Four months ago, we discussed the rate of
unemployment in the US and published our forecast for 2013. We predicted an
extended unemployment fall period down to the level of 6.2% in the third
quarter of 2013. This prediction was made after we accurately forecasted (on
March 1, 2012) the rate of unemployment in the US to fall down to 7.8% by the
end of 2012. Here we update our model and present the evolution of the unemployment
rate in the first quarter of 2013. The measured rate has been following our
prediction up. We foresee the rate to fall down to 6% in the fourth quarter of
2013.

In 2006, we developed
three individual empirical relationships between the rate of unemployment,

*u(t)*, price inflation,*p(t)*, and the change rate of labour force,*LF(t)*, in the United States. We also revealed a general relationship balancing all three variables. Since measurement (including definition) errors in all three variables are independent it may so happen that they cancel each other (destructive interference) and the general relationship might have better statistical properties than the individual ones. For the USA, the best fit model for annual estimates was a follows:*u(t) = p(t-2.5) + 2.5dLF(t-5)/dtLF(t-5) + 0.0585 (1)*

where inflation (CPI) leads unemployment by 2.5
years (30 months) and the change in labor force leads by 5 years (60 months).
We have already posted
on the performance of this model several times.

For the model in this post, we use monthly
estimates of the headline CPI, u, and labor force, all reported by the US
Bureau of Labor Statistics. The time lags are the same as in (1) but
coefficients are different since we use month to month-a-year-ago rates of
growth. We have also allowed for changing inflation coefficient. The best fit
models for the period after 1978 are as follows:

*u(t) = 0.63p(t-2.5) + 2.0dLF(t-5)/dtLF(t-5) + 0.07; between 1978 and 2003*

*u(t) = 0.90p(t-2.5) + 4.0dLF(t-5)/dtLF(t-5) + 0.30; after 2003*

There is a structural break in 2003 which is
needed to fit the predictions and observations in Figure 1. Due to strong
fluctuations in monthly estimates of labor force and CPI we smoothed the
predicted curve with MA(24).

The structural break in 2003 may be associated
with the change of sensitivity of the rate of unemployment to the change of
inflation and labor force. Alternatively, definitions of all three (or two)
variables were revised around 2003, which is the year when new population
controls were introduced by the BLS. The Census Bureau also reports major
revisions to the Current Population Survey, where the estimates of labor force
and unemployment are taken from. Therefore, the reason behind the change in
coefficients night be of artificial character - the change in measuring units.

Figure 1 depicts the prediction and the observed
fall in the rate of unemployment. Figure 2 shows that the observed and predicted
time series are well correlated (R

^{2}=0.82). This is a good statistical support to the model.
Figure 3 depicts the predicted rate of
unemployment for the next 12 months. The model shows that the rate will fall to
6.0 % by December 2013. For 110 observations since 2003, the modelling error is
0.4% with the precision of unemployment rate measurement of 0.2% (Census Bureau
estimates in Technical
Paper 66). Hence, one may expect 6.0% [±0.4%]. Meanwhile, we expect a dramatic
drop in the rate of unemployment in April/June 2013. It should come as “unexpected”
by the mainstream economic forecasters.

Figure 2. Observed

*vs*. predicted rate of unemployment between 1967 and March 2013. The coefficient of determination Rsq=0.82.

Figures 3. The predicted rate of unemployment. We expect the rate to fall down to 6.0% in December 2013.

## No comments:

## Post a Comment