For one thing, those job gains have been pretty darn small, and they haven’t been enough to drive down the unemployment rate.  Outmigration and a shrinking labor force are the reasons that California’s unemployment rate is declining.

We’ve also seen this picture before.  Almost a year ago, we commenced five months of increasing jobs, and stronger growth than we are currently seeing.  Then, the growth stopped.  We saw three out of five months with declining jobs.

This is what data looks like when an economy is bouncing along the bottom.  Long sustained periods of positive data, or negative data for that matter, just don’t happen.  We get some good data, sometimes very good.  Then some bad data comes along.  The key is not to let the good data get you too excited, nor do you want to let the bad data depress you too much.

Absent a new recession, caused by, say, the collapse of the Eurozone or an oil supply interruption, California is in for a long slow recovery.

This reality is reflected in demographic data.  Just last week, the Los Angeles Times had an article with the headline “Proportion of California’s transplant population reaches 100-year low.”  People go where the opportunity is, and unfortunately, it isn’t in California these days.

Productivity has been the source of most of the changes. Jobs data get revised too, but we haven’t seen revisions near the size as we’ve seen for GDP, and GDP growth is the sum of employment growth and productivity growth.

Recently, the initial estimate for 2011’s third-quarter GDP growth was revised downward from a 2.5 percent annual growth rate to only a 2.0 percent annual growth rate.

Still, even a 2.0 percent growth rate represents a nice pickup from the extraordinarily weak first two quarters. Unfortunately, much of that improvement came in the form of productivity growth rather than job growth.

It confirms our judgment last summer, when we expected the Country to avoid the second dip so many forecasters expected after the August data revisions to the first two quarters’ GDP data.

That doesn’t mean we’re out of the woods yet. The probability of one of both of two very serious events that we’ve been warning about for months seems to be increasing daily.

A significant interruption in oil supply from the Middle East would have catastrophic impacts on Western economies. The probability of such an interruption is becoming alarmingly high, in our estimation.  A week or so ago, there were headlines that a natural gas line in Egypt was sabotaged, the Kuwaiti government has collapsed, and Syrian atrocities are continuing, perhaps increasing. The likelihood of an oil-supply interruption is high, and the economic impacts of an interruption are very serious. Economic recession will affect all developed economies.

The other risk is a financial crisis associated with the breakup of the Eurozone. While the markets are giddy today with the prospect of yet more Eurozone bailouts, the bailouts are only bandages.

Fundamentally, the Eurozone is a contradiction that cannot be sustained. Some countries will have to leave it. When they do, there will be losses. Financial institutions and governments will face stresses not seen since September 2008. The resulting recession will be serious and widespread.

Productivity used to have a cyclical component. It fell early in a recession, and it rose early in the recovery. The early-recession fall resulted from falling sales and no employment change. The idea is that businesses see the sales decline, but don’t know if it is temporary. So, they don’t layoff for a while and productivity falls.

The early-recovery productivity growth is similar. A business sees increasing sales, but is unsure if it is permanent. So, they avoid adding to payroll until they are confident that the higher sales will be maintained.

All that went away with the past two recessions. In these recessions, productivity growth was relentless, increasing quarter after quarter. Consequently, our models cannot effectively use the new productivity information. (Don’t ask why. It is a statistical answer.)

Some, very few actually, are discounting the new jobs data, because it included the Verizon strike. We note that it also included the return of Minnesota’s government workers, significantly reducing the Verizon impact.

There are other reasons to be concerned about the new jobs data. A big one is that the previous two months were revised down. June was revised down 26,000 jobs (56 percent) to only 20,000, while July was revised down a whopping 32,000 jobs (27 percent) to 85,000. These revisions imply that the initial estimate is currently biased high, implying in turn that we actually lost jobs in August.

The combination of falling productivity and job losses is a powerful indicator that the second dip may be here or coming very soon.

Downward revisions to United States gross domestic product (GDP) have driven most of the revisions. For about two years, we had trouble with the original GDP estimates. Our jobs forecasts were pretty accurate, but we forecasted productivity growth and consumer spending growth below the initial estimates. This caused us enough grief that we’ve been reviewing our models. Well, the revised numbers are entirely consistent with our original models.

Downward revisions to productivity growth and consumer spending are what drove the downward GDP revisions.

Enough bragging. What is happening to the economy? We’re seeing a weak recovery.
Increasing numbers of forecasters, spooked by weak numbers and downward revisions, are now forecasting a double-dip in the near future. We don’t think that is the most likely case.

We’ve said all along that this would be a weak and inconsistent recession, and that appears to be what we are seeing. Some encouraging data might come in this week. The next week could see weak data. This is exactly what we expect to see in a recovery where financial institutions are wounded, real estate is weak, and consumers over extended.

So, we don’t expect a double-dip recession. We expect continued slow growth, accompanied by weak real estate markets, weak consumer spending, slow job growth, and persistent high unemployment.

That would be the good news and the bad news.

Another recession is in our future though, and not just because the business cycle has not been repealed. However, the timing of the next recession is really difficult to forecast, because in part, the timing will probably be politically driven.

I have become convinced that the culmination of Europe’s problems will be a partial breakup of the Eurozone. Perhaps it will be complete breakup. It really doesn’t matter.

Any breakup will almost surely be accompanied by financial and political crises. These crises will initiate a new recession, one that will be impacting an already weakened economy. It’s likely to be very painful.

The BLS’s July Employment Situation was released today. Non-farm jobs grew by 117,000, highly focused on healthcare, (31,000), retail, (26,000), manufacturing, (24,000), and mining (9,000). Despite the increase in jobs, the measured employment level, an alternate measure of workers, decreased. That decrease was met by a larger decrease to the civilian labor force, causing the unemployment rate to fall from 9.2% to 9.1%. The unemployment rate has hovered in the 9.0 to 9.2 percent range for four months.

Government jobs continue to trend downward, (-37,000). This reflects state governments’ attempting to balance their budget and is also impacted by the partial shut-down of Minnesota’s government.

There were revisions to May and June’s non-farm jobs numbers; May’s jobs increase was revised up from +25,000 to +53,000 and June’s jobs increase was revised up from +18,000 to +46,000.

The long-term unemployment situation still has 6 million persons unemployed for 27 weeks or more, with 1 million discouraged workers, 1 million marginally employed, and 8 million persons on part-time employment due to economic reasons. This presents a clear lack of supply for jobs, a very weak job market. Many workers are choosing part time jobs rather than face unemployment. This illustrates that 10% of the civilian labor force is not the optimum or preferred employment situation.

Private non-farm job growth has been positive while public sector job losses have offset those gains for three months in a row. Companies not optimistic about a vigorous recovery have found little harm in simply waiting. State, local, and even now federal governments have all come under budget scrutiny, greatly hampering their ability to directly affect unemployment. With many of their tools and policies tied up in the banking crisis, there seem to be few initiatives on addressing the needs of the labor market.

Non-farm jobs increased 54 thousand over April, consisting of a gain of 83 thousand in the private sector (I forecasted 240 thousand), and a 29 thousand job loss in the public sector (I forecasted a loss of 18 thousand).

What sectors drove the the slowdown? There was a 30 thousand job slowdown in manufacturing jobs, a 70 thousand slowdown in retail jobs, a 40 thousand job slowdown in leisure and hospitality, and a 20 thousand job slowdown in education and healthcare.

The decline in Retail is interesting.  The sector is experiencing a secularly growing share of online sales, which overall, will reduce the demand for workers. Also, there are technology adoptions that have yet to fully play-out. For example, self-check stations are now at major grocery stores, but they are probably not yet responsible for half the check-out volume. But, we can expect they will eventually be responsible for much more than half the check-out volume. Another thing that I worry about is that consumption growth is now under trend and could stay that way due to high consumer debt levels. These, and relatively high unemployment levels, could imply weak Retail job growth in the near term.

The other part of this jobs report contains results from the household survey, which indicates changes in labor force and unemployment. The labor force jumped substantially in May, by 272 thousand people. This was only slightly offset by a rise in 100 thousand people reporting themselves as employed. As a result, the unemployment rate rose from 9.0 to 9.1 percent, much different than my forecast of a fall in the unemployment rate.

This month’s Employment Situation highlights the fragility of the economy. Manufacturing has been one of the few bright spots in the economy since the Great Recession. If a global slowdown is taking hold as some are predicting, this will have a cooling impact on manufacturing jobs and the economy that will last beyond May.

From the April results, the broad measure of unemployment (including under-employed & marginally attached to labor force) was still 15.9 percent and there were still almost 6 million persons who had been unemployed more than 27 weeks.

The data for May comes out this Friday, June 3.

We do not think the oil price impact is huge, but overall it is a bit negative. There are positives in the Extraction sector, but those are more than offset by negatives in transport and durables manufacturing sectors.

Since February, nonfarm payrolls have increased by more than 220 thousand each month, and we forecast that about 220 thousand occured in May. This forecast reflects a slight slowing in both goods producing industries and in service producing industries. Government sector hiring will be down, dominated by declines in state and local government, which more than offset increases in hiring by Federal government.

The gap between the establishment (payroll) jobs measure and the household survey employment last month was probably an anomoly, and will be corrected at some point. I assume that correction began in May.

Regarding labor force, we project an increase of 99 thousand, a moderate increase. This follows March and April increases of 160 thousand and 15 thousand respectively. The combination of the labor force and the employed persons increase imply that the unemployment rate falls by three tenths: from 9.0 percent in April to 8.7 percent in May.

Our labor market forecast is improving, slowly. Both February and March nonfarm payrolls increased by about 200 thousand, and we are tentatively confident that about 180 thousand can occur in April. This forecast reflects a small pickup in goods producing industries and a slight slowing in service producing industries. Government sector hiring should be similar to March, which was a decline of 14 thousand jobs.

With a similar gap between the establishment (payroll) jobs measure and the household survey employment measure as occurred in March, this would give a change in employed persons of about 256 thousand.

Regarding labor force, we project an increase of 114 thousand, a moderate increase. This follows March’s increase by 160 thousand. The combination of the labor force and the employed persons increase imply that the unemployment rate falls by one tenth: from 8.8 percent in March to 8.7 percent in April.

Zooming back out to a big-picture point of view: the economy is still not firing on all cylinders. There is evidence that the economy is moving back toward all cylinders, but at a slow pace. As a result, job gains will be moderate, and the unemployment rate will remain relatively high.

Forecasting is a challenge in rapidly changing times, and these are very rapidly changing times. At the beginning of the year, it would have been unbelievable if someone had said that Mubarak would be deposed, we would be in a war in Libya, and there would be general uprisings throughout the Middle East, and all in the first quarter. But all this and more happened. Certainly Japan’s earthquake, tsunami, and near nuclear meltdown were unpredictable.

Because of the uncertainty, it seems particularly important that we provide our assumptions to forecast users. First though, you should know that we have included the impacts of the of Japan’s tragedy as best we can. We assume that their exports to the United States will fall only minimally, while their imports will increase. We also take the aggressive assumption that they will complete rebuilding in only eight years, increasing world gross product and demand for United States exports.

There are other issues with Japan that we cannot model. Because of our integrated world economy and just-in-time inventory management, Japan’s manufacturers may be suppliers of critical components of products that are ultimately produced almost anywhere. To the extent that rolling blackouts and other infrastructure issues interrupt Japan’s manufacturers’ ability to promptly deliver critical goods, worldwide production could be hurt. It is impossible to know exactly how important this is, but we believe it will be small relative to world output.

High oil prices pose the most real and immediate risk to United States economic growth, but forecasting political changes in the Middle East is impossible. But of course, oil prices have huge economic impacts. While it seems to be general consensus that the Great Recession’s proximate cause was financial in nature, Jim Hamilton at UC San Diego provides very compelling evidence that high oil prices were a significant contributor.

For our baseline forecast, we assume that world oil prices do not exceed $120 barrel. We also provide an alternative scenario where prices reach $150 per barrel. This scenario generates another recession. The recession appears to be moderate, but we must remember that this is a change in output from a low base. Our unemployment is still very high. The higher oil prices go, and the faster they rise, the worse the recession. Certainly, the forecasts of potential oil prices go much higher than $150 a barrel. Our scenario is thus only suggestive of the economic impacts of general Middle East turmoil.

United States and world financial institutions are still not recovered from the crisis of September 2008, which implies a susceptibility to new financial shocks. For our forecast, we assume no new significant financial shocks. However, the possibility of new financial shocks cannot be ignored. The possibility of some sort of Eurozone crisis arising from the sovereign debt issues of several European countries is relatively high. It is our opinion that the Eurozone is too large to be a single currency. Ultimately, it must break up. How the breakup is accomplished will have major economic consequences.

Problems in United States’ municipal markets could also provide a problem for our already-weakened financial sector. States and local governments are facing very serious financial challenges, and it appears that citizens are unwilling to increase taxes sufficiently to solve those challenges. Unfortunately as we have seen in Wisconsin and elsewhere, the other option, shrinking government, is a very challenging business.

These sorts of risks have been with us for some time, and we have previously provided scenarios of a new financial crisis. Suffice it to say, that a new financial crisis would cause another serious recession.

After having assumed away, justifiably we think, the most frightening options, we still come up with a soft forecast. It is better than we’ve seen over the past few years, but this recovery is far less robust than most, held back as it is by still-weak financial institutions and real estate markets.

We expect United States economic growth to be positive, but annualized quarterly economic growth rates (GDP) will likely remain well below three percent throughout most of 2011.

We expect job growth will be even weaker, with barely-above-one-percent annualized growth rates. This rate is insufficient to significantly reduce unemployment rates, if labor force participation rates remain unchanged.

However, we’ve seen steadily declining labor force participation, to the lowest level in decades, for several quarters. This is a result of the discouraged worker problem. Millions of Americans have been out of work for extended periods. Eventually, many of these workers just give up and leave the workforce. Those who do not give up face increasingly difficult challenges in finding a job, as human capital deteriorates of becomes obsolete.

Productivity growth continues to impress. In recession or not, United States productivity has shown remarkable strength. The trend has been strong enough to outweigh the cyclical impact for each of the past two recessions.

Productivity growth has been cited by some as a reason for our high unemployment. This cannot be true. The history of the world since the industrial revolution has been one of increasing productivity and increasing jobs. Rather, weakness in jobs is a result of a weak small business sector (see the Economic Activity essay) and structural changes. Some industries face real challenges filling open positions, while millions are unemployed or underemployed. Medical care has continually seen job gains, while millions of construction workers have been displaced. It takes time to turn a construction worker into a healthcare worker.

All this is to say that it looks like the recovery will continue to be soft and fragile. We expect to see job growth, welcome job growth after years of decline, but many challenges remain.

California remains mired in something like a zombie state, not quite dead, but certainly not vigorous, moving but with no clear direction. Perhaps, jobs and migration data best show California listless nature.

Jobs have been increasing in almost every sector, but that job growth has been anemic. We saw only 0.6 percent job growth in the past year, leaving us still down over 1.2 million jobs since the recession started. Consequently, the State’s unemployment rate remains over 30 percent above the national rate, and difference has been growing.

Similarly, California’s population has been growing, but extremely slowly compared to California’s golden past. Net domestic migration remains negative, as it has for most of a couple of decades now. Even net international migration has fallen, to less than 170,000 in 2009, the most recent year for which we have data.

Some parts of California are worse than others. California’s great Central valley is in terrible economic shape, by every measure, and unemployment rates in excess of 20 percent are not uncommon. Southern California’s once-thriving Inland Empire, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, languishes with unemployment rates over 14 percent and decimated housing markets.

Some regions are doing better, most only modestly. San Diego, Orange County, and San Francisco are examples. Only one region the Silicon Valley is doing well enough to generate real enthusiasm. This strength is due to its famous tech sector and to the region’s high density of venture capital firms.

Sectorally, healthcare continues to lead in job creation, recently followed closely by wholesale trade. Natural resources and mining is a small sector that has recently shown strong gains, driven mostly by rising oil prices.

Local government has been California’s weakest sector, which is contrasted by the State government’s continuing job increases. Invariably, in downturns, Sacramento is able to pass most of the pain down to local governments.

California ports have been another bright spot, benefiting from California’s location on the Pacific Rim and serving as a gateway to the vast United States markets.

Of course, the logical question is: why is California’s economy doing so much worse than is the United States economy? Some will answer that California’ has had another idiosyncratic shock. This time, California was ground zero for the collapse of the housing bubble. At the previous recession, California was ground zero for the collapse of the dot-com bubble. In the 1990’s California was ground zero for the downsizing of the United States defense industry.

California has been hit with some shocks. No doubt about it. Between the shocks, however, California has also shown weaker growth, particularly outside of the Silicon Valley. This is an indication that something else is at play, something is wrong, and it has costs.

California is an expensive place to do business, but it not just taxes. The cost of operating in a state is what I call the cost of DURT: Delay, Uncertainty, Regulation, and Taxes. It is the sum of these that helps to determine a state’s job-creating competitiveness, and economic vigor. California DURT is expensive, and it is hurting the State’s economic performance. As long as DURT remains a force of reckoning in California, I expect that the state’s long-term economic structure will continue to slip away from vitality and growth.