Fri Sep 7, 2012, 08:33 AM
mahatmakanejeeves (11,439 posts)
August payroll employment rises (+96,000); unemployment rate edges down (8.1%)
Last edited Fri Sep 7, 2012, 09:05 AM - Edit history (1)
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- AUGUST 2012
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 96,000 in August, and the unemployment
rate edged down to 8.1 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Employment increased in food services and drinking places, in professional and
technical services, and in health care.
Household Survey Data
The unemployment rate edged down in August to 8.1 percent. Since the beginning of
this year, the rate has held in a narrow range of 8.1 to 8.3 percent. The number of
unemployed persons, at 12.5 million, was little changed in August. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (7.6 percent),
adult women (7.3 percent), teenagers (24.6 percent), whites (7.2 percent), blacks
(14.1 percent), and Hispanics (10.2 percent) showed little or no change in August.
The jobless rate for Asians was 5.9 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little
changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for June was revised from +64,000 to
+45,000, and the change for July was revised from +163,000 to +141,000.
Read more: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
An increase of 96,000 is really lackluster. It's not just lackluster, but, as the first response says, "disappointing." It's half the ADP estimate. Here is a quote from yesterday's ADP news release:
August 2012 Report
Not only that, but BLS's estimates for increases in employment for June and July were lowered too. (Hat tip to Reuters and Hissyspit.)
At any rate, good morning, Freepers and DUers alike. I especially welcome viewers from across the aisle. You're paying for this information too, so you ought to see this as much as anyone. Please, everyone, put aside your differences long enough to digest the information. After that, you can engage in your usual donnybrook.
What is important about these statistics is not so much this month’s number, but the trend. So let’s look at some earlier numbers. We’ll start with the ADP estimate.
ADP, for employment in August:
The ADP National Employment Report August 2012
BLS, for employment in July:
July payroll employment rises (+163,000); jobless rate essentially unchanged (8.3%)
ADP, for employment in July:
The ADP National Employment Report July 2012
BLS, for employment in June:
Payroll employment continues to edge up in June (+80,000); jobless rate unchanged (8.2%)
Of particular importance for the BLS estimate for June was this article from that day’s Wall Street Journal.
Unemployment Line Longer Than It Looks&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#8206;
AHEAD OF THE TAPE
Hmmm. Give that some thought. Also, when May'’s figures were released, Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation was on Tom Hartmann that Friday night. He kept referring to the &amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;U-6 Number.&amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; That can be found in Table A15. It is &amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force.&amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; It appears in two forms, seasonally adjusted and non-seasonally adjusted. Either way, it is the least optimistic of all the estimates.
Thanks to DUer alp227, you can watch Judson Phillips’s appearance on Tom Hartmannn here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014184289#post12
ADP, for employment in June:
ADP jobs up 176,000 (for June)
BLS, for employment in May:
May payroll employment changes little (+69,000); jobless rate essentially unchanged (8.2%)
ADP, for employment in May:
May change in employment +133,000
BLS, for employment in April:
Payroll employment rises 115,000 in April; unemployment rate changes little (8.1%)
ADP and Gallup, for employment in April:
There were four related threads about the April jobs estimate at DU already. Three are in General Discussion, and they are based on the figures from ADP. The fourth, in LBN, paints a contrasting picture. It relies on the figures from Gallup.
Per CNBC - ADP Numbers bad, posted by Laura PourMeADrink
BAD: ADP JOBS REPORT MISSES EXPECTATIONS BY A MILE, posted by xchrom
ADP &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp; TrimTabs Showing Much Weaker Payrolls Ahead of Unemployment Report, posted by marmar
U.S. Job Creation Nears Four-Year High, posted by brooklynite
There's a joke about economists in there somewhere.
Payroll employment rises 120,000 in March; unemployment rate changes little (8.2%)
Businesses Adding 209,000 New Jobs Last Month Fail To Ignite Market Rally
ADP Estimates U.S. Companies Added 216,000 Jobs in February, posted by Gruntled Old Man
One more thing:
So how many jobs must be created every month to have an effect on the unemployment rate? There's an app for that.
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Jobs Calculator™
Well, enough of that. On with the show.
Monthly Employment Reports
The large print giveth, and the fine print taketh away.
A DU'er pointed out several months ago that, if I'm going to post the link to the press release, I should include the link to all the tables that provide additional ways of examining the data. Specifically, I should post a link to &amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization.&amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; Table A-15 includes those who are not considered unemployed, on the grounds that they have become discouraged about the prospects of finding a job and have given up looking. Here are those links.
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization
From the February 10, 2011, &amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;DOL Newsletter&amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;:
8 replies, 2923 views
August payroll employment rises (+96,000); unemployment rate edges down (8.1%) (Original post)
Response to docgee (Reply #2)
Sat Sep 8, 2012, 12:59 PM
Igel (25,257 posts)
6. Is that just private or overall numbers?
Does it take into account population growth?
And is that really the right kind of number, the right place to counting?
That means we say something like this: "From 1/21/2009 to the present, we have 0 job loss in just the private sector. Yes, unemployment is at 8.1%, and those marginally attached to the workforce who are unemployed total 16%, and if you include population growth and those who have never been in the workforce or who have long given up on the workforce, unemployment is over 20%. But what's really important isn't how many people are unemployed, how many people are underemployed, but that our guy has no net job loss, and it's only taken $4 trillion in debt and 3.8 years to do it in. The real recovery isn't from the recession and what's important isn't how the country is doing; the real recovery is just what shows up on our guy's gain and loss sheet and what's good for him and Party!"
Party should never be a substitute for country, and "leader" should never be a substitute for "populace."
Response to Igel (Reply #6)
Sun Sep 9, 2012, 05:46 PM
docgee (207 posts)
8. A good party is a good substitute for just about anything, dude!
I, perhaps shallow minded, was just thinking It would be good to shut down one argument from tea bagger types as in "above 8% unemployment for weeks" that you hear so much. So yes, it seems to matter.
Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)
Fri Sep 7, 2012, 01:17 PM
mahatmakanejeeves (11,439 posts)
5. Why August’s jobs number is likely wrong
Why August’s jobs number is likely wrong
By Zachary A. Goldfarb, Updated: Friday, September 7, 12:22 PM
Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #5)
Sat Sep 8, 2012, 01:09 PM
Igel (25,257 posts)
7. There's "wrong" and there's wrong.
Saying that the numbers could be -99k to +86k says little. What are the frequencies of each? How likely is this to be wrong by more than 5-10k?
It's incorrect if the number reported was 96,000 and the "true" number turns out to be 95,400. It's a trivial correction though, making it's inaccuracy trivial.
And people do look at the corrections, although that depends on who's doing the punditing. If the number's low and the commentator wants it higher, he'll certainly add, "But last week's numbers were revised upward". If it's not a trivial amount, he'll add the figure, "But last week's numbers were revised upwards by 12k jobs." Mut. mut. for those who would, for political reasons, want the numbers lower. (Mut. mut. is for "mutatis mutandis," making the necessary changes to what's been said to make the new utterance true.)