The unemployment rate didn't fall — and that's good news

The jobs report released today was full of good news — 257,000 new jobs added in January. 147,000 new jobs were added by revisions to December and November data. 91,000 new jobs were added by revisions to earlier data. Average hourly wages rose, and the previous month's wage data was revised upward.

But perhaps the best news of all is something that sounds a little odd — the unemployment rate didn't fall.

That's because the years-long trend toward a falling labor force participation rate turned around. A bunch of new jobs were created, but the ratio of employed people to people looking for work didn't fall since the denominator rose along with the numerator. The reason this is a big deal is that nobody was exactly sure what had driven the decline in participation. Here's a chart where the White House's top economists tried to puzzle it out:

What they came up with was that about half if it was underlying population aging, and then the rest was a mix of cyclical effects (i.e., a bad economy) and residual (i.e., they don't know). The aging piece of this wasn't going to change. If anything, it was only set to accelerate. So that decline in the size of the workforce could potentially have put a ceiling on future economic growth.

The big question then became, what would happen with the green and blue slices? As the economy improved, would the cyclical effects go away as people head back into the workforce or would they give up forever? And whatever caused the mysterious blue wedge, would it ever go into reverse?

A stable unemployment rate in the context of job growth and wage growth is a sign of good news about those green and blue wedges. It means that not only have we had some good economic growth news over the past nine months, but that growth is likely sustainable and there's no need to panic about inflation or anything else. Employers are getting more interested in hiring people, and they're not running out of people to hire.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via