U-6 unemployment stays the same at 9.3% -lower pretend job correction

[papau]

is 120000 of the 146,000 job gain! (see "birth/death")

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-12. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Jan. Dec. Jan. Jan. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.
2004 2004 2005 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of
the civilian labor force................................. 2.4 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9

U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as
a percent of the civilian labor force.................... 3.6 2.8 3.2 3.0 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7

U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor
force (official unemployment rate)....................... 6.3 5.1 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.2

U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent
of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers..... 6.5 5.4 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.6

U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all
other marginally attached workers, as a percent of
civilian labor force plus all marginally attached
workers.................................................. 7.3 6.1 6.9 6.7 6.4 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.4

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers,
plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally
attached workers......................................... 10.9 9.1 10.2 9.9 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.3 9.3

CEU0000000001Not Seasonally AdjustedSuper Sector: Total nonfarmIndustry: Total nonfarmNAICS Code: N/AData Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

2000 128763 129428 130526 131525 132481 132998 131777 131785 132450 133007 133372 133308 131785
2001 130433 131098 131690 132094 132800 133179 131686 131613 131871 132072 131880 131491 131826
2002 128602 129069 129672 130257 131023 131404 129959 130044 130559 131227 131346 130933 130341
2003 128248 128660 129148 129800 130559 130890 129549 129601 130253 131045 131207 131026 129999
2004 128365 128976 130019 131150 132068 132527 131384 131416 132127 133139 133406 133200(p) 131481(p)
2005 130538(p)
p : preliminary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Series Id: CES0000000001Seasonally AdjustedSuper Sector: Total nonfarmIndustry: Total nonfarmNAICS Code: N/AData Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

2000 130781 130901 131377 131662 131882 131839 132015 132004 132122 132110 132326 132484
2001 132454 132546 132511 132214 132187 132029 131941 131803 131549 131172 130879 130705
2002 130581 130478 130441 130335 130326 130377 130277 130295 130250 130309 130315 130161
2003 130247 130125 129907 129853 129827 129854 129857 129859 129953 130076 130172 130255
2004 130372 130466 130786 131123 131373 131479 131562 131750 131880 132162 132294 132427(p)
2005 132573(p)

http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm
NOTE HOW JAN 2004 IS NOT PUBLISHED - <-391> - so you can not see that 120,000 of new jobs comes from lower birth/death correction!

2004 Net Birth/Death Adjustment (in thousands) Supersector Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Total
225 204 181 -80 123 44 55 9 66
2005 Net Birth/Death Adjustment (in thousands) Supersector Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Total
-280

http://www.bls.gov/ces/cesbdhst.htm

Net Birth/Death Adjustments (in thousands)
April 2003 – March 2004 Preliminary Estimates
Apr03 May03 Jun03 Jul03 Aug03 Sep03 Oct03 Nov03 Dec03 Jan04 Feb04 Mar04 Total
Total
228 194 167 -69 119 27 43 26 53 n/a n/a n/a 788

April 2002 – March 2003 Preliminary Estimates
Total
66 166 148 -11 59 14 -15 -7 12 -211 8 60 289
April 2002 – March 2003 Post-Benchmark Estimates
Apr
Total
45 176 156 -61 106 23 68 25 53 -391 119 151 470

[Tace]

1. Wow Papau, You Are On The Case!

I really appreciate your insight into these things. Chrs

[papau]

2. thanks Tace

:-)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. So in other words, unemployment is really at 10.9%?

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

4. Think you're reading it backward

That tables don't reproduce well in this format, but I think it was 10.9 earlier in the year and "improved" to 9.3 by December. But with job growth hitting the brakes the past two months, I suspect that this number will creep back up.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. Ahhh..thanks

Now I get it...yeah when tables aren't neatly lined up, I get a bit confused

[Birthmark]

6. A little help?

Where is the 120,000 adjustment? (This is very important to me.)

[jwcomer]

7. slight correction

Papau,

I suspect what happened with the historical is that they rolled the prior year off the current BDM corrections estimates sheets but haven't yet added them to the historical BDM sheets because they haven't completed the post-benchmark estimates. The -391 number is actually Jan 2003 (post-benchmark), while Jan 2004 was -321 (pre-benchmark). I kept hard copies ;)

Pre-Benchmark
Supersector Jan '04 Feb '04 Mar '04
Natural Resources & Mining -4 0 1
Construction -66 7 27
Manufacturing -38 4 7
Trade, Transportation, & Utilities -61 9 22
Information -5 5 2
Financial Activities -12 10 9
Professional & Business Services -95 27 31
Education & Health Services -6 15 10
Leisure & Hospitality -24 33 37
Other Services -10 5 7
Total -321 115 153

That comes out to a difference of 41k jobs due to the BDM delta.

The corrections for April 04 have been updated since I made my hard copy which may be due to quarterly revisions. However the -321 was unchanged as of yesterday when I last looked at the figures for january. So they rolled Q1 2004 off in the last 24 hours.

BTW, I believe 100k new jobs under Bush is beneath the error margin for the survey. So statistically we cannot say one way or another if Bush added jobs, its a tie.

Walton

[jwcomer]

11. President Bush lost private sector jobs!

I think the relevant data isn't total jobs so much as total private sector jobs.

Super Sector: Total private
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 111622 111644 111565 111219 111156 110916 110763 110579 110301 109896 109551 109352
2002 109206 109077 109003 108887 108790 108831 108765 108724 108693 108735 108733 108559
2003 108614 108492 108296 108258 108252 108250 108250 108279 108432 108525 108617 108701
2004 108839 108915 109204 109516 109787 109908 109976 110105 110203 110462 110588 110728(p)
2005 110862(p)

As you can see, Bush lost 760k private sector jobs under his 4 years. But gained 879k government sector jobs because he's a big-government, tax-and-spend Republican. This means the last four years have seen a rebalancing of jobs from the private sector to the government sector.

So on average, under Bush, 190k private sector jobs were lost each year and replaced them with 220k government sector jobs. To all the Freepers, you can put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.

For comparison, under Clinton 2,600k private jobs were created each year in addition to 241k government sector jobs per year.

As you can see Clinton and Bush had very similar levels of government job creation, but Bush oversaw a very different level of private sector job creation.

[papau]

13. Thanks - but now I am jealous of you getting hard copies!

:-)

and I agree as to tie!

:-)

And 321 to 270 - sigh - these are small adjustments to be making a fuss over - yet they add up over time!

in any case the "seasonal" 'ness of the numbers is messed up a bit with this correction to 270 - we will see if there is a new birth/death pattern.

But I did like the drop in Dec jobs - - so as to get a better increase for January - sigh - I do attribute motivation, perhaps wrongly - after a few years of this type of action!

Thanks for the info!

Bill

[jwcomer]

19. pre vs post

Bill,

Keep in mind that these are pre-benchmark adjustments. The post-benchmark may take those 40k right back off but we will not know for another year. Isn't that convenient.

Walton

[papau]

25. :-)

:-)

[mhr]

8. For Those That Don't Know - Birth/Death Is A Computer Model

That creates imaginary jobs with no corroborating data.

It supposedly is intended to track economic growth rates - GNP.

However, for those that track how it has been applied, it has become a great way to fudge the actual job growth numbers when needed.

"when needed" equals when Bush will look bad.

This is what Papua is referring to above.

[KayLaw]

9. So what is the number without the model? nt

[mhr]

10. Papau Has The Data On This I'll Let Him Answer

Here is the link to the BLS web site and the qualifying statement.

"The most significant potential drawback to this or any model-based approach is that time series modeling assumes a predictable continuation of historical patterns and relationships and therefore is likely to have some difficulty producing reliable estimates at economic turning points or during periods when there are sudden changes in trend. BLS will continue researching alternative model-based techniques for the net birth/death component; it is likely to remain as the most problematic part of the estimation process."

http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm

Note also the obfuscation that one hears in the press about jobs. People like Kudlow claim that job creation is greater than measured. He bases this on the "Household Survey" whereas most economists rely on the "Establishment Survey."

In essence,

Establishment Survey - Very Large Data Sample Taken From Real Employers
Household Survey - Very Small Data Sample Taken From Consumers

Who are you going to trust more, companies that are reporting by law the number of employees under the roof or consumers that may be lying about their self-employed status for ego reasons.

In other words the establishment survey has more credibility based on the sample size per month and the veracity of the information. Regardless, the Republicans trot out the Household Survey as proof that they are right.

[papau]

14. There is no report that shows the effect of seasonally adjusting the

birth/death model.

I assume there is no real adjustment difference - the adjustment to non-seasonally adjusted is close or the same as the seasonally effect. But there is no report.

The revised March number comment leads me to think I may have been incorrect when I said they do not benchmark the birth/death number to the Feb payroll tapes that go to the IRS. The online material says they do not benchmark - but that sure feels like a benchmarking.

And benchmarking is a good! So maybe the birth/death numbers are more than a 5 year trend line wild ass guess (we call it a WAG) of earlier wags. That would be nice!

Indeed the gov released a guess that $70 billion of payroll earnings do not get reported to the government - the implication being these birth death be your own boss and work at home folks may not be reporting in for tax purposes!

Or the guess of $70 billion could just be the number that makes the employement number post birth/death wag fit the actual March payroll numbers.

In any case interesting.

:-)

[KayLaw]

16. Thanks, guys

It's a tad mystifying, but I suppose that's the point. Did you see the article here in LBN about the thousands that showed up to apply for 150 WalMart jobs? Geez!

[TahitiNut]

21. Most important, it affects the UNADJUSTED employment figures ...

... from the "Current Establishment Survey". They then get a second shot at the statistical manipulation of employment statistics through "Seasonal Adjustment" - which is yet another modeling process that's also been revised with the current release, causing the reported employment numbers going back to 2000 to change (historical revisionism) as of this month.

The impact of the historical revisions implemented this month can be reviewed under "Benchmark Information" at http://www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm

Here're the magnitudes of the differences due to these revisions, where a positive difference means the "new" numbers are larger than the "old" numbers.

Difference in level for "Total Nonfarm ALL Employees (in thousands), SEASONALLY ADJUSTED"
YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 51 25 8 -15 -26 -44 -28 -11 18 -24 9 43
2001 66 54 4 -22 -50 -58 -31 -28 -15 -31 8 46
2002 87 74 -6 -44 -55 -29 -18 -11 -9 -33 10 65
2003 57 94 -14 -48 -46 -5 43 70 97 132 145 220
2004 178 189 156 169 211 221 219 209 220 190 185 161

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.compaes.txt
(Notice that this retroactively "creates" more than 200,000 'new' jobs in various months of the last year.)


Difference in level Total Nonfarm ALL Employees (in thousands), NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED
YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2003 0 0 0 19 39 60 68 89 118 121 136 164
2004 175 190 203 172 187 202 211 207 203 211 199 173

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.compaeu.txt
(Again, notice this retroactively "creates" more than 200,000 'new' jobs in various months of the last year.)


More Fascist "fuzzy math."

[jwcomer]

26. Nice find

Well, if the yearly March benchmark adjustments can add 200k new jobs then that confirms for me that the 100k new jobs under bush is a statistical tie. It is below the yearly seasonal benchmark adjustment.

According to the BLS this adjustment is .2% and and average adjustment over last decade is .2%. Ergo, 100k is not statistically significant.

http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbmtab.htm#Tab1
2001,2003,2003 all had -.1, -.2, -.1 adjustments respectively. Hence I'm not worried that this is being used as politics, if it were then why would they hurt themselves by subtracting 400k jobs over the three prior years?

[Birthmark]

12. Is it just me, or do these numbers not add up?

(Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Dec. 2004 148203000
Jan. 2005 147979000
Difference -224000

(Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Dec. 2004 66.0%
Jan. 2005 65.8%
Diff -0.2%

(Seas) Employment Level
Dec. 2004 140156000
Jan. 2005 140241000
Diff. +85000

(Seas) Unemployment Level
Dec. 2004 8047000
Jan. 2005 7737000
Diff. -310000

(Seas) Not in Labor Force
Dec. 2004 76437000
Jan. 2005 76858000
Diff. +421000

Aren't they just playing a shell game? Or am I using the numbers wrong?

[papau]

15. my head hurts - but I do not see any error on your part - but then

I have not gone back to verify all the numbers (old folks need naps!)

:-)

[cthrumatrix]

17. what are you trying to tell us with your math?

[Birthmark]

18. I'm not sure.

I'm no math whiz, that's for certain.

What it looks like to me is that the U-3 Unemployment rate really went down simply because a bunch of people were moved from "unemployed" to some other category like not in labor force or marginally attached.

Is that what these numbers should be telling me?

[papau]

24. yes - but there really was a bit of hiring going on - more in India than

in US perhaps

but this was an uptick

but really small

so small that one can not see it in day to day life.

U-6 is the interesting UE rate - and that is unchanged. The chart below is another interesting fact

[tom_paine]

20. Does it surprise you that this is as cooked and fixed as a Soviet Report?

After all, Imperial Amerika is a rapidly Sovietizing Nation.

[tgnyc]

22. A simpler way to look at the numbers

www.intelligencesquad.com/id106.html

[papau]

23. I like the chart