HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » The economy added 225,000...

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 08:35 AM

The economy added 225,000 jobs in January, showing continued strength

Source: Washington Post

The U.S. economy added 225,000 jobs in January, surpassing analysts predictions in a sign of continued growth for the economy. The unemployment rate ticked up slightly to 3.6 percent, remaining near a 50 year low.

Job gains picked up in construction, health care, as well as transportation and warehousing, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The number of jobs added for the month was well above the average of 176,000 jobs per month in 2019, and 223,000 in 2018. In 2019, the U.S. added 300,000 jobs in January, an impressive uptick that federal statisticians surmised had spiked because of the government shutdown as people took on part-time jobs.

Business experts had expected a more modest monthly total, saying it was inevitable with the economy’s long expansion. January was the 112th straight month of job growth since 2010 and many analysts predicted the total would be around 150,000 or 160,000.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/02/07/february-2020-jobs-report/



A lazy headline but will await the update and our resident DU economy watchers for the details!

Original article and headline -

The U.S. labor market remained strong in January, adding 225,000 jobs

By Washington Post Staff
Feb. 7, 2020 at 8:33 a.m. EST

Business leaders and politicians are watching the jobless rate closely, as concerns about a possible recession have eased.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2020/02/07/the-u-s-labor-market-remained-strong-in-january-adding-225000-jobs/

53 replies, 3893 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 53 replies Author Time Post
Reply The economy added 225,000 jobs in January, showing continued strength (Original post)
BumRushDaShow Feb 2020 OP
madaboutharry Feb 2020 #1
Iliyah Feb 2020 #2
bearsfootball516 Feb 2020 #3
Iliyah Feb 2020 #27
groundloop Feb 2020 #17
hamsterjill Feb 2020 #23
ck4829 Feb 2020 #42
bucolic_frolic Feb 2020 #4
Hoyt Feb 2020 #5
SergeStorms Feb 2020 #6
groundloop Feb 2020 #19
progree Feb 2020 #21
Dennis Donovan Feb 2020 #7
SmartVoter22 Feb 2020 #8
progree Feb 2020 #10
progree Feb 2020 #12
SmartVoter22 Feb 2020 #40
Flaleftist Feb 2020 #9
mahatmakanejeeves Feb 2020 #11
ScratchCat Feb 2020 #13
progree Feb 2020 #18
mahatmakanejeeves Feb 2020 #14
mahatmakanejeeves Feb 2020 #15
mahatmakanejeeves Feb 2020 #16
Corgigal Feb 2020 #20
progree Feb 2020 #22
mahatmakanejeeves Feb 2020 #25
progree Feb 2020 #26
maddogesq Feb 2020 #24
Jedi Guy Feb 2020 #33
Bengus81 Feb 2020 #28
maddogesq Feb 2020 #29
MichMan Feb 2020 #41
She_Totally_Gets_It Feb 2020 #30
progree Feb 2020 #32
She_Totally_Gets_It Feb 2020 #34
progree Feb 2020 #35
She_Totally_Gets_It Feb 2020 #36
progree Feb 2020 #37
She_Totally_Gets_It Feb 2020 #38
progree Feb 2020 #39
She_Totally_Gets_It Feb 2020 #31
mahatmakanejeeves Feb 2020 #43
progree Feb 2020 #46
Dyedinthewoolliberal Feb 2020 #44
progree Feb 2020 #45
True Blue Drew Feb 2020 #47
progree Feb 2020 #48
Name removed Feb 2020 #49
progree Feb 2020 #50
democratisphere Feb 2020 #51
Iliyah Feb 2020 #52
progree Feb 2020 #53

Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 08:41 AM

1. So Donny Deutsch on MSNBC wanting to hear himself talk:

After they announced the new job numbers of 225,000 jobs added. "This is very bad news for Democrats" followed by serious look on his face.

Oh, man. When will this talking heads give this meme a rest?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 08:49 AM

2. We are not buying it . . .

The economy sucks . . .

More part time jobs with minimum wage.

Households are working 2 or more jobs just to make ends meet.

Tax season, the 1%ers are getting a rude awakening . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iliyah (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 08:52 AM

3. Why would they get a rude awakening?

The tax cuts have helped the wealthy more than anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bearsfootball516 (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 11:34 AM

27. My opinion . ..

The middle class is being squeezed and we pay the highest taxes. Low paying jobs and part time jobs generates less federal and states tax payouts to the government. The t-rump government overall will bring in less money. Middle to poor will receive less refund as well.

There is a 3 trillion dollar deficit and climbing . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iliyah (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 10:38 AM

17. Yep.... The plant I worked at is closing, sending jobs to Mexico

Bottom line, top management and major stockholders will profit from this, but thousands of normal workers are devastated. A bump in the stock price doesn't help people put food on the table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iliyah (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 11:04 AM

23. Great post.

Exactly. I was recently job hunting. There are fewer and fewer available jobs that pay anything, much less have any kind of benefits.

The USA as a whole is NOT doing well financially.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iliyah (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 10, 2020, 07:35 AM

42. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 09:20 AM

4. Weak sauce

Not a blowout number, not the top of the range, barely middling, unemployment rate ticks up to 3.6%

The economy is slowing and corona virus will impact the next 6 months, travel, trade are down, production will fall in China.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 09:21 AM

5. That "multiple jobs" stuff isn't going to help us. Rate now -- 5.1% -- is lower than in the 1990s.

We are going to get caught flat footed running on distortions.

trump should get little credit for the economy, but he will.

The economy is not where we beat trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 09:24 AM

6. Does anyone find it somewhat strange....

that this avalanche of "great" economic news is somewhat suspect coming from the Trump administration at this time?

Six months ago there were nothing but signs that the economy was slowing, and many economists were predicting a recession. I guess it's a sign from "heaven" that suddenly the economy is going through the roof again because of the Orange Shit-Stain's solid economic policies.

I smell more TrumpCo. lies and obfuscation. I trust NOTHING that comes from these lying scumbags.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SergeStorms (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 10:41 AM

19. Yeah, and don't forget record budget deficits.

When Democrats run things deficits are all important, despite the fact that our last Democratic President inherited a complete cluster fuck and did a damned good job of getting things back on track. Even with the great progress President Obama made fixing the economy gopers always complained about the deficit. Where are those same people now that tRump has unnecessarily run up the deficit with tax cuts for the wealthy? CRICKETS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 10:51 AM

21. Yup, and after Obama did so much to bring it down from G.W. Bushian levels (reminder:

G.W. Bush inherited an economy from Clinton that had 4 budget surpluses in a row)

{#} ACTUAL Federal Spending and Deficits - Fiscal Years 2008 - 2019, in $Billions

Fiscal year 2019 ended September 30, 2019. Similarly for all the other fiscal years.

Note: all figures in this section are actual, not budgeted. I only point out that Bush signed the FY 2009 budget, and that Obama signed the FY 2017 budget.




And yes, the above numbers include payroll tax receipts (including Social Security) and Social Security benefits expenditures, since the above are unified budget numbers.

Source:
. . . https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55824 which links to the complete document at
. . . https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-11/55824-CBO-MBR-FY19.pdf . . . See also
. . . https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/hist01z1.xls
. . . https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2019/hist01z1.xls <-does not work 2/3/20
. . . (Table 1.1) for receipts, outlays, and surplus
. . . . . . https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/hist01z1-fy2020.xlsx
(Historic tables are listed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals ).

Source for the 2008 numbers (and 2009 thru 2012 except a couple of the later years were revised by the document above):
. . . http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43698 which links to the complete document at
. . . https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-2012/reports/43698-Nov-MBR.pdf


Aside: how it was spent (good read): https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go


Regarding Obama's 8 years: FY 2017 federal spending is 463 B$ (13.2%) more than FY 2009 (the last Bush budgeted year).

Since the nominal (current dollar) GDP increased by 35.5% between FY 2009 (a recession low point) and FY 2017 (see next paragraph), while federal spending increased 13.2%, that means federal spending as a percentage of GDP dropped substantially during those 8 years -- from 24.46% of GDP to 20.42% of GDP (calculations below). Something to keep in mind when some rightie rants and raves about the socialist Obama spending us into the poor house.

Note: I am including FY 2017 as part of Obama's legacy because he signed the FY 2017 budget spending bills. FY 2017 runs from Oct. 1, 2016 thru Sept. 30, 2017 -- 3 2/3 months while Obama was president, and 8 1/3 months while Trump was president). Just like I assigned FY 2009 to Bush

In Current Dollars: GDP FY 2009 (2009 Q3) = $14,384.1 billion . GDP FY 2017 (2017 Q3) = $19,495.5 billion -- an increase of 35.5% over FY 2009.

Source of GDP figures: http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
where FY 2009 = Q4 2008 through Q3 2009. And FY 2017 = Q4 2016 through Q3 2017.

FY 2009: Spending / GDP = 3518/14384 = 24.46% . FY 2017: Spending / GDP = 3981/19496 = 20.42%

The Fiscal Year 2009 budget (Oct. 1, 2008 - Sept 30, 2009) was signed into law by G.W. Bush. The CBO on January 7, 2009 (13 days before Bush left office) projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for FY 2009. So all but about $200 billion of FY 2009 spending and deficits was "baked in" before Bush left office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 09:31 AM

7. Important reminder from Catherine Rampell - Trump still underperforms Obama's numbers



Catherine Rampell ✔@crampell

post-benchmark revision, monthly job growth in the first 37 months of Trump's presidency has averaged 182,000.
In the last 37 months of Obama's presidency, it averaged 220,000.


9:19 AM - Feb 7, 2020


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 09:42 AM

8. 6.3% of the US work force is not working.

The unemployment rate only shows a month to month change for workers who apply for unemployment benefits or who come off those benefits.
There are several types of workers (called inactive workers) that are excluded from these numbers and those workers make up a significant percentage of the total workforce that are; ' working or not working'.

Of all the workers in America, 6.3% are not working.

This link explains how that is calculated. from Jan 2020.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-real-unemployment-rate-3306198

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SmartVoter22 (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 09:57 AM

10. "workers who apply for unemployment benefits or who come off those benefits."

# Myth: "those who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits are not counted as unemployed. If they were counted, the official unemployment rate would be much higher" (you often hear this claim from the RepubliCONS when a Democratic president is in the White House, and vice versa when a RepubliCON is in the White House).

# Fact: The count of the unemployed and the unemployment rate is NOT a count of those receiving unemployment benefits, nor is unemployment benefit receiver status factored at all into any of the official national unemployment rate statistics (U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, U6). Rather, the national unemployment rate is based on a survey of 60,000 households chosen at random. See: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm (and search the page for the word "insurance" ) or Google the below line::
"How the Government Measures Unemployment" cps_htgm.htm
and search the page for the word "insurance"

People in the survey are counted as unemployed (and thus part of the official (U3) unemployment rate) if they are jobless and looked for work some time in the past 4 weeks. They are counted as unemployed in the U4, U5, and U6 statistics if they looked for work some time in the past 12 months. It has nothing at all to do with whether they are collecting unemployment benefits or not, or how long they have been unemployed.

By the way, where did you read that pap about the unemployment rate being only a count of people collecting unemployment benefits? I'm always curious if there is some reasonably reputable source that still propagates that bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SmartVoter22 (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 10:15 AM

12. I couldn't find 6.3% or any such backing for "Of all the workers in America, 6.3% are not working."

at the link you gave.

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-real-unemployment-rate-3306198

That said, the official unemployment rate (U-3) only counts people who have looked for work in the last 4 weeks (and who are jobless and say they want a job and are available for work).

U-6 counts people who have looked for work in the past 12 months, and includes part-time workers who say they want full time work. Also called the underemployment rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709

That number was 6.7% in December and 6.9% in January (it was 9.2% in January 2017)

It's the lowest its ever been since its beginning in January 1994 with the exception of one month in 2000 when it was 6.8%, and excepting September-December of 2019 when it ranged between 6.7% and 6.9%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 10:59 PM

40. It's the definition of the eligible workforce.

I think I know what you are stating. To claify, I was questioning the formula which doesn't accurately show the percentage of the 340 Million people in America. Of course, little kids, some disabled, some non-citizen workers, etc...should that rate reflect how many people are eligible to work compared to who is actually working.
Granted the numbers are low historically, but then should it only consider full-time work? or include people that have 3 part-time jobs?
My point should have clarified more toward the formulas being used, IMO, should provide a more inclusive population of eligible workers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 09:55 AM

9. Trump threatened NOAA to lie. Nothing that comes out of this Administration can be trusted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 10:12 AM

11. Links to earlier reports:

Good morning, all.

Thursday, January 9, 2020: Links to earlier reports:

Updated from this post of Friday, December 6, 2019: Good morning. Links to earlier reports:

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

[center]Past Performance is Not a Guarantee of Future Results.[/center]

Nonetheless, what is important is not this month's results, but the trend. Let’s look at some earlier numbers:

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in January 2020:

ADP says 291,000 private-sector jobs created in January, largest gain in 4 years

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in December 2019:

Economy adds 145,000 jobs in December as unemployment rate remains at 3.5 percent

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in December 2019:

U.S. private sector adds the most jobs in eight months

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in November 2019:

Labor market remained strong in November as U.S. economy added 266,000 jobs

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in November 2019:

U.S. private sector job growth slows down sharply in November: ADP

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in October 2019:

U.S. economy added 128,000 jobs in October as GM strike displaced workers; jobless rate ticks up

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in September 2019:

U.S. economy added just 136,000 jobs in September, in fresh sign economy is cooling

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in September 2019:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 135,000 Jobs in September

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in August 2019:

U.S. economy adds just 130,000 jobs in August amid worries

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in August 2019:

Survey: Businesses added a solid 195,000 jobs in August

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in July 2019:

U.S. Added 164,000 Jobs in July; Unemployment Rate at 3.7 Percent

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in July 2019:

ADP says 156,000 private-sector jobs added created in July

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in June 2019:

Hiring rebounds as U.S. economy adds 224,000 jobs in June;unemployment rate inched up to 3.7 percent

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in June 2019:

U.S. private sector hiring picks up less than expected in June: ADP

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in May 2019:

The U.S. economy added only 75,000 jobs in May amid bite from Trump's trade war

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in May 2019:

ADP private-sector job growth tumbles to a 9-year low in May

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in April 2019:

UPDATE: U.S. unemployment fell to 3.6 percent, lowest since 1969

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in April 2019:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 275,000 Jobs in April

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in March 2019:

UPDATE: U.S. added 196,000 jobs in March as economy shows signs of spring bounce

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in March 2019:

Private sector hiring falls to 18-month low, and manufacturing sheds jobs, ADP says

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in February 2019:

U.S. adds meager 20,000 jobs in February to mark smallest increase in 17 months

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in February 2019:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 183,000 Jobs in February

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in January 2019:

U.S. creates 304,000 jobs in January, unemployment rises to 4%

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in January 2019:

U.S. added 213,000 private-sector jobs in January, ADP says

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in December 2018:

Payroll employment increases by 312,000 in December; unemployment rate rises to 3.9%

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in December 2018:

U.S. adds most private-sector jobs in almost 2 years, says ADP

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in November 2018:

Payroll employment increases by 155,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged at 3.7%

ADP[sup]®[/sup] (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in November 2018:

U.S. adds 179,000 private-sector jobs in November: ADP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 10:21 AM

13. Jobs were added but the unemployment rate went up

ok

Guess that means 225,000 jobs were added and about 250,000-300,000 were lost.

Construction is down, but jobs were picked up in the slowest month for construction?

I'm sorry, but this report seems to be contrary to everything else we know. I suspect some manipulated statistics here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ScratchCat (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 10:40 AM

18. Two different surveys. The unemployment rate comes from the Household Survey

and the payroll jobs numbers comes from the Establishment Survey. They often widely diverge, and the household survey is much more volatile and lower accuracy.

Monthly changes for Non-farm payroll employment from the Establishment Survey, thousands
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
2018 121 406 176 137 278 219 136 244 80 201 134 182
2019 269   1   147  210 85 182 194 207 208 185 261 147(P)
2020 225(P)
P : preliminary
(Yup, that's a "1" in February 2019, meaning only 1,000 net jobs created that month ... I had to look at it again)

Monthly changes for "Employed" from the Household Survey, thousands
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000?output_view=net_1mth
2018 530(1) 715(1) -99 58 132 395 -96 -405 310 527 57 449
2019 31(1) -95(1) -112 -389 236 351 240 521 157 350 -54 209
2020 50(1)
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

So for January 2020, the nonfarm payroll jobs number increased by 225,000 while the "Employed" (Household Survey) increased by only 50,000.

Again, the unemployment rate comes from the Household Survey.

Anyway that's one of the main reasons for the two to diverge big time. Another is the number of people who decide to look for a job (only people who have looked for work in the past 4 weeks are counted as unemployed in the official (U3) unemployment statistics.)

>>Construction is down, but jobs were picked up in the slowest month for construction?

The data is seasonally adjusted.

EDITED: added ",thousands" to the monthly data series

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 10:25 AM

14. From the source: Payroll employment rises by 225,000 in January; unemployment rate little changed

Payroll employment rises by 225,000 in January; unemployment rate little changed at 3.6%

Economic News USDL-20-0180
Employment Situation Summary
Transmission of material in this news release is embargoed until 8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, February 7, 2020

Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov


THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- JANUARY 2020


Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 225,000 in January, and the unemployment rate
was little changed at 3.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Notable job gains occurred in construction, in health care, and in transportation and
warehousing.

This news release presents statistics from two monthly surveys. The household survey
measures labor force status, including unemployment, by demographic characteristics.
The establishment survey measures nonfarm employment, hours, and earnings by industry.
For more information about the concepts and statistical methodology used in these two
surveys, see the Technical Note.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Changes to The Employment Situation Data

Establishment survey data have been revised as a result of the annual
benchmarking process and the updating of seasonal adjustment factors. In
addition, several changes have been made to household survey data, including
the annual update of population estimates. See the notes at the end of the
news release for more information.
___________________________________________________________________________________


Household Survey Data

Both the unemployment rate, at 3.6 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, at
5.9 million, changed little in January. (See table A-1. For information about annual
population adjustments to the household survey estimates, see the note at the end of
the news release and tables B and C.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (3.3 percent),
adult women (3.2 percent), teenagers (12.2 percent), Whites (3.1 percent), Blacks
(6.0 percent), Asians (3.0 percent), and Hispanics (4.3 percent) showed little or
no change over the month. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

Among the unemployed, the number of reentrants to the labor force increased by
183,000 in January to 1.8 million but was little changed over the year. (Reentrants
are persons who previously worked but were not in the labor force prior to beginning
their job search.) (See table A-11.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 1.2 million,
was unchanged in January. These individuals accounted for 19.9 percent of the unemployed.
(See table A-12.)

After accounting for the annual adjustments to the population controls, the civilian
labor force rose by 574,000 in January, and the labor force participation rate edged
up by 0.2 percentage point to 63.4 percent. The employment-population ratio, at 61.2
percent, changed little over the month but was up by 0.5 percentage point over the year.
(See table A-1. For additional information about the effects of the population adjustments,
see table C.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons, at 4.2 million, was
essentially unchanged in January. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time
employment, were working part time because their hours had been reduced or they were
unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.)

The number of persons marginally attached to the labor force, at 1.3 million, changed
little in January. These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available
for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted
as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey
for a variety of reasons, such as belief that no jobs are available for them (referred
to as discouraged workers), school attendance, or family responsibilities. Discouraged
workers numbered 337,000 in January, little changed over the month. (See Summary table A.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 225,000 in January, compared with an
average monthly gain of 175,000 in 2019. Notable job gains occurred in construction,
in health care, and in transportation and warehousing. (See table B-1. For information
about the annual benchmark process, see the note at the end of the news release and table A.)

In January, construction employment rose by 44,000. Most of the gain occurred in specialty
trade contractors, with increases in both the residential (+18,000) and nonresidential
(+17,000) components. Construction added an average of 12,000 jobs per month in 2019.

Health care added 36,000 jobs in January, with gains in ambulatory health care services
(+23,000) and hospitals (+10,000). Health care has added 361,000 jobs over the past 12 months.

Employment in transportation and warehousing increased by 28,000 in January. Job gains
occurred in couriers and messengers (+14,000) and in warehousing and storage (+6,000).
Over the year, employment in transportation and warehousing has increased by 106,000.

Employment in leisure and hospitality continued to trend up in January (+36,000). Over
the past 6 months, the industry has added 288,000 jobs.

Employment continued on an upward trend in professional and business services in January
(+21,000), increasing by 390,000 over the past 12 months.

Manufacturing employment changed little in January (-12,000) and has shown little movement,
on net, over the past 12 months. Motor vehicles and parts lost 11,000 jobs over the month.

Employment in other major industries, including mining, wholesale trade, retail trade,
information, financial activities, and government, changed little over the month.

In January, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by
7 cents to $28.44. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by
3.1 percent. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees
were $23.87 in January, little changed over the month (+3 cents). (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 34.3
hours in January. In manufacturing, the average workweek remained at 40.4 hours, while
overtime edged down 0.1 hour to 3.1 hours. The average workweek of private-sector production
and nonsupervisory employees edged up by 0.1 hour to 33.6 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for November was revised up by 5,000 from
+256,000 to +261,000, and the change for December was revised up by 2,000 from +145,000 to
+147,000. With these revisions, employment gains in November and December combined were
7,000 higher than previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional reports
received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from
the recalculation of seasonal factors. The annual benchmark process also contributed to the
November and December revisions.) After revisions, job gains have averaged 211,000 over the
last 3 months.

_____________
The Employment Situation for February is scheduled to be released on Friday, March 6, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).

* * * * *

[center]Facilities for Sensory Impaired[/center]

Information from these releases will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: 202-691-5200, Federal Relay Services: 1-800-877-8339.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 10:28 AM

15. BLS Commissioner's statement

The short version of the whole thing.

Economic News Release

Commissioner's Statement on the Employment Situation

Advance copies of this statement are made available to the press
under lock-up conditions with the explicit understanding that
the data are embargoed until 8:30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.


Statement of

William W. Beach
Commissioner
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Friday, February 7, 2020


Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 225,000 in January, and
the unemployment rate was little changed at 3.6 percent. Notable
employment gains occurred in construction, in health care, and
in transportation and warehousing. In 2019, job growth averaged
175,000 per month.

Incorporating revisions for November and December, which
increased payroll employment by 7,000, monthly job gains have
averaged 211,000 over the past 3 months.

Construction employment rose by 44,000 in January. Job
gains were concentrated in specialty trade contractors, with
increases about equally split between the residential (+18,000)
and nonresidential (+17,000) components. In 2019, construction
added an average of 12,000 jobs per month.

Employment in health care increased by 36,000 in January,
about in line with the average monthly gain in 2019 (+29,000).
Over the month, employment rose in ambulatory care services
(+23,000) and hospitals (+10,000).

In January, employment in transportation and warehousing
increased by 28,000, driven by gains in couriers and messengers
(+14,000) and in warehousing and storage (+6,000). These two
industries accounted for about four-fifths of the over-the-year
growth in transportation and warehousing (+106,000).

Employment in leisure and hospitality continued to trend up
in January (+36,000). The industry has added 288,000 jobs over
the past 6 months.

Over the month, employment also continued to trend up in
professional and business services (+21,000). The industry has
added 390,000 jobs over the year.

Manufacturing employment changed little in January
(-12,000) and has shown little movement, on net, over the year.
Motor vehicles and parts lost 11,000 jobs in January.

Employment in other major industries--including mining,
wholesale trade, retail trade, information, financial
activities, and government--showed little change over the month.

Average hourly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm
payrolls rose by 7 cents in January to $28.44, following a gain
of 3 cents in December. Over the past 12 months, average hourly
earnings have risen by 3.1 percent; the over-the-year percent
change has been 3.0 percent or above for 18 consecutive months.
From December 2018 to December 2019, the Consumer Price Index
for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased by 2.3 percent (on a
seasonally adjusted basis).

The major labor market indicators from the survey of
households continued to show little or no change in January.
Both the unemployment rate, at 3.6 percent, and the number of
unemployed people, at 5.9 million, were little changed over the
month.

Among the unemployed, the number of people searching for
work for 27 weeks or more was essentially unchanged at 1.2
million in January. These long-term unemployed accounted for
19.9 percent of the unemployed.

The labor force participation rate edged up to 63.4 percent
in January. The employment-population ratio was little changed
at 61.2 percent.

In January, 4.2 million people were working part time for
economic reasons (also referred to as involuntary part-time
workers), essentially unchanged from the previous month.

Among those neither working nor looking for work in
January, 1.3 million were considered marginally attached to the
labor force, little changed over the month. (People who are
marginally attached to the labor force had not looked for work
in the 4 weeks prior to the survey but wanted a job, were
available for work, and had looked for a job within the last 12
months.) Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally
attached who believed no jobs were available for them, numbered
337,000 in January, also little changed from a month earlier.

Following our usual practice, there were routine annual
adjustments to the data from our two surveys. The establishment
survey data released today reflect the incorporation of annual
benchmark revisions. Each year, we re-anchor our sample-based
survey estimates to full universe counts of employment,
primarily derived from the Quarterly Census of Employment and
Wages, which counts jobs covered by the unemployment insurance
tax system. The level of nonfarm payroll employment in March
2019 was revised down by 514,000, or -0.3 percent. The average
benchmark revision over the past 10 years was plus or minus 0.2
percent. (Additional information about the benchmark revision
and its impact is contained in our news release and on our
website at www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbmart.htm.)

Household survey data for January reflect updated
population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. Again this
year, the impact of the new population controls on the
unemployment rate and other ratios was negligible. (Further
information can be found in our news release and on our website
at www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps-pop-control-adjustments.pdf.)

Summarizing the labor market developments in January,
nonfarm payroll employment rose by 225,000, and the unemployment
rate was little changed at 3.6 percent.



HTML version of the entire news release

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 10:36 AM

16. Links to charts and graphs from the BLS Twitter account.

These will get explained in an article in The Wall Street Journal., but the explanation will be behind a paywall.

See our interactive graphics on today’s #JobsReport http://go.usa.gov/cn5B4 #BLSdata #DataViz



Understanding BLS Unemployment Statistics #JobsReport #BLSdata



More charts and analysis on the January nonfarm payroll employment numbers http://go.usa.gov/4UqY #JobsReport #BLSdata



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 10:45 AM

20. Didn't someone on DU,

Maybe yesterday, that the U.S. is hiring 225,000 workers for the census? However, in a few months they will go poof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Corgigal (Reply #20)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 11:02 AM

22. I don't know where to find Census employment specifically, but federal workers increased by 12,000

in January.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9091000001?output_view=net_1mth
(includes postal workers, excludes military)

There was a lot of hiring of census workers in 2019, I remember reading from past jobs reports.

EDITED: link corrected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Corgigal (Reply #20)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 11:07 AM

25. Were you thinking of the ADP Employment report? It is released on the Wednesday before

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 11:16 AM

26. Ahem. We don't talk about the ADP report when it's higher than the BLS report

Only when the ADP numbers are much lower than the BLS numbers do we write about the ADP numbers and proclaim that they are "actual payroll data", as opposed to the BLS's Establishment Survey which is "just a survey".

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20191008a.htm
"Several years ago, we began a collaboration with the payroll processing firm ADP to construct a measure of payroll employment from their data set, which covers about 20 percent of the nation's private workforce" - Jerome Powell, 10/18/19

and that 20% is not a random sample, but rather it's from those firms that use ADP for payroll processing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 11:06 AM

24. Manufacturing down...AGAIN.

I don’t recall this constant decline under Obama.

U6 and minority unemployment ticked up.

Leisure jobs are high-percent part-time.

I could go on and on. The gig economy continues...

And I live in suburban Detroit, and the rise in vacant strip malls and restaurants is stunning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddogesq (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 04:27 PM

33. Funny you mention that...

My wife and I went back to Tucson to visit my folks for a week late last month. We were both stunned at how many of those little strip malls are sitting vacant, or mostly vacant. The big box stores, naturally, are just peachy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 11:44 AM

28. Sure....and Ford had a horrible 4th Q wiping out profit for the year

Gosh with this BOOMING economy and biggglllly tax cuts how could that be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bengus81 (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 11:58 AM

29. Tax cuts didn't produce the jobs that were promised.

BLS chopped 514k jobs off during year ending 3/19’

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/07/post-tax-cut-job-gains-werent-quite-as-great-as-initially-thought.html

As always, supply-side economics does not work, has never worked, and never will work.

Squeeze that juice out of the middle class baby!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bengus81 (Reply #28)

Sat Feb 8, 2020, 09:51 AM

41. The major factor was that they botched the launch of the new Explorer

Causing sales to decline 26% for one of their most popular and profitable vehicles.


[link:https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/ford/2020/02/04/ford-earnings-fourth-quarter-2019/4626722002/|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 04:14 PM

30. Democrats' argument: The deficit is the largest in the history of this great republic.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to She_Totally_Gets_It (Reply #30)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 04:27 PM

32. Not quite, it was higher in FY 2009 through FY 2012 both in dollar terms and as percent of GDP

thanks G.W. Bush! who handed Obama an economy that was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month.



Details and sources in this thread at https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142430036#post21.

And it is going up, and will undoubtedly end FY 2020 at over $1 trillion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #32)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 04:28 PM

34. I though Obama cut the deficit by over half.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to She_Totally_Gets_It (Reply #34)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 04:42 PM

35. Yes he did.

FY 2009 belongs to Bush because he signed the spending bills for that fiscal year (and was president when the Great Recession began in December 2007). The deficit was $1,413 billion. As the table in #21 and #32 show, for FY 2017 (which Obama signed the spending bills), the deficit came to $666 billion, well under half of FY 2009, and only 39% of the 2009 deficit when expressed in percent of GDP terms (3.8%/9.8% = 39%)

More on FY 2009: the Fiscal Year 2009 budget (Oct. 1, 2008 - Sept 30, 2009) was signed into law by G.W. Bush. The CBO on January 7, 2009 (13 days before Bush left office) projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for FY 2009. So all but about $200 billion of FY 2009 spending and deficits was "baked in" before Bush left office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #35)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 05:05 PM

36. This is incredibly helpful. I will use this explanation next time I am forced to confront a

 

Republican asshole who pretend to care about the deficit or national debt.

Oh, and speaking of which, that seems to be the thing that is deliberately used to confuse the American public: confusing debt vs. deficit. The Republicans do it deliberately to defend them. And the corporate media does nothing to either correct them or educate the public about the difference between debt and deficit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to She_Totally_Gets_It (Reply #36)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 05:22 PM

37. Thanks! I just updated most of my "EF-5. National Debt, Deficits and Surpluses" "page"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439#post5

I hope you find more useful stuff there. And yes, in the media and social media, there's a lot of mixing of debt and deficit. One thing though that's easy to remember: ever since the Clinton budget surpluses, the national debt has been increasing every year. (I think even in some of the Clinton budget surplus years the national debt actually increased because of the way the Social Security Trust Fund is accounted for IIRC. But all four Clinton surpluses were true surpluses -- revenue exceeded spending in all four years).

Oh, that EF-5 page explodes another RepubliCON myth: that Obama doubled the Bush deficit. (it never ends.... )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #37)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 05:44 PM

38. Oh my goddess, it drives me completely up the wall. This is a gem of information.

 

Thank you so very much!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to She_Totally_Gets_It (Reply #38)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 05:56 PM

39. 😂😂😂 Thanks, it was put together and updated over many years.

I plan to add a couple more, more up-to-date, articles in the

" ****THE BELOW ARE IN REVERSE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER - MOST RECENT AT THE TOP*** "

section tomorrow or Sunday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Feb 7, 2020, 04:15 PM

31. Listen to this video with Roland Martin and Tom Steyer...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Mon Feb 10, 2020, 12:17 PM

43. The mind-numbing rant, based on a version posted on the first Friday in September 2016:

Last edited Thu Apr 9, 2020, 01:27 PM - Edit history (3)

For everyone who thinks the BLS is just making this stuff up, there's contact information in here. You can write them and let them know you're on to them.

Last edited 12:15 p.m., Monday, February 10, 2020.

I used to run this every month in the commentary in the zeroeth post. It explains just about every aspect of the monthly report.

[center]Facilities for Sensory Impaired[/center]

Information from this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: 202-691-5200, Federal Relay Services: 1-800-877-8339.


[center]Introduction[/center]

Good morning, Freepers and DUers alike. I especially welcome our good friends from across the aisle. You're paying for this information too, so I am absolutely delighted to have you participate in this thread. Please, everyone, put aside your differences long enough to digest the information. After that, you can engage in your usual donnybrook.

Full disclosure: I do not work for BLS, nor am I friends with anyone over there. I'm just someone who appreciates the work they do. My sole connection with the agency is that I've been in the building to pick up some publications.

Thank you for being a part of this thread.

If you don't have the time to study the report thoroughly, here is the news in a nutshell:

Commissioner's Statement on The Employment Situation

It is easy to find one paragraph, or one sentence, or one datum in this report that will support the most outlandish of conclusions, from "the sky is falling" to "we'll have blue skies, nothing but blue skies, from now on." Easy, but disingenuous.

Every month, you can find something in the report that will cause you concern. Take the information in context. Consider not just this month’s data, but the trend.

Please take the time to look at progree's thread. Here is the latest version, updated on Sunday, February 9, 2020:

EF-0. Economic Statistics with links to official sources

Also of interest is another one of his pages, also last edited on Sunday, February 9, 2020:

EF-5. National Debt. Deficits and Surpluses

Let's begin with a couple of questions:


[center]What Is the Bureau of Labor Statistics?
Why Does It Release All These Numbers Every Month?
[/center]

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is a unit of the United States Department of Labor. It is the principal fact-finding agency for the U.S. government in the broad field of labor economics and statistics and serves as a principal agency of the U.S. Federal Statistical System. The BLS is a governmental statistical agency that collects, processes, analyzes, and disseminates essential statistical data to the American public, the U.S. Congress, other Federal agencies, State and local governments, business, and labor representatives. The BLS also serves as a statistical resource to the Department of Labor, and conducts research into how much families need to earn to be able to enjoy a decent standard of living.

The BLS data must satisfy a number of criteria, including relevance to current social and economic issues, timeliness in reflecting today’s rapidly changing economic conditions, accuracy and consistently high statistical quality, and impartiality in both subject matter and presentation. To avoid the appearance of partiality, the dates of major data releases are scheduled more than a year in advance, in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget.

[font color="red"]New material, added August 29, 2016:[/font] Print title, Washington Post, Saturday, March 10, 2012, front page, above the fold: "Watching the clock: Monthly data release is an economic, political obsession timed to the nanosecond"

‘Jobs Day’: Monthly release of employment data an economic, political obsession

By Eli Saslow
http://twitter.com/elisaslow

March 9, 2012

The release of employment numbers by the Bureau of Labor Statistics has long been a ritual in Washington, but lately it has turned into an obsession during an election year defined by economic instability. Once each month, a nondescript government agency compiles and releases 24 tables of economic data that have come to define the 2012 election and so much else. Republican presidential candidates turn the numbers into speeches. The president’s staff monitors how they affect his approval rating. The Federal Reserve reevaluates interest rates. Investors prepare for the stock market to rise or fall, sometimes swinging in value by $150 billion in the minutes after the report is released.
....

The raw data had arrived at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), like always, on Wednesday the week before the report’s release: millions of characters representing survey information from 55,000 households; and then, a few days later, monthly payroll data from 486,000 businesses. Kosanovich’s boss posted a two-page schedule on the office wall, detailing the tasks ahead for a team of more than 20 economists. They would be required to make a series of six deadlines. Their work would undergo 15 fact checks and then 15 clearance reviews. They would sit together in a windowless conference room and read aloud from their eventual creation, a three-page news release and 24 data tables, debating commas and verbs for hours on end.

They would do it all with absolute discretion during an eight-day security lockdown, signing confidentiality agreements each morning, encrypting their computers and locking data into a safe every time they walked 10 yards away to use a bathroom. “Is your workstation secure?” asked a sign in the hallway. They all remembered the last security miscue, in November 2008 — the accidental transmission of some data to one wire service a full 25 seconds before the report’s scheduled release, an incident that had necessitated a series of internal investigations and revisions.

“We always tape paper over the windows of the conference room or draw the shades,” Kosanovich said about her typical routine during a lockdown. She made a habit of refraining from answering phone calls or e-mails from unknown numbers and never discussing data outside her office. For eight days, nobody visited her team’s floor at BLS without a security clearance. The custodial staff did not empty their trash until the report was released.
....


[center]Household Survey vs. Establishment Survey[/center]

From the February 10, 2011, DOL Newsletter:

Take Three

Secretary Solis answers three questions about how the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates unemployment rates.

How does BLS determine the unemployment rate and the number of jobs that were added each month?

BLS uses two different surveys to get these numbers. The household survey, or Current Population Survey (CPS), involves asking people, from about 60,000 households, a series of questions to assess each person in the household's activities including work and searching for work. Their responses give us the unemployment rate. The establishment survey, or Current Employment Statistics (CES), surveys 140,000 employers about how many people they have on their payrolls. These results determine the number of jobs being added or lost.

[font color="red"]New material, added March 9, 2018:[/font]

People often wonder how in the world the BLS comes up with all this information. This article from two months ago will help explain things:

Monthly Labor Review

JANUARY 2018

The Current Population Survey—tracking unemployment in the United States for over 75 years

For more than three-quarters of a century, the Current Population Survey has been a vital tool for providing information on U.S. unemployment and other aspects of labor market performance. This article highlights major developments in the survey’s history.

The Current Population Survey (CPS) has been conducted for more than three-quarters of a century.1 From the outset, the main purpose of the survey has been to gather information on the employment status of the U.S. population, with an emphasis on the measurement of unemployment. CPS data have been used by policymakers and others to gauge both the degree of labor market weakness during recessions and the strength of the job market in economic expansions. More than 900 monthly reports on national employment and unemployment have been issued since the survey began in March 1940.

The survey also has been used to provide a wealth of information on a wide range of other subjects—some related to the labor market and some unrelated—through supplemental questions to the basic survey instrument. Over the years, supplements to the CPS have been used to collect data on topics ranging from income and worker displacement to tobacco use and participation in the arts.

The main objective of the CPS, however, has always been to measure unemployment and other aspects of labor market performance. This article summarizes some of the major developments in achieving this goal over the past three-quarters of a century.
....


[center]Complaint Department[/center]

I post this information on a nonpartisan basis. I am not here to make elected officials of any party or persuasion look good. I am certain that the people who compile these data are of the same outlook. They are civil servants. They do not work for a party; they work for you, the American people.

My only contribution is to cut and paste a few paragraphs from the BLS and then, in the commentary, link to some sources that I feel are trustworthy. I hope people come away with a better understanding of the data after reading this thread. Once again, I do not work for BLS, but I will nonetheless try to assist if I can.

If you feel the Bureau of Labor Statistics is handing out bunk, start here:

Point of Contact for Complaints Concerning Information Quality

Affected persons who believe that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has disseminated information that does not meet its guidelines or those of the Department of Labor or Office of Management and Budget, and who wish to file a formal complaint may send their complaint by mail, e-mail, or fax to:

Division of Management Systems
Bureau of Labor Statistics
U.S. Department of Labor
2 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Room 4080
Washington, D.C., 20212-0001
E-mail: dataqa@bls.gov
Fax: (202) 691-5111

Complainants should:

Identify themselves and indicate where and how they can be reached;
Identify, as specifically as possible, the information in question;
Indicate how they are affected by the information about which they are complaining;
Carefully describe the nature of the complaint, including an explanation of why they believe the information does not comply with OMB, Departmental, or agency-specific guidelines; and
Describe the change requested and the reason why the agency should make the change.

Failure to include this information may result in a complainant not receiving a response to the complaint or greatly reducing the usefulness or timeliness of any response. Complainants should be aware that they bear the burden of establishing that they are affected persons and showing the need and justification for the correction they are seeking, including why the information being complained about does not comply with applicable guidelines.


[center]What About Employment on Farms?[/center]

[font color="red"]New material, added May 4, 2018:[/font]

Note that the BLS measures only "nonfarm payroll employment."

Nonfarm payrolls

I'm hoping the following link goes to an impartial site:

What is 'Nonfarm Payroll'

So who measures employment on farms? Hmmmmmm....

United States Department of Agriculture
Economic Research Service

Farm Labor

ERS provides information on a range of farm labor issues, including:

Size and composition of the U.S. agricultural workforce (self-employed versus hired)

Recent trends in the employment of hired farmworkers

Demographic characteristics of hired farmworkers, including age, sex, and nativity

Geographic distribution of hired farmworkers (all occupations)

Wages of hired farmworkers

Labor cost share of total gross revenues

H-2A temporary agricultural visa program

Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR)

Legal status and migration practices of hired crop farmworkers

Finally, we provide links to key data sources with summaries.


[center]How Do You Define Unemployment?
The Large Print Giveth, and the Fine Print Taketh Away.
[/center]

Long ago, a DUer pointed out 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 Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization. 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 is that link:

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

Also, hat tip, Recursion: How the Government Measures Unemployment

[font color="red"]New material, added August 8, 2016:[/font]

This appeared at the top of page A2 in the Wednesday, July 27, 2016, print edition of The Wall Street Journal. as "Jobless Picture is Open to Interpretation."

Jobless Picture is Open to Interpretation

Gauges used to measure unemployment vary in how they define who is out of work {print: "Political campaigns clash over different ways of measuring unemployment"}



By Josh Zumbrun
josh.zumbrun@wsj.com
@JoshZumbrun

July 26, 2016 7:56 p.m. ET

Because political campaigns can rise and fall on the health of the economy, spats often flare over the gauges used to measure growth and unemployment.

The latest dust-up, raised by the campaign of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, focuses on the monthly employment numbers. A long streak of hiring has nudged the jobless rate down to 4.9%. ... Donald Trump Jr., the nominee’s son, recently criticized the official statistics as “artificial numbers…massaged to make the existing economy look good.”

The nominee himself has said unemployment is far higher than the Labor Department’s headline 4.9% rate would suggest, part of his message that the economy is in a dire state. After he won the New Hampshire primary in February, Mr. Trump called the official jobless figures “phony” and said the real number could be as high as 42%.

This isn’t the first time people have cast aspersions on the jobs numbers in an election year, but the Trump claim is also part of a larger discussion over how best to assess the health of the labor market.

The following link to Barron's might not work for everyone. See progree's tips.[/font] From the July 20, 2015, issue of Barron's:

Refresher Course: Inside the Jobless Numbers

Are we undercounting the unemployment numbers—or overcounting? How the BLS gathers and calculates the numbers, and why it matters.

By Gene Epstein
July 18, 2015

The unemployment rate has never been the object of as much attention from the markets and the media as it is now, sparked by the keen interest taken in its monthly fluctuations by policy makers at the Federal Reserve.

Despite the heightened focus, there are a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions about how the rate is calculated. Some people assume the Bureau of Labor Statistics compiles the rate from the unemployment-insurance rolls. On that basis, they fault the BLS for undercounting the unemployed. But that’s just one myth among many about this cornerstone measure of economic pain and labor-market slack.

To estimate the unemployment rate, the BLS actually relies on the monthly Current Population Survey conducted for it by the Census Bureau. While the data are highly imperfect in their own way, we think the Federal Reserve is right to view the official unemployment rate as the best available information, while also keeping its eye on ancillary measures of “labor underutilization.”

In fact, a close look at BLS methods suggests that, if anything, the official unemployment rate may be overcounting rather than undercounting the unemployed.


[font color="red"]New material:[/font] In August 2015, DUers whatthehey and progree got into a 1995 report from economists John E. Bregger and Steven E. Haugen. The .pdf is unfortunately an image and thus challenging as a source of quotes. Trying to find it in a format that does make for easy copying, I was led to this:

Alternative Unemployment Rates: Their Meaning and Their Measure March 12, 2014


[center]Why Won't You Talk About the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR)?[/center]

Every month in certain circles, someone will cite the labor force participation rate as a cause for concern. Let's look at that right now.

[font color="red"]New material, added September 30, 2016:[/font]

September 2016

Labor force participation: what has happened since the peak?

The labor force participation rate is the percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and older that is working or actively looking for work. It is an important labor market measure because it represents the relative amount of labor resources available for the production of goods and services. After rising for more than three decades, the overall labor force participation rate peaked in early 2000 and subsequently trended down. In recent years, the movement of the baby-boom population into age groups that generally exhibit low labor force participation has contributed to the decline in the overall participation rate. From 2000 to 2015, most of the major demographic groups saw a decrease in labor force participation. Teenagers experienced the largest drop in participation, which coincided with a rise in their school enrollment rate. Young adults 20 to 24 years also showed a decline in labor force participation, but the decrease was not as steep as that for teenagers. The labor force participation rate of women 25 to 54 years also fell, with the decrease more pronounced for women who did not attend college. The labor force participation rate of men 25 to 54 years continued its long-term decline. As in the past, the decrease in participation among men with less education was greater than that of men with more education. However, labor force participation rates of men and women 55 years and older rose from 2000 to 2009 and subsequently leveled off.

[font color="red"]New material, added July 31, 2016:[/font]

Title in the print edition of the Washington Post, page A17, Wednesday, July 27, 2016: "The unemployment-rate 'conspiracy' that isn't"

A popular conspiracy theory is spreading in the Trump family. It’s totally false.

By Matt O'Brien July 26
matthew.obrien@washpost.com
@ObsoleteDogma

The unemployment rate is not a conspiracy. It is not manipulated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And anyone who suggests otherwise is either uninformed, or trying to misinform others.

Which is to say that you shouldn't listen to Donald Trump & Co. For a year now, the alleged billionaire has insisted that the "real" unemployment rate is something like 42 percent instead of the 4.9 percent it actually is. He hasn't said how he's gotten this — maybe it's from the same "extremely credible source" who told him President Obama's birth certificate was fake? (1) — but the simplest explanation is that he's just ballparking how many adults don't work. That's 40.4 percent right now. The problem with using that number, though, is that it counts college students and stay-at-home parents and retirees as being equally "unemployed" as people who are actively looking for work but can't find any. So it doesn't tell us too much, at least not on its own, unless you think it's a problem that we have more 70-year-olds than we used to.

(1)

Or unless conspiracy theories are one of your favorite accessories, as seems to be the case with the father, and now the son, Donald Trump Jr. On Sunday, he told CNN's Jake Tapper that the official unemployment numbers are "artificial" ones that are "massaged to make the existing economy look good" and "this administration look good."
....



Source: BLS

....
The boring truth is that the economy is in a lot better shape than it was when Obama took office, but that it could be in better shape still. The recovery, in other words, still has a ways to go. But that's a lot different from saying that we have 40 percent unemployment and that the government is trying to cover it up. That just suggests you don't understand — or don't want to accurately describe — how stats work and you don't know how to look up the ones you think the BLS is hiding. ... It's not what you'd expect from a major party presidential candidate.

[font color="red"]New material, added June 27, 2016:[/font]

Wonkblog

[link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/20/why-americas-men-arent-working/|
Why America’s men aren’t working]

By Ylan Q. Mui June 20

The national unemployment rate has fallen by more than half since the nation emerged from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. It peaked at 10 percent in 2010 and stood at just 4.7 percent last month.

That’s mostly good news: Private employers have added more than 14 million jobs. About 2 million people have been out of a job for six months or longer, far too many but only about a quarter of the number of long-term unemployed people seven years ago. By almost every measure, the labor market has made incredible progress.

But there’s one statistic that has been vexing economists. The size of the nation’s workforce -- known as the labor force participation rate -- continues to fall. Since the start of the downturn, the percentage of that population that has a job or is looking for one has dropped more than 3 percentage points, to 62.6 percent, a level not seen since the 1970s.

{America’s jobs market has had a great 2016. Will it last?}

The problem is particularly pronounced among men between the ages of 25 and 54, traditionally considered the prime working years. Their participation rate has been declining for decades, but the drop-off accelerated during the recession. The high mark was 98 percent in 1954, and it now stands at 88 percent. A new analysis from the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, slated for release Monday, found that the United States now has the third-lowest participation rate for “prime-age men” among the world’s developed countries.
....



....
People in prison are not counted as part of the population for the purposes of labor market statistics. At first blush, that would actually boost the participation rate: A smaller population means the share in the workforce is larger. But in reality, there are immense and well-documented barriers to the job market for workers once they leave prison. And the gloomy prospects of the formerly incarcerated outweigh the statistical benefit of having a large prison population.



....
Ylan Q. Mui is a financial reporter at The Washington Post covering the Federal Reserve and the economy. Follow @ylanmui

[font color="red"]New material, added January 2016:[/font] People who are not in the labor force: why aren't they working?

Beyond the Numbers

December 2015 | Vol. 4 / No. 15

EMPLOYMENT & UNEMPLOYMENT

People who are not in the labor force: why aren't they working?

By Steven F. Hipple

People who are neither working nor looking for work are counted as “not in the labor force,” according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since 2000, the percentage of people in this group has increased. Data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) and its Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) provide some insight into why people are not in the labor force. The ASEC is conducted in the months of February through April and includes questions about work and other activities in the previous calendar year. For example, data collected in 2015 are for the 2014 calendar year, and data collected in 2005 are for the 2004 calendar year.1 In the ASEC, people who did not work at all in the previous year are asked to give the main reason they did not work. Interviewers categorize survey participants’ verbatim responses into the following categories: ill health or disabled; retired;2 home responsibilities; going to school; could not find work;3 and other reasons.

This Beyond the Numbers article examines data on those who were not in the labor force during 2004 and 2014 and the reasons they gave for not working. The data are limited to people who neither worked nor looked for work during the previous year.

This July 2014 report from the Council of Economic Advisers addresses the LFPR:

THE LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATE SINCE 2007: CAUSES AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

(Hat tip, Adrahil: Look deeper.)

[font color="red"]New material:[/font] Here's a Power Point (or equivalent) presentation given by Jason Furman, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, before the National Press Club on August 6, 2015. If you go to the next-to-the-last slide, you'll see that the long-term projected trend is down:

"Trends in Labor Force Participation", 8/6/15

(Hat tip, progree: Over the past month, over the past year, and since February 2010)

[font color="red"]New material:[/font] Paul Vigna had a comment about the LFPR in the December 4, 2015, MoneyBeat column about the November figures:

8:55 am

Breaking down the participation rate
by Paul Vigna

Here’s what we mean when we talk about the participation rate and employment-population ratio.

There are 251.7 million people in the “civilian noninstitutional population,” according to the BLS (this is all contained in this chart). This is the number of people over age 16 who are not in jail or health-care facilities or the military.

Of that group, 157.3 million comprise the civilian labor force. The ratio of the second group to the first is 62.5%. This is the labor force participation rate, the number of people who could be in the labor force – either working or looking for a job – who are in the labor force.

There are 149.3 million people working. The ratio of that group to the overall civilian population is 59.3%. This the employment-population ratio, the number of people who could be working who actually are working.

Why do these number matter? Well, if you just looked at the raw data, you’d see the numbers rising, more or less, month after month. That’s not because the economy’s so rip-roaring, but because the number of people in the nation keeps rising. So you need the ratios to get a sense of how strong the labor force really is.

The labor-force participation rate remains near multi-decade lows, and whether that’s due to demographics, as in people retiring, or weak job opportunities, or whatever, it points to one sort of unavoidable problem: the economy cannot grow at its full potential if you simply don’t have enough people contributing.

Oh, and for the record, there are 94.4 million people not in the labor force.

[font color="red"]New material, added December 2015:[/font]

3:12 pm ET
Dec 8, 2015
economics

As America’s Workforce Ages, Here’s Where the Jobs Will Be

By Jeffrey Sparshott

Jeffrey.Sparshott@wsj.com
@jeffsparshott

The U.S. labor force is expected to expand only slowly over the coming decade as the country ages and more Americans give up on holding a job, a potential drag on broader economic growth.

The economy is expected to generate 9.8 million new jobs, a 6.5% increase, from 2014 to 2024, the Labor Department said in new projections released Tuesday. While steady, that is a historically slow pace. By comparison, 10-year job creation averaged almost 14% during the 2001-07 expansion and close to 17% during the 1990s.

The slowdown highlights declining participation as baby boomers retire and younger Americans opt out of the workforce. Those two trends are expected to continue to push the labor-force participation rate lower, to 60.9% in 2024 from 62.9% in 2014, Labor estimates. If realized, that would be the lowest level since 1973, when Richard Nixon was president.

Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen at a congressional hearing last week held out hope the participation rate would hold near current levels as people came off the sidelines and into jobs.


[center]Nattering Nabobs of Negativism[/center]

[font color="red"]New material, added February 26, 2016:[/font] More High-Wage Employment Doesn't Mean the Job Market's Out of the Woods

That's the print edition title.

Wonkblog

The recovery is generating more high-wage jobs — but does that matter?

The U.S. is still digging out of a big hole, and isn't creating new opportunities for those whose jobs disappeared.

By Lydia DePillis February 24

@lydiadepillis

A couple of weeks ago, some economists from Goldman Sachs came out with a rosy pronouncement: "Millions of new jobs and plenty of good ones," read the headline on a note to investors. High-wage employment appeared to pick up from 2013 to the present, a change from the early years of the economic recovery, which generated a disproportionate number of low-wage jobs.



And you don’t have to just take it from an investment bank. The Department of Labor has run its own numbers, and saw similar growth back in October, rendered in absolute numbers rather than growth rates (which Labor’s Chief Economist Heidi Shierholz says held through the end of 2015 in an analysis the department completed last week).

The green bars in the graph below show changes in actual employment, and the orange line shows what it would have been if the growth had been evenly distributed. Shierholz says the loss of low-wage jobs is likely a result of workers in those categories having their wages bumped up above $10 an hour, as the huge growth in low-wage sectors from 2009-2013 led to competition for people in restaurants and retail, or finding better jobs.



That renewed growth in high-wage jobs, which started to show up in 2014, is typical of recoveries from recessions: Low-wage retail and restaurant jobs come back first, as consumers start to buy small-ticket items and go out to eat again. Later on, the profitability trickles up, leading firms to make more expensive hires. Overall, the trend could be responsible for the small uptick in wages that's become evident in recent months, as well.

[font color="red"]Revised material:[/font] Here’s a grim thought:

Fed economists: America’s missing workers are not coming back

Wonkblog

By Max Ehrenfreund September 12 {2014}

A paper by Federal Reserve staff that will be discussed at the Brookings Institution on Friday {September 12, 2014} possibly hints at the central bank's thinking on interest rates and employment in advance of a consequential Fed meeting next week. The findings support [links:http://online.wsj.com/articles/fed-minutes-rate-hike-debate-heating-up-1408557628|hawks] on the Federal Open Market Committee, who feel that the Fed needs to prepare to raise rates sooner than expected, although the results are still being debated and might not persuade the committee's more dovish members.

The paper discusses the number of people who consider themselves part of the workforce -- including both people who have a job and those who are looking for work. It is a measure of the total manpower available in the U.S. economy. This number, the labor force participation rate, has been decreasing steadily since 2000. Americans who can't find work have been leaving the workforce, as have more and more retirees as the population ages.

Let’s follow that with another grim thought:

Why wage growth disparity tells the story of America's half-formed economic recovery

By Chico Harlan November 21, 2014

chico.harlan@washpost.com
@chicoharlan

....
With unemployment down to 5.8 percent, the country’s half-formed recovery is often described with a convenient shorthand: We have jobs but little wage growth. But stagnancy is just an average, and for many Americans, the years since the financial crisis have pushed them farther from the line, according to a detailed analysis of government labor statistics by The Washington Post.
....

Among the winners in this climate: Older workers, women and those with finance and technology jobs. ... Among the losers: Part-timers, the young, men, and those in the health, retail and food industries.
....

Chico Harlan covers personal economics as part of The Post's financial team.

Dissenters, take note:

A New Reason to Question the Official Unemployment Rate

David Leonhardt
AUG. 26, 2014

The Labor Department’s monthly jobs report has been the subject of some wacky conspiracy theories. None was wackier than the suggestion from Jack Welch, the former General Electric chief executive, that government statisticians were exaggerating job growth during President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. Both Republican and Democratic economists dismissed those charges as silly.

But to call the people who compile the jobs report honest, nonpartisan civil servants is not to say that the jobs report is perfect. The report tries to estimate employment in a big country – and to do so quickly, to give policy makers, business executives and everyone else a sense of how the economy is performing. It’s a tough task.

And it has become tougher, because Americans are less willing to respond to surveys than they used to be.

A new academic paper suggests that the unemployment rate appears to have become less accurate over the last two decades, in part because of this rise in nonresponse. In particular, there seems to have been an increase in the number of people who once would have qualified as officially unemployed and today are considered out of the labor force, neither working nor looking for work.

[font color="red"]New material, added January 2016:[/font] From July 2013:

Mort Zuckerman: A Jobless Recovery Is a Phony Recovery

Commentary

Mort Zuckerman: A Jobless Recovery Is a Phony Recovery

More people have left the workforce than got a new job during the recovery—by a factor of nearly three.

By Mortimer Zuckerman
July 15, 2013 7:09 p.m. ET

In recent months, Americans have heard reports out of Washington and in the media that the economy is looking up—that recovery from the Great Recession is gathering steam. If only it were true. The longest and worst recession since the end of World War II has been marked by the weakest recovery from any U.S. recession in that same period.

The jobless nature of the recovery is particularly unsettling. In June, the government's Household Survey reported that since the start of the year, the number of people with jobs increased by 753,000—but there are jobs and then there are "jobs." No fewer than 557,000 of these positions were only part-time. The survey also reported that in June full-time jobs declined by 240,000, while part-time jobs soared by 360,000 and have now reached an all-time high of 28,059,000—three million more part-time positions than when the recession began at the end of 2007.

That's just for starters. The survey includes part-time workers who want full-time work but can't get it, as well as those who want to work but have stopped looking. That puts the real unemployment rate for June at 14.3%, up from 13.8% in May.

The 7.6% unemployment figure so common in headlines these days is utterly misleading. An estimated 22 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed; they are virtually invisible and mostly excluded from unemployment calculations that garner headlines.
....

Mr. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report.


[center]On the Road Again[/center]

The DOL Newsletter - October 6, 2011

DOL Data: There's an App for That
Have an iPhone, iPod Touch or Android phone? Now you can access the latest labor data and news from the department's Bureau of Labor Statistics and Employment and Training Administration in the palm of your hand. The latest free mobile app displays real-time updates to the unemployment rate, Unemployment Insurance initial claims, the Consumer Price Index, payroll employment, average hourly earnings, the Producer Price Index, the Employment Cost Index, productivity, the U.S. Import Price Index and the U.S. Export Price Index in real time, as they are published each week, month or quarter. News releases providing context for the data can also be accessed through the app and viewed within a mobile browser or as PDF documents.

US Labor Department launches economic and employment statistics app

Smartphone users gain mobile access to latest labor data and news

WASHINGTON — The most up-to-date employment data and economic news releases from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics and its Employment and Training Administration now can be viewed using a new mobile application.
....

The new app is currently available for the iPhone and iPod Touch as well as Android phones. The Labor Department is working to develop versions for BlackBerry and iPad devices. Visit https://m.dol.gov/apps/ to download this and other mobile apps.

Download the Data, Other Mobile Apps


[center]A Few More Things[/center]

[font color="red"]New material, added July 8, 2017:[/font]

The power of the president over the economy is limited

By Ezra Klein January 13, 2012

....
But it would be even better if voters had a consistent benchmark for judging a president’s performance. The question — and it’s a tough one — is how to separate the very real influence the president has on the economy from the myriad other factors that weigh on whether consumers spend and businesses hire. So I put the issue to an exclusive club of economists who have an unusually fine-grained understanding of what the president can and can’t do: the former chairs of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers. And I asked each the same question: How much of national job creation during a presidency can we properly attribute to the president?

“Very little,” wrote Harvard’s Martin Feldstein in an e-mail. Feldstein led the CEA under Reagan, and he didn’t see much role for the president in normal economic times. “The key is growth of population and labor force participation. Policy — primarily monetary policy — affects cyclical conditions and therefore the unemployment rate. Fiscal policy is usually irrelevant but with interest rates at the current level there has been a role for fiscal policy.”

Laura D’Andrea Tyson, a Berkeley economist who served under President Clinton, emphasized the need to consider timing in our evaluations. “There are significant lags between the time a President proposes a policy, the time it is enacted by Congress and the time necessary for it to take effect,” she wrote to me. “These lags should be taken into account in measuring the economy’s job performance under a President. The first year probably should not count at all in terms of assessing the effects of a new Administration’s policies.”

Greg Mankiw, a Harvard economist who served as CEA chair under George W. Bush, directed me to a blog post he had written on the subject. “Randomness is a fact of economic life,” Mankiw wrote, “and it would be a mistake to judge a president by the economic outcome during his administration. It is better to look at the decisions the president made, and to acknowledge that the outcome is a function of those decisions and many other factors not under his control. As an economist, I have views about what best practices are for economic policy, and I judge presidents by how closely they adhere to those principles.” ... “Unfortunately,” he concluded, “that evaluation process is not quite as simple and objective as the reader might have hoped for. But I don’t think there is a better alternative.”
....

kleine@washpost.com
https://twitter.com/ezraklein

[font color="red"]New material, added February 4, 2016:[/font] This article appeared as "Stocks vs. the Economy: Which Ruins Which?"on page C2 of the print edition of The Wall Street Journal. on Tuesday, February 2, 2016.

Does the Economy Ruin the Stock Market or Does the Stock Market Ruin the Economy?

2:49 pm ET
Feb 1, 2016
Markets

By John Carney

Don’t confuse the market for the economy. Markets have overshot fundamentals. There are no signs of contagion into the real economy. ... Anyone paying attention has heard some version of these sentiments lately. Paul Samuelson’s famous quip that the market has predicted nine of the past five recessions is once again on the lips of the wise men and women of Wall Street.

But what if the stock market is more than just an indicator? What if a stock selloff can actually cause unemployment and recessions? ... That’s exactly what historical data on the stock market and the unemployment rate running back to 1929 seem to suggest. A persistent 10% decline in the stock market pushes unemployment up three percentage points.

That, at least, is the finding of University of California Los Angeles economist Roger Farmer. Currently a Distinguished Professor of Economics at UCLA and a Visiting Scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Mr. Farmer has been a fellow at the Bank of England and has won awards for his work on inefficiency in financial markets and self-fullfilling prophecies.

In a pair of academic papers written in the wake of the financial crisis, the first published in 2012 and the second published this year, Mr. Farmer has argued that changes in the value of the stock market cause changes in the unemployment rate. The idea will be expanded upon in Mr. Farmer’s forthcoming book, Prosperity for All.

[font color="red"]Moved here, February 6, 2016:[/font] The Federal Reserve looks at, among many other things, the BLS employment reports when it decides what to do with "the interest rate." The interest rate in question is the federal funds target rate. Here is some information about that:

Federal funds rate

The federal funds target rate is determined by a meeting of the members of the Federal Open Market Committee which normally occurs eight times a year about seven weeks apart. The committee may also hold additional meetings and implement target rate changes outside of its normal schedule.

Meet FRED, every wonk’s secret weapon

StorylineMeet the wonks

By Todd C. Frankel August 1, 2014

FRED stands for Federal Reserve Economic Data. It serves as an online clearinghouse for a wealth of numbers: unemployment rates, prices of goods, GDP and CPI, things common and obscure. Today, FRED is more than a little bit famous, thanks to the public’s fascination with economic data.

Federal Reserve Economic Data

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™

(Note new link for Jobs Calculator™. Hat tip, progree.)

Monthly Employment Reports from BLS

The U.S. Department of Commerce releases economic data too. Some of its releases come from the U.S. Census Bureau:

U.S. Census Bureau Latest News

U.S. Census Bureau Economic Indicators

Other Department of Commerce releases come from the Bureau of Economic Analysis:

Bureau of Economic Analysis

For people who need a daily fix:

BLS-Labor Statistics Twitter feed

Read tomorrow's news before it happens. Here's the schedule for all economic reports:

MarketWatch Economic Calendar

and for BLS reports only:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Release Calendar

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #43)

Wed Feb 12, 2020, 04:35 AM

46. They've all been updated. Thanks much for the mention 😊😊😊

It was a brutal week before the job's report came out, plus Friday, Saturday, and most of Sunday getting it all done.

Please take the time to look at progree's thread. Here is the latest version:

EF-0. Economic Statistics with links to official sources ((updated 2/9/20 -Progree))
https://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439

Also of interest is another one of his pages, last edited Sun Feb 9, 2020:

EF-5. National Debt. Deficits and Surpluses
https://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439#post5

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Mon Feb 10, 2020, 03:06 PM

44. We should ask the reporting of this information

to include the average wage for these jobs. It's not like 50,000 of them were on an auto assembly line, which usually pays enough to survive (NOT AS WELL AS THE 1950'S/60'S). So where are all these jobs coming from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dyedinthewoolliberal (Reply #44)

Wed Feb 12, 2020, 04:27 AM

45. Oh, there's usually a blurb like this every time in the BLS's summary:

which isn't all that helpful, but anyway:
In January, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by
7 cents to $28.44. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by
3.1 percent. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees
were $23.87 in January, little changed over the month (+3 cents). (See tables B-3 and B-8.)


I think the media reports fairly often on this when covering the jobs and unemployment rate.

Here are the data series on the Establishment Survey's average hourly earnings of production and non-supervisory employees (the Establishment Survey is the source of the headline-leading nonfarm payroll jobs).

Real (meaning inflation-adjusted) average weekly earnings of production and non-supervisory workers:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031

Real (meaning inflation-adjusted) average hourly earnings of production and non-supervisory workers:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000032

The nominal dollar, aka current aka greenbacks version (raw, not adjusted for inflation, but seasonally adjusted)
weekly: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000030
hourly: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000008

There's trouble in paradise on real (meaning inflation-adjusted) average weekly earnings of production and non-supervisory workers:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031

Obama last 3 years: +4.48%, Trump's first 35 months: +2.84%, Last 12 months: +0.31%

I'm using Trump's first 35 months instead of 36 months because the January CPI report won't be released until February 13. I'll then be able then to do Trump's 36 months and last 12 months through January 31. But anyway, this is how it is shaping up.

What's odd is that pretty much ever since Trump has been president, the media has been talking about the tightening labor market and wages finally rising. Well, the figures show a wage slowdown compared to Obama's last 3 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Wed Feb 12, 2020, 07:42 AM

47. Thanks, Obama!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Thu Feb 13, 2020, 11:55 AM

48. Real weekly earnings: Obama last 3y: +4.50%, Trump's 3y: +3.18%, Last 12 mo: +0.15%

Last edited Fri Feb 14, 2020, 08:03 PM - Edit history (2)

Real (meaning inflation-adjusted) average weekly earnings of production and non-supervisory workers:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031

. . Obama's last 3 years: +4.50%, Trump's 3 years: +3.18%, Last 12 months: +0.15%

The above on an annualized basis:

. . Obama's last 3 years: 1.48%/yr, Trump's 3 years: 1.05%/yr, Last 12 months: 0.15%/yr

The CPI for January came out today, February 13, and so the BLS updated the inflation-adjusted earnings series today.

What's odd is that pretty much ever since Trump has been president, the media has been talking about the tightening labor market and wages finally rising. Well, the figures show a wage slowdown compared to Obama's last 3 years.

Here's the hourly version for those who prefer that:

Real (meaning inflation-adjusted) average hourly earnings of production and non-supervisory workers:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000032

. . Obama last 3y: +4.20%, Trump's 3y: +3.16%, Last 12 mo: +0.75%
. . The above on an annualized basis:
. . . . Obama's last 3 years: 1.38%/yr, Trump's 3 years: 1.04%/yr, Last 12 months: 0.75%/yr

The nominal dollar, aka current aka greenbacks version (raw, not adjusted for inflation, but seasonally adjusted)
. . weekly: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000030
. . hourly: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000008

EDITED to add the real average HOURLY earnings numbers
EDITED to add the annualized figures (percent per year)
Note to myself: TwentyAAH misca

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Wed Feb 19, 2020, 04:10 AM

50. 'Depths of despair' drive third consecutive drop in U.S. life expectancy (drugs, alcohol, suicide)

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/12/04/depths-of-despair-drive-third-consecutive-drop-in-us-life-expectancy
Depths of despair' drive third consecutive drop in U.S. life expectancy, Minnesota Public Radio News, 12/4/19

That dip is slight, at just a tenth of a year. But Hallberg said it’s statistically significant — and alarming, because it’s driven by an increase in preventable deaths among 25-to 65-year-olds in New England and the Ohio Valley.

“There are three main conditions, this triad, and sadly, they're referred to as ‘depths of despair,’” Hallberg said. “They are drug overdoses, suicides and alcohol-related disease.”


This one from November 2018, a year and a quarter ago --

https://apnews.com/de57909c5bcc4162b122948539ed9c6a
Suicide, at 50-year peak, pushes down US life expectancy, AP, 11/29/18

The suicide death rate last year was the highest it’s been in at least 50 years, according to U.S. government records. There were more than 47,000 suicides, up from a little under 45,000 the year before. The suicide rate was 14 deaths per 100,000 people. That’s the highest since at least 1975.

For decades, U.S. life expectancy was on the upswing, rising a few months nearly every year. Now it’s trending the other way: It fell in 2015, stayed level in 2016, and declined again last year, the CDC said.

An underlying factor is that the death rate for heart disease — the nation’s No. 1 killer — has stopped falling. In years past, declines in heart disease deaths were enough to offset increases in some other kinds of death, but no longer, Anderson said.

Drug overdose deaths also continued to climb, surpassing 70,000 last year ... The death rate rose 10 percent from the previous year, smaller than the 21 percent jump seen between 2016 and 2017.

A baby born last year in the U.S. is expected to live about 78 years and 7 months, on average. An American born in 2015 or 2016 was expected to live about a month longer, and one born in 2014 about two months longer than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Wed Feb 19, 2020, 04:21 AM

51. Why would ANYONE trust ANY of the numbers for ANYTHING

from THIS administration. The numbers don't add up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democratisphere (Reply #51)

Wed Feb 19, 2020, 07:45 AM

52. Ditto . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democratisphere (Reply #51)

Wed Feb 19, 2020, 12:41 PM

53. What numbers don't add up?

If you mean that the unemployment rate went up despite +225,000 more jobs, #18 above talks about that (they come from two separate surveys. And the unemployment rate is affected not just by the number of net new jobs created, but also by the number of people that start job searches).
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2430101

Jack Welch famously made an enormous hoo hah back in 2012 when the unemployment rate went up one month while there was a big number of new jobs reported, accusing Obama's libruh bureaucrats and frightened minions of cooking the numbers. But we're smart enough not to fall for it, according to Jack Welch and the right wing media at the time. (Actually a divergence between the job count change and the unemployment rate happens often).

If you have some other way "the numbers don't add up", please let your fellow progressives and the wider world know.

What I've found is that if there is some angle showing that Obama's record is better than Trump's, people quote the numbers as if they are God-revealed truth. For example, I've seen innumerable examples all over DU, pointing out that Obama has created more jobs in his last 3 years than Trump has in his 3 years so far, including a Pic Of The Moment, to cite one of many. https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017567831

What I've also found is that in the months when the job numbers are poor, such as February and May of last year, people quote the numbers as if they are God-revealed truth proving that we're headed for a recession.

But in months where the job numbers are good, then the conspiracy theorists come out, and we're all naive ignoramuses not to see that we're being played. (Que Art Bell theme music).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread