August seems to be a particularly difficult month for BLS statisticians to get the payroll...


August seems to be a particularly difficult month for BLS statisticians to get the payroll number right, notes Stone & McCarthy. The initial print is usually short of expectations, and even more likely to be revised upward - by an average of 62K over the last 10 years. Just for argument, add 62K to this morning's report and all of a sudden it's a big beat. And the Fed is considering additional stimulus because of the report?

Comments (23)
  • Larry Smith
    , contributor
    Comments (3127) | Send Message
     
    A lot of if's and if the previous two reports were revised downward, what makes anyone think this will be revised upward.
    7 Sep 2012, 03:57 PM Reply Like
  • American in Paris
    , contributor
    Comments (5495) | Send Message
     
    Larry,

     

    The experience is that the initial August estimate is too low. So there is a good chance it will be revised downward.

     

    These figures are seasonally adjusted and the August seasonality pattern has been changing over time.

     

    August 2012 employment was 142,558,000 jobs.
    August 2011 employment was 140,335 jobs.

     

    So there are approximately 2,223,000 jobs created over the last 12 months or 190,000 per month, which is not a bad monthy average.

     

    So was August a week month or did the X11 program used by the BLS get the seasonlity wrong?

     

    The year over year comparison using the raw data suggest to me that the BLS got it wrong or the sample was bad.
    7 Sep 2012, 06:58 PM Reply Like
  • Whitehawk
    , contributor
    Comments (3121) | Send Message
     
    The data doesn't matter: this market is fixated on the Fed. In Nov/Dec, it will be fixated again on Congress.
    7 Sep 2012, 04:19 PM Reply Like
  • Tommy the Cork
    , contributor
    Comments (75) | Send Message
     
    Bingo!
    8 Sep 2012, 12:40 PM Reply Like
  • buddyalpha
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    It's a fools game.....unemployment rate goes down even though new monthly job count drops because more people have stopped looking for work?.....and recent college graduates with big student loans are working for $8/hr. part-time, and therefore are counted as being employed?.....being counted as employed versus making enough money to support yourself financially are two entirely different scenarios.....add together the combination of the out of work with the underpaid, and then see where we are at! Pretty bleak picture going forward....
    7 Sep 2012, 04:29 PM Reply Like
  • American in Paris
    , contributor
    Comments (5495) | Send Message
     
    Not really. Yes, you are correct that employment growing too slowly, but the growth stronger than the August suggests. Employment from August 2011 to August 2012 grew by 2.2 million jobs or approximately 190,000 per month.

     

    http://1.usa.gov/n7EsqZ
    7 Sep 2012, 06:59 PM Reply Like
  • CautiousInvestor
    , contributor
    Comments (3090) | Send Message
     
    Whatever the increase may or may not have been, the inconvenient truth is that there are 4.3 million fewer people working today than in January, 2008. At the depth of the great recession, we had lost 8.4 million jobs and have recovered approximately 4.1 million of those jobs while the population has grown. By this measure we have added around 114K net jobs per month since the bottom of TGR with the bulk of those jobs arising in industry sectors which pay less than those that shed workers. Most believe we need net gains of around 125K per month to simply keep apace with population growth. Were not for the fact that the labor force particpation rate continues to shrink, the unemployment rate would be well above 10%. This is hardly commendable.
    8 Sep 2012, 09:00 AM Reply Like
  • stockpicker99
    , contributor
    Comments (91) | Send Message
     
    Unless we get rid of TEAPUBLICANS from the congress, the job growth will be dismal. TEAPUBLICAN s only goal to is replace OBAMA with their own right wing candidate with billionaires money.
    If this election is bought by the billionaires then DEMs wil apply the same medicine to TEAPUBLICANs and the middle class will be screwd royally.
    9 Sep 2012, 07:26 PM Reply Like
  • FrankJFattizzi
    , contributor
    Comments (547) | Send Message
     
    hey stockpicker, I personally think that Obama has been overly harsh to wall street. I mean that jail sentence for Corzine was over the top. Also the way the dems had all those bankers prosecuted for their role in the financial crisis was extreme. Right?
    9 Sep 2012, 07:45 PM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1796) | Send Message
     
    Frank, you are way over the line on criticizing Obama on being overly harsh toward his Wall St. and Solyndra buddies. Obama has cracked down so hard on the likes of Corzine that nobody in their right mind would dare repeat Corzine's deeds. In fact, the reason Obama is running so close to Romney in the polls is the fact that most of Obama's bundlers are in jail. It is really hard to raise money when you are in jail. Obama and Pelosi have really drained the swamps in Washington DC. Really...
    9 Sep 2012, 08:52 PM Reply Like
  • FrankJFattizzi
    , contributor
    Comments (547) | Send Message
     
    My profound apologies. I did not mean to step over the line. Aloow me to retract my statement and fully throw all my support towards Obamney 2012!
    9 Sep 2012, 09:00 PM Reply Like
  • jwbrewer
    , contributor
    Comments (317) | Send Message
     
    According to the same source, July numbers are normally revised upward as well - they were revised down today. Did I throw cold water on this post?
    7 Sep 2012, 04:38 PM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (1333) | Send Message
     
    No, you did not. As per AIP, there were 2.2 million jobs created in the last 12 months, and if you add up all the last 12 NFP's, I'm SURE you will see that. Downward revisions don't count. Plus, if you take out the 5 million people who died, we really created 7.2 million new jobs added to the economy, even though less people are actually working now than in the past, if you bother to include the old Boomers who retired because they all suddenly got rich.
    7 Sep 2012, 08:22 PM Reply Like
  • FrankJFattizzi
    , contributor
    Comments (547) | Send Message
     
    The problem is we need to find a better "shadow inventory" for people. Once we have that we won't need to try to mark them to market. It seems like a simple fix that has worked elsewhere. Should just be a matter of time....
    8 Sep 2012, 10:23 PM Reply Like
  • Larry Smith
    , contributor
    Comments (3127) | Send Message
     
    Quoting from the report "Since the beginning of this year,
    employment growth has averaged 139,000 per month, compared with an average monthly gain of 153,000 in 2011." So this year has been slower than last.

     

    What I also see is under 100,000 in four of the last 6 months. Take out the blip in the winter months which was caused by an unusually warm winter and you have stagnant job growth.
    7 Sep 2012, 09:00 PM Reply Like
  • aretailguy
    , contributor
    Comments (1796) | Send Message
     
    Larry, apparently over 300,000 people stopped looking for work so the unemployment rate actually dropped from 8.3% to 8.1%. Isn't that hope and changie thing working well?
    7 Sep 2012, 11:06 PM Reply Like
  • rrs2205rrs
    , contributor
    Comments (128) | Send Message
     
    Your right Romney could lower taxes and everything will be ok!
    8 Sep 2012, 07:56 AM Reply Like
  • dixie
    , contributor
    Comments (280) | Send Message
     
    The author is mistaken. Most past revisions have been negative not positive.
    8 Sep 2012, 09:52 AM Reply Like
  • mweaver
    , contributor
    Comments (199) | Send Message
     
    treading water
    8 Sep 2012, 11:15 AM Reply Like
  • Gary Jakacky
    , contributor
    Comments (2888) | Send Message
     
    It just proves the average SA reader is more intelligent than the most gifted FED official. Most administrations dumb down...Obama dumbs UP.
    8 Sep 2012, 05:56 PM Reply Like
  • Tommy the Cork
    , contributor
    Comments (75) | Send Message
     
    Up is down, dumb is smart.
    8 Sep 2012, 07:43 PM Reply Like
  • varan
    , contributor
    Comments (5298) | Send Message
     
    Absolutely incontrovertible:

     

    1953-2012

     

    36 years of Republican Presidency. CAGR of SP500: 4.554%
    24 years of Democratic Presidency. CAGR of SP500: 10.845%

     

    1953-60 R CAGR of SP500 10.2%
    1961-68 D CAGR of SP500 7.5%
    1969-76 R CAGR of SP500 0.43%
    1977-80 D CAGR of SP500 6.02%
    1981-88 R CAGR of SP500 9.3%
    1989-92 R CAGR of SP500 11.9%
    1993-00 D CAGR of SP500 14.86%
    2001-08 R CAGR of SP500 -4.6%
    2008-12 D CAGR of SP500 13.4%

     

    I want my 401K to go up more.
    9 Sep 2012, 12:11 AM Reply Like
  • tol52
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    The books are "cooked" by both parties.
    Worse though is the fact that there are real live
    people who actually believe any of these numbers.

     

    One, for example, is the "senior economist" for the
    cheerleaders over at CNBC...right Steve?
    9 Sep 2012, 03:51 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs