in the markets and a giant question mark for the economy. Its potential effect has been vigorously; it’s an unfortunate truth that even those at the Fed who’ve launched the program in an attempt to stimulate the moribund economy don’t really know what will happen.
Of particular note is the -7.3% drop in the US Dollar since Fed Chairman suggested in late August that QE2 might be forthcoming. While the Dollar’s decline is a boon to US exporters our trading partners appreciate none-too-much that our central bank appears to be manipulating our currency to their detriment, and holders of our debt don’t care much for having their investments eroded to increasing inflation.
Our concerns about the program are pretty straightforward: This medicine probably won’t achieve the desired boost to economic growth but may create some undesired side effects, like asset bubbles (remember stocks in 2000 and 2007, and real estate in 2005-2007?) and ultimately inflation. A major problem with QE – with monetary policy generally –is that it’s dependent on the financial system to execute. The analogy I recently used to an undergrad class with which I was speaking was that of a spigot with a hose attached (the spigot is an analog for the Fed, obviously): If there’s a knot in the hose it doesn’t matter how wide open you turn the tap. This is why the current (or recently ended, depending on your perspective) recession is quite different than any since in the US the ‘30s.
SOLUTIONS
The problem of subpar economic growth won’t be solved until credit creation begins again, and that requires both lenders and borrowers to participate. While their comfort may be gradually growing, at the moment lenders remain skittish while borrowers either:
To quote the recently released quarterly Fed Senior Loan Officer Survey – “banks eased standards and terms over the previous three months on some categories of loans to households and businesses” but “substantial fractions of banks reported… that standards for many categories of loans would not return to their longer-run averages for the foreseeable future”.
Solid Line = large companies; dotted line = small companies
Fiscal solutions would seem in order – tax cuts targeted at small business hiring, temporary guarantees or mandates to encourage banks to lend to creditworthy borrowers once “well-capitalized” levels have been reached, etc. – but those seem extraordinarily unlikely. We are concerned that, quite bluntly, almost nobody in DC “gets it”. Further, it’s spectacularly naïve to expect that simply because there’s been a change in the party controlling the House that politicians will begin putting the country before their own self-interests. We’ve all heard the old saw “gridlock is good”; that’s true only when the economy is working properly. Consider how counterproductive it would be for doctors to be arguing over treatment while our archetypal surgical patient is slipping into a coma.
At the macro level the solution to the problem’s obvious: We must have credit creation and job creation. Lower rates probably won’t do it– in fact, may well hurt in the long run. As always, the devil’s in the details.