Inquiring minds are investigating job creation. Here is the question at hand: What age group or age groups get the bulk of the jobs?



ZeroHedge claims No Country For Young Workers: Only Americans 55 And Older Found Jobs In March.



We first showed back in October 2012 that in America, courtesy of the Fed's micro-mismanagement of everything, the labor force has been turned upside down, and the only jobs being created are those for aged workers, Americans 55 and over. The reason is two-fold: with savings rates at zero, Americans who were on the verge of retiring found that the fruit of their labor was worth nothing under ZIRP (and may well be punished under the upcoming NIRP) as their savings (and fixed income investments) generate zero interest income, while young Americans would rather stay in college by the millions funded generously by trillions in Uncle Sam student loans.



All of this was on full display in today's jobs number, which while disappointing wildly based on Establishment survey data, was even worse based on the Household survey where only 34,000 people found jobs in March. But it was the age breakdown that was the stunner, and it can be seen best in the chart below.



In short: America continues to be a country where there are only jobs for old men, those 55 and older, who saw a 329,000 increase in jobs in the past month. Every other age group saw job losses!

Civilian Population 55 and Over Civilian Population 25-54

In periods where growth in population exceeds growth in employment the charts are in positive territory.

In periods where growth in employment exceeds growth in population the charts are in negative territory.

Year Population Growth - Employment Growth Monthly Average 2008 2,708,000 225,667 2009 3,476,000 289,667 2010 -404,000 -33,667 2011 -672,000 -56,000 2012 -731,000 -60,917 2013 -187,000 -15,583 2014 -1,107,000 -92,250

Year Population - Employment Average 2008 984,000 82,000 2009 2,117,000 176,417 2010 877,000 73,083 2011 1,049,000 87,417 2012 1,847,000 153,917 2013 1,735,000 144,583 2014 1,054,000 87,833

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2005 12719 12760 12890 12947 12988 13036 13036 12990 12986 12997 13076 13073 2006 13135 13128 13255 13299 13358 13327 13373 13409 13450 13629 13713 13736 2007 13841 13875 14138 14175 14262 14352 14260 14424 14521 14623 14756 14842 2008 14866 14806 14833 14844 14782 14943 14983 15126 15267 15299 15373 15437 2009 15423 15516 15609 15605 15607 15714 15760 15846 15958 16007 16143 16279 2010 16297 16337 16398 16328 16443 16455 16495 16599 16737 16809 16986 17139 2011 17134 17144 17124 17162 17161 17294 17368 17354 17465 17506 17582 17513 2012 17815 17745 17650 17705 17631 17632 17639 17774 17779 17841 17919 17790 2013 17847 17854 17830 17904 17967 18056 18118 18271 18151 18126 18241 18170 2014 18293 18376 18394 18441 18475 18449 18522 18472 18593 18664 18729 18873 2015 18848 18919 18973

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2005 34888 34933 34955 34982 35014 35033 35084 35149 35168 35206 35201 35208 2006 35362 35395 35461 35509 35554 35607 35625 35671 35733 35797 35804 35841 2007 35946 35956 36013 36048 36133 36207 36234 36290 36351 36444 36511 36603 2008 36810 36866 36925 37002 37054 37110 37165 37247 37318 37437 37481 37522 2009 37677 37709 37782 37861 37905 37967 37979 38059 38143 38232 38297 38362 2010 38401 38444 38499 38573 38588 38668 38708 38791 38877 38906 38973 39045 2011 39383 39402 39450 39478 39488 39575 39635 39778 39937 40045 40208 40364 2012 41085 41231 41379 41481 41601 41751 41876 42082 42278 42413 42557 42695 2013 42724 42851 42986 43071 43192 43307 43453 43607 43710 43887 43998 44155 2014 44265 44402 44561 44638 44787 44875 45002 45116 45249 45398 45534 45685 2015 45780 45936 46091

Since March 2008, the age 60-64 demographic rose by 4,140,000.

Since March 2008, the age 65+ demographic rose by 9,166,000.

Since March 2008, the 60+ demographic rose by 13,306,000.

That was one of the charts ZeroHedge posted. Technically there is nothing wrong with the chart, assuming the numbers are accurate.However, the chart does not show where gains and losses are in a realistic manner.A couple charts of my own will explain why.Note the volatility in this series. Last month employment in the 55 and over category declined by 187,000. This month it rose by 329,000.Quick question: Judging from the above chart, is age group 55 losing or gaining employment?The correct answer is "The only realistic way to prove or disprove ZeroHedge's claim is to factor in age demographics. The proper way to do this is compare the growth in population of an age group vs. growth of employment in the same age group.Let's chart this for two age groups.To chart relative employment gains or losses I take the population change from year ago and subtract employment levels from a year ago.For age group 55 and over, the growth in population far exceeds growth in employment for every year-over-year comparison. This demographic is "not" adding employment.For age group 25-54, year-over-year gains in employment were greater than population gains every month since November 2011 except for September and October of 2013.This is by no means a strong recovery. It simply means the ZeroHedge statement "" is incorrect.Let's do the exercise again month-over-month. For this exercise we need to use seasonally adjusted numbers for employment.There are no seasonal adjustments for population numbers, you are either alive and counted or dead and not counted, except perhaps for voting purposes in certain places.March is one of about 20 months in this series where employment in age group 55 rose relative to population. It is opposite to the long-term trend, yet common enough to be meaningless. One month proves nothing.Note the purple squares for each year.(i.e. negative numbers).Let's do a sum of the months.In 2008 the averagein employment was 225,667.In 2009 the averagein employment was 289,000.In 2013 the average net monthlyin employment was a mere 15,583.The only strong year in the set is 2014 where net employmentrelative to population growth averaged 92,250 per month. Once again, negative numbers show employment growth relative to population growth.In 2013, relative to population growth, there was only a tiny gain in employment. The unemployment rate fell dramatically thanks to people dropping out of the labor force.That should put in context the much hyped monthly job gains over the last year.Relative to growth in population there has not been a single year that shows age group 55+ has gained employment. Indeed, the best year in the lot was 2010 where population-adjusted employment fell an average of 73,083 per month.The following tables show the huge gains every year in retirement age groups 60-64 and 65+.Age group 60-64 consists of people who may want to retire. Age group 65 and older consists of people who probably want to retire.It is reasonable to assume some of those in age group 60-64 retired. It is reasonable to assume most of those older than 65 did retire.Yet, retirement alone does not account for the huge drop in the unemployment rate. I will prove that in a followup post with a discussion of "core unemployment".Mike "Mish" Shedlockhttp://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com