HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Economy & Education » Economy (Group) » Dept of Labor revised 201...

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:20 PM

Dept of Labor revised 2012 increase in employent UPWARD by 335,000 -- oops. But that's not all ..

the total employment level at the end of 2012 was stated as 134,021,000 but was revised to 134,668,000 for a difference for the total employed number of 647,000. so, there must have been an understatement in years before 2012. At any rate, the total employment level as previously published, as of Dec 2012, was understated to the tune of 647,000.

The job gains in 2012 were understated 15% (1,835,000 vs revised: 2,170,000). Interesting. Now we know how to adjust DoL employment change numbers. Going by their recent track record they understate the actuals by about 15%.


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

[hr]

Media Matters shows that with the new corrected numbers for jobs growth, the difference in the job gains for the private sector and the job losses for public sector is even worse. Private sector gains since the bottom of the Trickle Down Deregulation Disaster:

"The private economy has added 4,968,000 net jobs since the economy began growing again, and the public sector has lost a net 721,000 workers in that same period."

... this is a measure of the Republican War on Obama and on the livelihoods of millions of Americans.


http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/01/on-jobs-media-have-a-choice-cover-the-costs-of/192496

3 replies, 995 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 3 replies Author Time Post
Reply Dept of Labor revised 2012 increase in employent UPWARD by 335,000 -- oops. But that's not all .. (Original post)
Bill USA Feb 2013 OP
mother earth Feb 2013 #1
progree Feb 2013 #2
Bill USA Feb 2013 #3

Response to Bill USA (Original post)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 12:18 PM

1. The picture is not quite as rosey as we'd all like to believe. There is a staggering number of

long term unemployed who are simply not counted in any of these optimistic numbers. Add the fact that there is absolutely no JOBS program on the radar screen, and we may have a more realistic view of where we are headed.

The status quo is the new normal, the same issues will be facing us for some time to come, not to mention the insistence of imposing austerity measures to reel in spending is having a negative impact on jobs & everything else.

Taken from your mediamatters link:

These numbers demonstrate that government austerity has lopped nearly 15 percent off private-sector job growth over the course of the recovery. The news comes on the heels of the Bureau of Economic Analysis' report that a collapse in government consumption helped put the economy into reverse last quarter, despite strengthening private-sector components of GDP. On his blog, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman notes that President George W. Bush's recovery benefited from steadily increasing government consumption. But with the Tea Party movement and the attendant focus from conservatives on reducing deficits, President Obama's recovery has been hampered by steadily falling public-sector consumption for the past two years.

Even without growing government's direct contributions to demand -- just by keeping them flat for the past two years -- the economic recovery would look much stronger. America would be hitting a recovery milestone, with 5,000,000 new jobs since the recession ended, if not for the deficit hawks. Their success in pushing austerity prematurely into the policymaking conversation has cost even more public-sector jobs than previously thought, while private-sector growth has been much more robust.

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



Check this link for more info on why this stagnation is far from over & may not be taken into account in some projections.
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/never-ending-little-changed-unemployment-figures-january-2013

The GOP's push for debt reduction & our own party's effort to reduce debt is not the way to go. We have been told time & time again by economists, but the info does not seem to be breaking into the bubble. Status quo and obstruction is killing the American dream, and it is seemingly becoming embrace by both sides in gov't. This is not the time to worry about the debt. A major JOBS program should be front and center, but it simply is not.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:13 AM

2. Yes, after the revisions, Obama's job numbers look quite a bit better

# Under Obama there have been 35 straight months of private sector job growth (since February 2010), totaling 6.1 million private sector jobs (thru January 2013 with December & January preliminary).

Total job growth during this period is 5.5 million jobs ( 0.6 million government jobs were lost ).

# 4.3 million payroll jobs have been created under Obama since June 2009 (that's when the recession ended according to the NBER (nber.org, the official arbiter of when the economic turning points occur), and only 5 months since Obama took office) (thru January 2013 with December & January preliminary) . Bush only created 1.1 million payroll jobs in his entire 8 year presidency.

# 5.0 million private sector jobs were created under Obama since June 2009 (thru January 2013 with December & January preliminary) (contrast that to Bush destroying 0.7 million private sector jobs during his presidency)

# Bush's entire 8 year record: created 1.1 million payroll jobs - by creating 1.8 million government jobs and destroying 0.7 million private sector jobs. ( the actual numbers are, in thousands: Total: 1,083, Govt: 1,748, PrivateSector: -665 ). Yes, it is ironic that a supposed "small government conservative" ended up creating government jobs and destroying private sector jobs.


If someone says it is cherry-picking to compare Obama's last 35 months to Bush's entire presidency, then here are 3 comparable comparisons:

(1.) Comparing the last 35 months of Bush and Obama (so far, thru January 2013): Bush lost 1.8 million jobs, while Obama gained 5.5 million jobs.

(2.) Comparing the comparable 35 months of Bush and Obama's first term (3/1/02 thru 1/31/05 for Bush, 3/1/10 thru 1/31/13 for Obama): Bush gained 2.0 million jobs, while Obama gained 5.5 million jobs.

(3.) Comparing the first 48 months of Bush and Obama (from the beginning of each's first term through January 2005 (for Bush) and through January 2013 (for Obama)): Bush lost 46,000 jobs, while Obama gained 1,194,000 jobs.

Job Creation of record of post-WWII Presidents With Completed Terms, Average Annual % Increases :

(Sorted from best to worst by average annual percentage increase in jobs. Republicans in red, Democrats in blue. Notice that -- with the tiny exception (0.02% difference) of Nixon to Kennedy -- the worst Democrat has a better record than the best Republican) [x I haven't bothered with the very small 2/1/13 revisions to 1990 and later (and possibly before 1990, have not checked carefully) -- very small that is until the Obama presidency which had considerable revisions, but Obama is not in this table x]

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] Average Average [/font]

[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] number of Jobs at Annual [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] Jobs start of Percentage[/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] Created Term Increase [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] President Per Month Millions In Jobs [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color= ] ========= ========= ======== ======= [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue] Johnson 196,500 57.3 4.12% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue] Carter 215,396 80.7 3.20% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue] Truman 93,570 41.4 2.71% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue] Clinton 236,875 109.7 2.59% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ] Nixon 137,030 69.4 2.37% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=blue] Kennedy 105,059 53.7 2.35% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ] Reagan 167,729 91.0 2.21% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ] Ford 71,483 78.6 1.09% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ] Eisenhower 36,854 50.1 0.88% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ] G.H. Bush 54,021 107.1 0.61% [/font]
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"][font color=red ] G.W. Bush 11,406 132.5 0.10% [/font]

More at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439

Bill_USA writes: [font color = blue]"the total employment level at the end of 2012 was stated as 134,021,000 but was revised to 134,668,000 for a difference for the total employed number of 647,000. so, there must have been an understatement in years before 2012. At any rate, the total employment level as previously published, as of Dec 2012, was understated to the tune of 647,000.

"The job gains in 2012 were understated 15% (1,835,000 vs revised: 2,170,000). Interesting. Now we know how to adjust DoL employment change numbers. Going by their recent track record they understate the actuals by about 15%." [/font]

Well, I can't speak for their track record as far as annual revisions, and whether or not an upward revision of 15% is typical of the past and a good projection for the future. But in case anyone was wondering, all these are non-farm payroll jobs from the Establishment Survey of businesses ( http://www.bls.gov/ces ), not the Household Survey ( http://www.bls.gov/cps ) that generates the unemployment numbers and which also has its own set of employment numbers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:04 PM

3. very interesting. BTW, I previously bookmarked your posts on the economy. very informative!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread