Archive for the ‘Unemployment’ Category

GDP down, unemployment claims up, Jobs Council fired … say, what?

February 1, 2013

Let me be sure that I have this right.

According to the WSJ …

The government reported that the U.S. economy shrank for the first time in more than three years in the fourth quarter of 2012.

Gross domestic product — the broadest measure of goods and services churned out by the economy — fell at a 0.1% annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2012.

image

The drop, a surprise, was driven by a sharp fall in government spending and by businesses putting fewer goods on warehouse shelves, as well as by a decline in exports.

A one quarter contraction of economic output doesn’t mean the economy is formally in recession, but it is unusual for such contractions to happen in the middle of economic expansions.

In fact,  a similar drop has only happened one time in the past fifty years.

Of course, the media bellowed that the number wasn’t as bad as it looked since much of the hit came from a drop in government spending which, incidentally, had surged in the pre-election 3rd quarter.

Hmmm.

* * * * *
The story gets better …

(more…)

Which college majors pay the most?

December 24, 2012

In a prior post Nums: Stay in school !   we showed that the unemployment rate for college grads is only about 4% … way below the national average … and well below the rate for other education levels.

image

But, how well do those college degreed jobs pay?

And, more specifically, which undergrad majors pay the most?

(more…)

The MoTown microcosm …

December 13, 2012

In prior posts this week, we noted that – on a macro  basis — there are 122 million adults in the US who are dependent on 121 million tax payers who work in private sector.

image

* * * * *

A microcosm of the US picture is the city of Detroit

You know, Detroit as in ”about to file for bankruptcy”

Detroit as in “we voted you in, now bail us out”.

Detroit as in “unions are the way to middle class success”.

Consistent with the emerging national picture, it turns out that the  257,576 people in Detroit who do not have a job and are not looking for one outnumber the 224,846 residents who do have jobs.

Here are some other factoids courtesy of CNS

(more…)

Work harder: An increasing number of folks are depending on you.

December 12, 2012

In a prior post — Work harder: “Tax payer dependents” are counting on you. — we worked the nums to show that there are more tax payer dependent adults than there are private sector workers.

Specifically, there are about 121 million private sector works and about 122 million tax payer dependent adults — 89 million working age adults who aren’t looking for work, the 12 million unemployeds, and the 22 million government employees (yes, our tax dollars pay their wages, benefits, and over-stuffed pensions)

That’s a total of 122 million adults who are dependent on 121 million private sector workers.

Below are the totals over time.

Back in 2000, there were about 11% more private sector workers than tax payer dependent adults.

The lines crossed in mid-2009 … and now, there are about 1% more tax payer dependent adults than there are private sector workers.

So, we’ve got to raise taxes on the workers to support those who are dependent on them.

Ponder that when your alarm goes off tomorrow.

image

* * * * *
Follow on Twitter @KenHoma                     >> Latest Posts

Work harder: “Tax payer dependents” are counting on you.

December 11, 2012

Here are some nums that should give you pause.

There are about 315 million people living legally in the US.

244 million — 77.5% of the 315 million – are working age … the rest are kids

155 million of the 244 million are officially counted “in the labor force” … that’s 63.8% – the labor force participation rate.

Of the 155 million, 143 million are employed; 12 million are unemployed … that’s 7.7% of the 155 million in the labor force

Of the 143 million who are employed, 22 million (15%) work for Fed, state and local government121 million work in the private sector

The 121 million private sector employees pay the taxes that support

  • 89 million working age adults who aren’t looking for work
  • 12 million unemployeds
  • 22 million government employees (remember, our tax dollars pay their wages, benefits, and over-stuffed pensions)

That’s a total of 122 million adults who are dependent on the taxes paid by 121 million private sector workers.

Got that?

There are more tax payer dependent adults than there are private sector workers.

Think about it …

image

Coming: How the ratio of tax payer dependent adults to private sector workers has changed over time.

Stay tuned ….

* * * * *
Follow on Twitter @KenHoma                           >> Latest Posts

Nums: Stay in school !

December 11, 2012

It isn’t exactly new news that more education makes you more employable.

For folks without a HS diploma:

  • The current unemployment rate is 12%
  • That’s down 4 percentage points from the 16% recession peak.
  • But, it’s still 6 percentage points higher than the 6% low point back to 2000.
  • And, 6% isn’t very low.

image

For folks with a college degree  or higher:

  • The current unemployment rate is 4%
  • That’s down 1 percentage points from the 5% recession peak.
  • But, it’s still 2 percentage points higher than the 2% low point back to 2000.

Hard to argue against the importance of education.

* * * * *
Follow on Twitter @KenHoma                    >> Latest Posts

Nums: All you need to know about the Nov. unemployment report.

December 7, 2012

The “Establishment Survey” provided the “headline number” that 146,000 jobs were added … from 133,706,000 employed in Oct. to 133,852,000 Nov.

image

* * * * *

And, the  unemployment rate dropped from 7.9% to 7.7%.

image

* * * * *

But, the population of working age adults increased by 191,000 – more than the number of added jobs … from 243,983,000 in Oct. to 244,174,000 in Nov.

That should increase the unemployment rate, right?

image

* * * * *

More important, the “Household Survey” – the basis of the unemployment rate calculation — reported that 122,000 jobs were LOST… from 143,384,000 employed in Oct. to 143,262,000 Nov.

For sure, that should increase the unemployment rate, right?

image

* * * * *

But the unemployment rate didn’t go up, it went down …  because the civilian labor force CONTRACTED by 350,000 … from 155,641,000 in Oct. to 155,291,000 Nov.

That is, 350,000 people stopped looking for work and were no longer counted as unemployed..

image

* * * * *

Said differently, the labor force participation rate dropped … and is now about 2.2 percentage points lower than it was when Obama took office

image

* * * * *

And, consumer confidence dipped, so don’t be surprised if even more people stop looking for jobs.

image

* * * * *

Bottom line: Not your classic turnaround … but if enough people stop looking for jobs, we’ll have this unemployment mess fixed in no time.

Ouch !

* * * * *
Follow on Twitter @KenHoma     >> Latest Posts

Tepid job growth … unemployment down … say, what?

December 7, 2012

Hot off the presses …

The BLS reported that 146,000 jobs were added in November … below October … below the 12 month rolling average … and below the 200k that most economists say is what’s required to dent the unemployment rate …

image

* * * * *
… But, magically, the unemployment rate dropped by 2-tenths of a percent to 7.7% … hmmm.

image

* * * * *
Most interesting number: October’s government employment number was revised down by about 50,000

Hmmm.

Yesterday in our post Gotcha: About those rosy unemployment stats …  we showed how the bump in government employment accounted for most of the decline in the unemployment rate running up to the election.

Seems that that number was a tad inflated.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Wouldn’t you think the government would know how many employees are on the payroll?

* * * * *
Follow on Twitter @KenHoma                   >> Latest Posts

Gotcha: About those rosy unemployment stats …

December 6, 2012

First, glance at what’s been going on with government employment the past couple of months

about 1 million employees were added to government payrolls from June 2012 until election day.

Hmmm.

image

* * * * *

Now, take a gander at Gallup’s  daily tracking of unemployment.

Note that Gallup’s unemployment rate dropped by about a point in the run-up to the election.

Virtually all of that drop is attributable to the bump in government employees.

Double hmmm.

And, Gallup’s unemployment rate is up about 3/4’s of a percentage point since the election.

Triple hmmm.

I thought that Team Obama had this economy turned around …

Oops.

image

* * * * *
Question: Tell me again how higher tax rates will help a faltering economy?

Unless the BLS fudges the number tomorrow, the GOP may finally have an arrow in their fiscal cliff quiver.

* * * * *
Follow on Twitter @KenHoma                 >> Latest Posts

Demand for full-time employees is dwindling … so is the supply.

November 20, 2012

Punch line: The employment market is likely to stay in the doldrums … employers – still operating below effective full capacity – are leveraging the productive full-time employees they retained during the recession, shifting some of them to part-time status … and supplementing them with temporary workers and new part-timers.  And, the labor force participation rate is dropping as workers become demotivated and disincentivized.

image

= = = = =

The Demand Side

Full time work is about to get scarcer.

image

By hiring part-time workers who put in less than 30 hours per week, employers can avoid a mandate dictated by the new health reform law: either provide expensive health insurance or pay a fine equal to $2,000 per worker.

In a July survey, 32% of retail and hospitality company respondents told [Mercer] that they were likely to reduce the number of employees working 30 hours a week or more.

Already, some companies are putting plans into action.

  • Darden Restaurants [parent of Red Lobster and Olive Garden] was among the first companies to say it was changing hiring in response to the health-care law.
  • Pillar Hotels & Resorts this summer began to focus more on hiring part-time workers among its 5,500 employees, after the Supreme Court upheld the health-care overhaul.
  • CKE Restaurants Inc., parent of the Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s burger chains, began two months ago to hire part-time workers to replace full-time employees who left.
  • Home retailer Anna’s Linens  is cutting hours for some full-time employees to avoid the insurance mandate if the healthcare law isn’t repealed.

Source: Forbes

= = = = =
The Supply Side

A new book by University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan explains that through a major expansion of the welfare state we are paying people not to work:

He says that public policies enacted during the Obama administration’s first four years have been affecting the supply side of the market as reflected in the labor force participation rate.

image .

In the matter of a few quarters of 2008 and 2009, new federal and state laws greatly enhanced the help given to the poor and unemployed — from expansion of food-stamp eligibility to enlargement of food-stamp benefits to payment of unemployment bonuses — sharply eroding (and, in some cases, fully eliminating) the incentives for workers to seek and retain jobs, and for employers to create jobs or avoid layoffs.

If a person gets laid off and is offered a new job paying $500 a week …. his take home pay would be about $250 after deducting taxes and work related expenses.

Since untaxed unemployment benefits total $289, clearly he is better off not working … [at least for 99 weeks].

All in all, Mulligan estimates that about half the precipitous 2007-2011 decline in the labor-force-participation rate and in hours worked can be blamed on easier eligibility rules for disability benefits,  unemployment insurance, food stamps and housing aid.

Source: Forbes

* * * * *

BLS: “Oops … we found some initial unemployment claims that we forget to report before the election”

November 15, 2012

Unbelievable !

Now that the election is done, the BLS has “caught up” on initial jobless claims reporting … their words, not mine.

Here’s a shocker …

They’ve figured out that unemployment is more of a problem than they’ve been reporting.

In the week ending November 10, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 439,000, an increase of 78,000 from the previous week’s revised figure of 361,000.

The 4-week moving average was 383,750, an increase of 11,750 from the previous week’s revised average of 372,000.

The consensus forecast for this week –- based on prior weeks’ reporting – was 375,000 … 64K lower than the BLS’ surprise number.

I say: Let’s raise taxes and get this economy moving again …

= = = = =
Technical note: While blame will be laid on Hurricane Sandy, keep in mind that (1) hurricanes temporarily boost employment of construction & trades workers, and (2) the affected areas were without electricty and many government offices (e.g. FEMA outposts) were closed … so, these initial unemployment claims are probably under-reported (as usual) … the fuller impact of the hurricane will show up in the next couple of weeks.

= = = = =
Ohio & PA

The highest numbers of new filings came from Pennsylvania and Ohio, where there were thousands of layoffs in the construction, manufacturing, and automobile industries.   During his campaign, President Obama highlighted his record of job creation in those states —  Ohio in particular.  Source

Oops.

* * * * *

Unemployment claims and the stock market … interesting !

November 14, 2012

Not to worry, not another rant against the curious BLS reporting.

Business Insider posted an interesting analysis by GSAM Chairman Jim O’Neill, mapping the inverse of initial unemployment claims with the S&P 500.

First, it’s pretty clear that the series track closely.

Moreover, O’Neill observes:

”it’s worth noting the last time there was a severe break between the two lines was [Summer 2011], around the debt ceiling fight, a scenario which the current fiscal cliff debate harkens back to. Then the market freaked out, but mostly the economy kept on rolling.”

In other words, the economy is improving, albeit slowly, and last week’s drop was related to the election … but it’s not “Obama elected, market tanks” … it’s “Will divided government gridlock or avert the Fiscal Cliff?”

So, if the fiscal cliff gets resolved, then following O’Neill’s logic … the market goes up.

 

image

Smoking gun: BLS streak comes to an end … coincidence?

November 8, 2012

As Gomer Pyle would say: Suprise, suprise, suprise.

This is absolutely unbelievable …

The BLS streak — understating initial unemployment claims – ended this week.

In all the prior 26 election season weeks, the BLS’s “headline number” under-reported initial unemployment claims … and cast the jobs situation as brighter than it really was.

The election was Tuesday, right?

Well, guess what.

Here’s what the BLS report this morning … read it carefully.

  • In the week ending November 3, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 355,000, a decrease of 8,000 from the previous week’s unrevised figure of 363,000.

English translation: Some how, the BLS was miraculously able to eliminate the reporting bias that had been consistently evident in the run up to the election.

Frankly, I’d expected them to wait a few weeks to create some distance from the election … then “modify” their reporting.

Nope.

Tell me again how the BLS is just a group of apolitical bureaucrats cranking out consistently reported facts.

The good news is that I can finally stop tracking and reporting the streak.

Quick, somebody call Jack Welch…

= = = = =

image

>> Latest Posts

Digging into the 7.9% number …

November 2, 2012

The “Establishment Survey” of employers reported that 171,000 jobs were added in October.

The “Household Survey” … the basis of the unemployment rate calculation … reported that 410,000 jobs were added in October.

That’s on top of the 873,000 jobs reportedly added in September … when the Establishment Survey reported 114,000 jobs added.

So, the Household Survey says that 1,283,000 jobs were added in September and October.

The Establishment Survey says that employers added  255,000 jobs  in September and October.

The difference is roughly 1 million jobs … a big difference which, in many quarters, would be considered statistically significant.

For example, if the October Household Survey had claimed the same 171,000 as the Establishment Survey, the unemployment rate would’ve bumped to 8% … not 7.9%.

And, if the Household Survey had been in alignment with the Establishment Survey in both September and  October, then the unemployment rate would be about 8.5%.

Draw you own conclusions.

>> Latest Posts

Old song … BLS still under-reporting initial unemployment claims.

November 1, 2012

Yeah, yeah, yeah … I’m getting as tired writing about it as you’re getting reading about it.

But, the BLS streak — understating initial claims – continued this week.

Now we’re up to at least 26 election season weeks in a row that the BLS’s “headline number” has under-reported the number of initial unemployment claims … and cast the jobs situation as brighter than it really is.

Based on today’s BLS report, the number for the week ending October 20 was revised upward from 369,000 to 372,000 … making this week’s headline look 3,000 better.

These guys can’t be this sloppy or this stupid … can they?

image

= = = = =

To put today’s number in context. let’s flashback to the chart in yesterday’s post

The reported 4-week moving average is 374,000.

So, if the relationship of inital unemployment claims and the unemployment rate holds, tomorrow’s BLS report should be an unemployment rate of about 8.1%

That’s what all of my analyses say that the number is … but I’m still betting the under.

I think the BLS will fudge the numbers to keep the unemployment rate under 8%.

We’ll see tomorrow.

image

>> Latest Posts

Ahead of Friday’s number …

November 1, 2012

Last month, there was a “discontinuity” between jobs added as reported by the BLS’ establishment survey of employers (114k jobs added) and the household survey (873k).

The spurt in the latter drove the unemployment rate calculation (7.8%) which raised many eyebrows.

So, what to expect this Friday?

Looking back to the beginning of 2011, job growth via the employer survey has averaged 150,000 per month; the household survey has averaged  179,000.

Said differently, the employer survey has reported about 3 million jobs added; the household survey has reported about 3.6 million jobs added.

Below is a chart that indexes the two series back to January 2011.

image

Note that for the past couple of months, the less stable household survey has bounced over and under the employer survey.

That’s what you’d expect for two comparable data series drawn from different samples.

So, statistically speaking, I’d expect one of two outcomes this Friday … either:

1) The household series “averages out” and bounces under the employer number … showing a decline of about 350k jobs and a a higher unemployment rate, or

2) The household series “serially correlates” (i.e. continues a high run) … and burps out another sizable increase in employment (say, 250k) … and another reduction in the unemployment rate.

If #1 happens, Team Obama will argue that you shouldn’t place too much weight on one monthly number … an argument that they shelved last month.

If #2 happens, Team Romney (and Jack Welch) will claim book-cooking again.

Either way, I think voters will yawn since they believe so little of what gets spewed out these days

>> Latest Posts

Re: Friday’s big number … what to expect (if the BLS doesn’t hide-the-weinie).

October 31, 2012

Hurricane Sandy has put the BLS between a rock and a hard place.

There are 3 scenarios:

1) The BLS hides behind Sandy’s skirt-tails and  takes an incomplete — failing to report the most important number in the most important election … until the election is over.  Just imagine if Obama wins and the BLS reports next week (or next month)  that the unemployment rate went back up to 7.9% or 8% or higher.

2) The BLS rushes a preliminary number that shows the unemployment rate going down to, say,  7.8% … and then revises it upward after the election. Think, the BLS streak of under-reporting initial unemployment claims.

3) The BLS reports that the unemployment rate went down again as still another 850,000 folks find part-time work somewhere, someplace … and, Jack Welch goes nuts.

4)  The BLS reports on time that the unemployment rate went up and Obama orders a DOJ investigation.

* * * * *
My bet: They’ll report on time that the unemployment rate clicked up to 7.9% …  it’s the best “managed” number …. let’s Obama crow that it’s under the magic 8% … and, let’s Romney point out that it’s going in the wrong direction.

Based on the numbers, I’d expect the unemploymen rate to bounce back up to at least 8%.

Here’s my logic…

Initial unemployment claims should track pretty closely with the reported unemployment rate, right?

Well, they do usually … but didn’t last month when the miraculous 7.8% was reported.

Just eyeballing the chart below – which maps the 4-week moving average of initial claims against the unemployment rate – one might have expected an unemployment rate of just over 8% … not 7.8%

Looking forward to this Friday’s unemployment rate … based on the 4-week moving average of initial claims … the unemployment rate should pop back to at least 7.9% … maybe back over over 8%.

That is, unless Welch is right and the BLS is cookin’ the books.

image

>> Latest Posts

BLS may delay Friday employment report … are you kidding me?

October 29, 2012

I guess when the announcement went out that”only essential Federal employees need report”, the folks at the BLS rolled over and went back to sleep.

According to the WSJ

“… government statisticians and others may not be able complete the preparation of the jobs report before scheduled release time later this week.due to the weather and associated power outages and transportation disruptions.”

Why do I not find this surprising?

Memo to BLS: Get your stupid butts to the office, order a stack of pizzas, and crank until the gov’t emergency generators stop cranking power to your computers.

Somebody pass to the word to Jack Welch, ok?

Hard to believe … the BLS streak rolls right on.

October 25, 2012

I though the BLS might find some old time religion – or at least hire a new stats guy – since they got hammered on the incredible 7.8% unemployment number.

Not so.

And, the BLS streak — understating initial claims – continued.

Now we’re up to at least 25 election season weeks in a row that the BLS’s “headline number” has under-reported the number of initial unemployment claims … and cast the jobs situation as brighter than it really is.

Based on today’s BLS report, the number for the week ending October 13 was revised upward from 388,000 to 392,000 … making this week’s headline look 4,000 better.

Glad the election is only 12 days away.

Wanna bet that the BLS makes a post-election change to their methodology?

image

>> Latest Posts

Hoisted by their own pitards … BLS unemployment claims are in.

October 18, 2012

Last week, Team Obama was crowing about the huge drop in initial unemployment claims … proof poitive that the recovery was gaining steam.

They failed to mention the fact that the state of California sat on a pile of claims … making the numbers look better than they really were.

Well, as Rev. Wright would say, the chickens have come home to roost.

According to the BLS: “In the week ending October 13, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 388,000, an increase of 46,000 from the previous week’s revised figure of 342,000.”

Oops.

Headline: “Jobless claims increase 46,000”

Not exactly proof positive of an economy gaining steam.

My bet, Team Obama emphasizes that claims are overstated because of California.

Too bad.

* * * * *
And, yes … the BLS streak — understating initial claims – continued.

Now we’re up to at least 23 election season weeks in a row that the BLS’s “headline number” has under-reported the number of initial unemployment claims … and cast the jobs situation as brighter than it really is.

Based on today’s BLS report, the number for the week ending October 6  was revised upward from 339,000 to 342,000.

C’mon guys … get it right already.

image

>> Latest Posts

Employment stats: Spreading the hours around …

October 16, 2012

Obscured by the headline unemployment numbers is an oft-overlooked stat – average hours worked

In rough numbers, average weekly hours worked has declined by roughly 1/2 hour … to 41.5 hours per week.

Couple of interesting aspects to the number …

First, it’s greater than 40 – a standard 5 days – 8 hours work week … suggesting that firms are still using overtime to meet capacity needs rather than hiring … or, folks are working multiple jobs … maybe, 2 part-time jobs.

Second, while 1/2 hour doesn’t sound like much … it translates to over 600,000 full-time equivalent positions, i.e. has the economic impact of pulling more than a half-million FTE workers out of jobs.

image

>> Latest Posts

Unemployment claims are down (if you don’t count California) … and, yes, the BLS streak continues.

October 12, 2012

The BLS would morph into a punch line if the stakes weren’t so high.

Let’s do the easy part first.

Now we’re up to at least 22 election season weeks in a row that the BLS’s “headline number” has under-reported the number of initial unemployment claims … and cast the jobs situation as brighter than it really is.

Based on Thursday’s BLS report, the number for the week ending Sept. 29 was revised upward from 367,000 to 369,000.

I’ll complain to the BLS Commish when President Obama appoints one.

see the HFs post: BLS Commissioner’s post vacant since January

image

* * * * *

Bigger Issue this Week

This week, the BLS reported spectacularly good news …  claims down 30,000 (after revising last week’s claims up).

While the BLS report failed to mention the point, somewhere between 15,000 and 25,000 claims from California weren’t processed in time to be included.

Say what?

Business Insider did a nice job decoding the situation:

Some of the jobless claims in one large state–California–were not included in the claims reported to the Department of Labor this week. 

When a state’s jobless claims bureau is short-staffed, sometimes the state does not process all of the claims that came in during the week in time to get them to the DOL.

Our source [at the BLS]  believes that this is what happened this week.

The California claims that were not processed in time to get into this week’s jobless report will appear in future reports, most likely next week’s or the following week’s.

In other words, those reports might be modestly higher than expected.

Our source believes that the number of California claims that were not processed totaled about 15,000-25,000.

Thus, if one were to “normalize” the overall not-seasonally-adjusted jobless claims number, it would increase by about 15,000-25,000.

This week’s “normalized” jobless claims number, therefore, would be about 355,000-365,000, not the 339,000 that was reported.

Are you kidding me?

And, Business Insider missed a key line in the BLS report:

“The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending September 29 were in New York (+2,764) and  California (+2,069)”

So, the missing California claims may be even higher … if the missing regions kept pace with the rest of the state

This is getting silly.

>> Latest Posts

Why would anybody distrust the BLS numbers?

October 8, 2012

The BLS is  an independent organization that just reports the facts, right?

Former GOP administration insiders are coming to the BLS’ defense, testifying that the number crunchers are innocent as babies.

So, why should anybody be suspicious just because  the “household survey” is giving answers that conflict with the “establishment survey” and  is reporting job gains greater than in any other month for the past 30 or 40 years?

Here are four documented reasons to be skeptical:

1. The administration has used bullying tactics with outside pollsters – specifically Gallup

Recently, Team Obama didn’t like Gallup’s polling numbers.  So campaign chief Axlerod called them to provide some statistical counseling, and and Attorney General Holder launched a DOJ investigation of Gallup’s human resource practices. Suddenly, Gallup’s  poll numbers turned more favorable to the President, including a 1-day 12 point improvement in Obama’s approval rating.  Coincidence?   Source

2. The administration has been bullying defense contractors to violate Federal employment laws.

ABC is reporting that the White House has told defense contractors to not issue layoff notices until after the election. They even went as far as to offer to pay for any legal fees associated with their violating the law by not giving employees proper notice. Specifically, “defense contractor Lockheed Martin heeded a request from the White House – one with political overtones – and announced it will not issue layoff notices to thousands of employees just days before the November presidential election.” Source

3. Obama has used bullying tactics with other “independent government agencies – specifically the CBO.

The Congressional Budget Office is supposed to be strictly objective, and completely detached from the Administration. But, during the ObamaCare debate, when the CBO numbers weren’t looking favorable, the President ordered CBO director Doug Elmendorf to the White House for counseling.  The next week, the CBO revised its numbers.  The new estimates were  more favorable towards ObamaCare.  Another coincidence? click for news report

4. The BLS has a recent track record of questionable numbers.

Most important, for at least the last 22 election season weeks, the same BLS that reports the unemployment statistics has systematically underreported weekly initial unemployment claims by an average of roughly 1% – about 3,000 claims per week – and then revised the estimates up the next week.

Why is the preliminary under-reporting a problem?

Because each week’s “headline” number of changes in unemployment claims is derived by taking the current week’s preliminary number and comparing it to the prior week’s revised number.

For example, in the week ending September 22, the preliminary number (367,000) was compared to September 15th’s revised number (363,000) and and 4,000 drop in unemployment claims was reported. The September 15 preliminary number – the basis for the September 15 report — was 359,000. So, comparing preliminary estimates for the two weeks, unemployment claims increased by 8,000 not 4,000. And, based on the past 22 weeks of initial underreporting, that number is likely to swell when the September 22 number is revised – most certainly upwards.

image

* * * * *

My point: the Administration has demonstrated a willingness to bully supposedly independent groups, both in and out of government.

And, the BLS has exhibited some curious statistical reporting.

Still believe the latest unemployment report?

>> Latest Posts

Unemployment claims up, unemployment rate down … huh?

October 7, 2012

Here’s some more conflicting data for you.

The BLS has been reporting unemployment claims pretty level for the year … but increasing lately.

Defying gravity (and logic), the unemployment rate has going down … an inverse relationship.

Hmmm.

Magic?

image

>> Latest Posts

Encore: “It is important not to read too much into any one monthly report”

October 5, 2012

… unless the data is good, that is.

Team Obama’s victory lap re: last month’s favorable jobs report was unexpected (<= sarcasm), since they have said repeatedly:

“It is important not to read too much into any one monthly report”

Below is an encore post … a stroll down memory lane …

* * * * *

What are you going to believe, the facts or our rhetoric?

Reported by Chris Moody of Yahoo News

When the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the nation’s latest national employment last week, the Obama administration stressed that people should not “read too much” into the data.

Mitt Romney’s campaign pounced, and flagged the fact that the White House has repeated that same line nearly every month since November 2009.

See below for the roundup of articles from WhiteHouse.gov that Romney’s campaign posted on its site. In many of the posts, the authors for the administration do acknowledge that they repeat themselves:

June 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”

May 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”

April 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”

March 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK:)

February 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.”

January 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.”

December 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

November 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

October 2011: “The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision. There is no better example than August’s jobs figure, which was initially reported at zero and in the latest revision increased to 104,000. This illustrates why the Administration always stresses it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

September 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

August 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

July 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

June 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

May 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

April 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

March 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

February 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

January 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

December 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

November 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

October 2010: “Given the volatility in monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

September 2010: “Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

July 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative. It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains.”

August 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

June 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

May 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

April 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

March 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

January 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

November 2009: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

In other words, it’s important not to read too much into the Obama administration’s past 3-1/2 years of performance.

So much for accountability …

Thanks to SMH for feeding the lead

>> Latest Posts

It’s Thursday, so … guess what?

October 4, 2012

Yep, the BLS announced this weeks initial unemployment claims, and you know what?

They revised last week’s headline number up.

Now we’re up to 81 out of 82 weeks — and, at least 22 election season weeks in a row — that the BLS’s “headline number” has under-reported the number of initial unemployment claims … and cast the jobs situation as brighter than it really is.

Based on Thursday’s BLS report, the number for the week ending Sept. 15 was revised upward from 359,000 to 363,000.

In itself, the 4,000 isn’t a big deal.

But, in context it is

Again, I ask: statistical bias or political bias?

I’m now starting to conclude the latter.

The BLS has plenty of statisticians on payroll … and this is an elementary stats problem

* * * * * *

Let’s try a new way of reporting … here’s a picture.

image

Note that the preliminary estimate (the blue line) is ALWAYS low … by a couple of thousand.

Hint to BLS: just add 2k or 3k … or .8% to your prelim forecast !

>> Latest Posts

NOT HIRING: Job growth not likely according to latest ADP forecast

October 4, 2012

Punch line: Ahead of the government’s official monthly job report, ADP forecasts a slowdown in job growth.

Macroeconomic Advisers went on to predict that the unemployment rate would likely still be above 8% a year from now.

* * * * *
Excerpted from CNN Money’s, “Private sector hiring slowed in September”

Now hiring - image by flickr user Truthout dot org

Private employers added 162,000 jobs in the month … which marks a slowdown from August, when ADP said private employers added 189,000 jobs.

“While this number today is above consensus, it’s hardly a strong number,” said Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers. “It’s only barely above the pace that would push the national unemployment rate down.”

The unemployment rate stood at 8.1% in August, and economists surveyed by CNNMoney predict it remained there in September.

Given weak economic forecasts for the foreseeable future, Prakken said he wouldn’t be surprised to see the unemployment rate still above 8% a year from now.

The ADP report is monitored closely since it comes just days before the government’s official monthly job report, due Friday. But the ADP figures are often not a great predictor of what the Labor Department will report.

Edit by JDC

>> Latest Posts

The last time that I talk about BLS reporting bias …

September 28, 2012

… certainly won’t be today

Unbelievable, they did it again this week.

I promise that I’ll stop writing about BLS reporting bias when the streak ends, but …

Now we’re up to 80 out of 81 weeks — and, at least 21 election season weeks in a row — that the BLS’s “headline number” has under-reported the number of initial unemployment claims … and cast the jobs situation as brighter than it really is.

Based on Thursday’s BLS report, the number for the week ending Sept. 22 was revised upward from 382,000 to 385,000.

In itself, the 2,000 isn’t a big deal.

But, in context it is

Again, I ask: statistical bias or political bias?

I’m now starting to conclude the latter.

The BLS has plenty of statisticians on payroll … and this is an elementary stats problem

* * * * * *

Let’s try a new way of reporting … here’s a picture.

Note that the preliminary estimate (the blue line) is ALWAYS low … by a couple of thousand.

Hint to BLS: just add 2k or 3k … or .8% to your prelim forecast !

image

* * * * *

Here are the nums … but the picture says it all.

image 

>> Latest Posts

Unemployment claims drop by 3,000 … well, not really.

September 21, 2012

Yesterday’s headline’s trumpeted a 3,000  drop in initial unemployment claims.

Hooray. Right?

Of course not, the BLS revised last week’s number up by 3.000 so that it could report this week as being down by 3,000.

Huh?

Now we’re up to 79 out of 80 weeks — and, at least 20 election season weeks in a row — that the BLS’s “headline number” has under-reported the number of initial unemployment claims … and cast the jobs situation as brighter than it really is.

Based on Thursday’s BLS report, the number for the week ending Sept. 8 was revised upward from 382,000 to 385,000.

In itself, the 3,000 isn’t a big deal.

But, in context it is

Again, I ask: statistical bias or political bias?

If the former: fix it already, BLS.

Hint to BLS: just add 2k or 3k … or .8% to your prelim forecast !

image

I promise that I’ll stop writing about BLS reporting bias when the streak ends.

>> Latest Posts

Factoids: The state of the economy …

September 21, 2012

The economic analyses done by Mort Zuckerman at US News are always laden with cold facts.

image

Read the article for the prose. Here are the factoids:

  • Annual wage increases have dropped to an average of 1.6 percent, the lowest in the past 30 years.
  • A Census Bureau analysis  indicates that median income in 2011 had fallen to $50,054, the fourth straight year of decline.
  • Layoff announcements have risen from a year ago and hiring plans have dropped dramatically.
  • 5 million people have now been out of work for 27 weeks or more. That’s roughly 40 percent of the unemployed.
  • The average period of unemployment is close to 40 weeks.
  • Fewer Americans are at work today than in April 2000, even though the population has grown by 30 million people since then.
  • Older people are not leaving the workforce at the same rate as in the past … employment in the age group of 55 and older is up 3.9 million, even as total employment is down by five million.
  • The so-called quit rate has sagged to the lowest rate in years.
  • Young workers now face double-digit unemployment and job prospects for young workers aren’t very good.
  • As a result, the birth rate has just hit a 25-year low of 1.87 births per woman. And
  • Of jobs that have been added, more than 40 percent of new private sector jobs are in low-paying categories such as leisure and hospitality, bars, and restaurants
  • Millions of people who had good private sector jobs are now dependent on the government for life support.
  • Roughly 15 percent of the population, a record, representing over 46 million Americans, are in the food stamp program, compared to the 7.9 percent participation from 1970 to 2000.
  • A record 11 million-plus Americans are now collecting federal disability checks. Half of them have come on board since President Barack Obama took office.

Sure doesn’t look like we’ve turned the corner yet.

>> Latest Posts

Sorry, but the BLS streak continues …

September 14, 2012

I promise that I’ll stop writing about BLS reporting bias when the streak ends.

Now we’re up to 78 out of 79 weeks — and, at least 19 election season weeks in a row — that the BLS’s “headline number” has under-reported the number of initial unemployment claims … and cast the jobs situation as brighter than it really is.

Based on Thursday’s BLS report, the number for the week ending Sept. 1 was revised upward from 365,000 to 367,000.

In itself, the 2,000 isn’t a big deal.

But, in context it is

Again, I ask: statistical bias or political bias?

If the former: fix it already, BLS.

Hint to BLS: just add 2k or 3k … or .8% to your prelim forecast !

image

* * * * *

And, oh yeah, the initial jobless claims increased by 15,000 … above the consensus estimates … and consistent with an unemployment rate higher than 8.1%.

image

>> Latest Posts

With dismal job growth, how did the unemployment rate drop to 8.1%?

September 10, 2012

The August employment report was expectedly dismal, but equivocal in that  it gave both parties data points to selectively highlight.

First, the BLS Establishment Survey reported that 96,000 jobs were added … that’s good since it’s a positive number.

But, there was a decline in “goods producing jobs” – i.e. manufacturing … and the 96,000 is below the the 125,000 level that is commonly held as the number required to keep pace with population growth and keep the unemployment rate constant.

image

* * * * *

Nonetheless, the reported unemployment rate went down to 8.1%.

How can that be?

Good question since the Employment reported from the Household Survey – the basis of the 8.1% calculation – declined by 119,000.

image

* * * * *

Now, stop and think about that for a second.

The Establishment Survey said 96,000 jobs were added.

The Household Survey said employment dropped by 119,000.

Yet the unemployment rate went down – from 8.3% to 8.1%.

Hmmm. How can that be?

Well, 368,000 people dropped out of the labor force – stopped looking for work – either retired, became disabled, or simply kicked back on unemployment benefits.

If they hadn’t quit looking for work, they would have been counted as unemployed … and the reported unemployment rate would have been 8.33% – up more than .1% from 8.25% last month

The puts a whole new paint job on things, right?

image

* * * * *

The number of folks dropping out of the labor market is a big deal … since the magnitude is big and the trend is bad – especially this year.

 

image

* * * * *

The KEY METRIC

To consolidate all of the above “stuff” into a single metric, I like to look at the employment-to-population ratio … what % of adults who are employed.

The employment-to-population ratio is now at 58.3% … meaning that 41.7% of adults AREN’T employed … that’s a big number !

Note that the employment-to-population ratio hovered around 63% during most of the Bush years … then collapsed during the financial crisis … dropping a 5 points … and then hovering around the lower level.

image

* * * * *

While the employment-to-population ratio looks like it’s “hovering”, look at the past couple of months … it has dropped by .5%.

That may sound like rounding error, but multiply it times the working age population … and you get over 1.2 million fewer people employed.

Ouch.  That’s not rounding error!

 

image

Bottom line: we’re stalled !

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Key data source

image

>> Latest Posts

Encore: “It is important not to read too much into any one monthly report” … unless the data is good.

September 10, 2012

Team Obama’s reaction to last week’s dismal jobs report was quite predictable:

“It is important not to read too much into any one monthly report”

Why predictable?

Because it’s EXACTLY the same thing they say whenever the jobs numbers are bad.

Below is an encore post … a stroll down memory lane …

Question: Is it ok to read something into, say, 42 jobs reports?

* * * * *

What are you going to believe, the facts or our rhetoric?

Reported by Chris Moody of Yahoo News

When the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the nation’s latest national employment last week, the Obama administration stressed that people should not “read too much” into the data.

Mitt Romney’s campaign pounced, and flagged the fact that the White House has repeated that same line nearly every month since November 2009.

See below for the roundup of articles from WhiteHouse.gov that Romney’s campaign posted on its site. In many of the posts, the authors for the administration do acknowledge that they repeat themselves:

June 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”

May 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”

April 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”

March 2012: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.” (LINK:)

February 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.”

January 2012: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign.”

December 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

November 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

October 2011: “The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision. There is no better example than August’s jobs figure, which was initially reported at zero and in the latest revision increased to 104,000. This illustrates why the Administration always stresses it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

September 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

August 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

July 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

June 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

May 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

April 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

March 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

February 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

January 2011: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

December 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

November 2010: “Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

October 2010: “Given the volatility in monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

September 2010: “Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

July 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative. It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains.”

August 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

June 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

May 2010: “As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

April 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

March 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

January 2010: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

November 2009: “Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative.”

In other words, it’s important not to read too much into the Obama administration’s past 3-1/2 years of performance.

So much for accountability …

Thanks to SMH for feeding the lead

>> Latest Posts

The key number in BLS report …

September 7, 2012

According to the BLS

The number of employed people dropped by 119,000

… from 142,220,000 to 142,101,000

So, how did the unemployment rate go down?

Simple.

The BLS estimated that 368,00 stopped looking for work

In other words, the denominator changed more than the numerator.

I guess if Team Obama can get more people to stop looking for work, we’ll have unemployment problem licked.

Hmmm.

>> Latest Posts

Sorry to harp … but, the streak continues

September 7, 2012

Some loyal readers have suggested that I get off this case … That I’ve made my point.

I promise that I’ll stop writing about BLS reporting bias when the streak ends.

Now we’re up to 77 out of 78 weeks — and, at least 18 weeks in a row — that the BLS’s “headline number” has under-reported the number of initial unemployment claims … and cast the jobs situation as brighter than it really is.

Based on yesterday’s BLS report, the number for the week ending August 25 was revised upward from 374,000 to 377,000.

In itself, the 3,000 isn’t a big deal.

But, in context it is

Again, I ask: statistical bias or political bias?

If the former: fix it already, BLS.

Hint to BLS: just add 2k or 3k …  or .8% to your prelim forecast !

image

>> Latest Posts

Unbelievably, the streak rolls on: BLS under-reports initial unemployment claims … again!

August 31, 2012

Am I the only person in the world to to think this is nuts?

Media sure isn’t reporting it …

Now we’re up to 76 out of 77 weeks — and, at least 17 weeks in a row — that the BLS’s “headline number” has under-reported the number of initial unemployment claims … and cast the jobs situation as brighter than it really is.

Based on yesterday’s BLS report, the number for the week ending August 17 was revised upward from 372,000 to 374,000.

In itself, the 2,000 isn’t a big deal.

But, in context it is

Again, I ask: statistical bias or political bias?

If the former: fix it already, BLS.

Hint to BLS: just add 2k or .8% to your prelim forecast !

image

* * * * *

Almost forgot … the preliminary unemployment claims for the week of Aug. 25 are reported even vs. the Aug. 11 preliminary number and up 2K vs the revised Aug. 18 number.

In other words, no indication that a corner has been turned.

image

>> Latest Posts

How does the unemployment rate impact starting salaries?

August 29, 2012

Answer: Starting salaries tend to drop & to 8 percentage points for each percentage point increase in the unemployment rate … and it can take up to 15 years to get back to “normal” levels.

Lisa Kahn, a Yale School of Management economist analyzed government data  during and after the deep 1980s recession.

She  found that for each percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate, those with the misfortune to graduate during the recession earned 7% to 8% less in their first year out than comparable workers who graduated in better times.

image

The effect persisted over many years, with recession-era grads earning 4% to 5% less by their 12th year out of college, and 2% less by their 18th year out.

For example, a man who graduated in December 1982 when unemployment was at 10.8% made, on average, 23% less his first year out of college and 6.6% less 18 years out than one who graduated in May 1981 when the unemployment rate was 7.5%.

For a typical worker, that would mean earning $100,000 less over the 18-year period.

Source

Takeaway: High unemployment rates isn’t just somebody else’s problem …

>> Latest Posts

The streak rolls on: BLS under-reports initial unemployment claims … again!

August 27, 2012

Still again …

Now we’re up to 75 out of 76 weeks — and, at least 16 weeks in a row — that the BLS’s “headline number” has under-reported the number of initial unemployment claims … and cast the jobs situation as brighter than it really is.

Based on last Thursday’s BLS report, the number for the week ending August 17 was revised upward from 366,000 to 368,000.

In itself, the 2,000 isn’t a big deal.

But, in context it is

Again, I ask: statistical bias or political bias?

If the former: fix it already, BLS.

Hint to BLS: just add 2k or .8% to your prelim forecast !

image

* * * * *

Almost forgot … the preliminary unemployment claims for the week of Aug. 18 are up 6K vs. the Aug. 11 preliminary number and up 4K vs the revised Aug. 11 number.

In other words, no indication that a corner has been turned.

image

>> Latest Posts

“Our plan is working” … except for increasing unemployment rates in 44 states.

August 20, 2012

According to BLS data released last week, the unemployment rate ticked up in 44 out of the 50 (or is it 57) states.

Included are some swing states: Florida, Virginia, Wisconsin and New Hampshire.

Imagine if the Administration’s economic plan wasn’t working …

image

* * * * *

And, according to IBD … the 5 5 states with the highest unemployment rates voted for Obama in 2008.

Hmmm.

image

>> Latest Posts

The streak rolls on: BLS under-reports initial unemployment claims … again!

August 17, 2012

One more time …

Now we’re up to 74 out of 75 weeks — and, at least 15 weeks in a row — that the BLS’s “headline number” has under-reported the number of initial unemployment claims … and cast the jobs situation as brighter than it really is.

Based on Thursday’s BLS report, the number for the week ending August 3 was revised upward from 361,000 to 364,000.

In itself, the 3,000 isn’t a big deal.

But, in context it is

Again, I ask: statistical bias or political bias?

If the former: fix it already, BLS.

Hint to BLS: just add 2k or .8% to your prelim forecast !

image

* * * * *

Almost forgot … the preliminary unemployment claims for the week of Aug. 11 are up 5K vs. the Aug. 3 preliminary number and up 2K vs the revised Aug.3 number.

In other words, no indication that a corner has been turned.

image

>> Latest Posts

Trick question: Did employment grow faster under Bush or Obama?

August 12, 2012

Team Obama says “Bush’s failed policies of tax cuts to the rich got us into this problem”.

Oh, really?

Team Romney says “The worst recovery ever”.

Oh really?

Let’s cut to the chase.

First, I assert that the housing crash was a bi-partisan effort brewed over several decades … hard to say that it was caused by Bush’s tax policies.

Second, I’ll give Obama that he inherited a mess … and, I’ll start counting from the trough.

Well, well, well.

Turns out that – with the above assumptions — the growth in employment under Bush and Obama (to date) is pretty much equal … at about a 1% compound annual rate.

Hmmm.

On one hand, Obama got handled a financial collapse … not just a garden variety business cycle recession.

On the other hand, Obama continued the Bush tax rates … and he (and the Fed) have expended trillions in fiscal and monetary stimulus.

But, Obama continues to run around saying that the Bush tax rates are the cause of all evil … and eliminating them for the wealthy will get us out of this mess.

Oh, really?

image

 

image

>> Latest Posts

The streak rolls on: BLS under-reports initial unemployment claims … again!

August 10, 2012

I can post this post on auto-generate, I guess …

Now we’re up to 73 out of 74 weeks — and, at least 14 weeks in a row — that the BLS’s “headline number” has under-reported the number of initial unemployment claims … and cast the jobs situation as brighter than it really is.

Based on Thursday’s BLS report, the number for the week ending July 28 was revised upward from 365,000 to 367,000.

In itself, the 2,000 isn’t a big deal.

But, in context it is

Again, I ask: statistical bias or political bias?

If the former: fix it already, BLS.

Hint to BLS: just add 2k or .8% to your prelim forecast !

image

* * * * *

Almost forgot …

The 4-week moving average of initial unemployment claims bumped up 2,250 to 368,250 … suggesting that the corner hasn’t been turned yet.

“Our plan worked” … say, what?

August 7, 2012

A picture is worth a thousand words.

So, here’s a picture.

image

Source: AEI

>> Latest Posts

Were jobs added or lost in July?

August 6, 2012

Basic answer: it depends.

It depends on which BLS survey you look at.

The BLS’ “Establishment Survey” polls businesses and collects data on hiring and firing.

It says that 163,000 jobs were added in July … reversing a recent slide.

The BLS’ “Population Survey” polls people instead of businesses and collects data on whether they’re employed, unemployed, looking for work.

The Population Survey says that 195.000 jobs were lost in July … which is why the unemployment rate increased to 8.3%

Note:

  1. Both surveys are conducted by the BLS
  2. The Establishment Survey – which heavily guesstimates small biz hiring & firing —  is the headline jobs number.
  3. The Population Survey is the basis for the headline unemployment rate
  4. From the lips of the BLS: “Both the payroll and household surveys are needed for a complete picture of the labor market. The payroll survey provides a highly reliable gauge of monthly change in nonfarm payroll employment. The household survey provides a broader picture of employment including agriculture and the self-employed.

* * * * *

image

* * * * *

image

* * * * *

image

>> Latest Posts

The streak rolls on: BLS under-reports initial unemployment claims … again!

August 3, 2012

Now we’re up to 72 out of 73 weeks — and, at least 13 weeks in a row — that the BLS’s “headline number” has under-reported the number of initial unemployment claims … and cast the jobs situation as brighter than it really is.

Based on Thursday’s BLS report, the number for the week ending July 21 was revised upward from 353,000 to 357,000.

In itself, the 4,000 isn’t a big deal.

But, in context it is

Again, I ask: statistical bias or political bias?

If the former: fix it already, BLS.

Hint to BLS: just add 2k or .8% to your prelim forecast !

image

* * * * *

Almost forgot …

Ahead of this morning’s BLS unemployment report, Gallup’s unemployment rate bumped up .2% during July and first time unemployment claims increased last week.

My bet BLS will claim we’re steady at 8.2% … and, further nick their credibility.

image

Errata: last line of chart should be dated 7/28/12 … sorry.

>> Latest Posts

Re: Unemployment … this chart says it all

August 2, 2012

There are a lot of of confusing – and sometimes misleading – numbers thrown around to characterize the state of the employment market.

As we’ve been harping the past several weeks, the BLS has been consistently underreporting the weekly unemployment claims numbers that get headlined on the news – only to revise them up quietly the following week.

Similarly, there are lots of questions about the BLS’ seasonal adjustment factors … which sometimes cause more variance than they explain.

Finally, there’s understandable confusion about the reported unemployment rate and the labor force participation rate.  Since the latter has been going down, the former benefits – i.e. there are fewer unemployed people because some (or many) have left the work force.

The St. Louis Fed published a chart that puts the factors into perspective.

The chart is brilliant in its simplicity.

It simply plots the percentage of the able-bodied population who are employed.  The difference to 100% is the percentage of able bodies that either choose not to work or can’t find jobs.

What it shows: prior to the financial crisis, about 63% of able bodies had jobs.

The rate fell quickly to about 58.5% and has – save for some statistical noise – hasn’t budged despite the trillions of  fiscal and monetary action.

In other words, about 1 in 20 (the difference between 63% and 58.5%) able bodied folks who used to work, aren’t employed now … and the trend isn’t good.

image

>> Latest Posts

Gallup reports unemployment rate increasing … what’ll the BLS say on Friday?

August 1, 2012

Fully expecting that the BLS will manage this week’s jobs and unemployment rate reports, I thought I’d peek at what Gallup is saying.

Well, the Gallup trend is up sharply since mid-July … up to 8.3%

My bet: BLS will find a way to report that the unemployment rate stayed constant at 8.2% in July.

We’ll see …

 

image

>> Latest Posts

Amazing: BLS under-reporting streak continues …

July 27, 2012

Now we’re up to 71 out of 72 weeks — and, at least 12 weeks in a row —  that the BLS’s “headline number” has under-reported the number of initial unemployment claims … and cast the jobs situation as brighter than it really is.

Based on Thursday’s BLS report, the number for the week ending July 14 was revised upward from 386,000 to 388,000.

In itself, the 2k isn’t a big deal.

But, in context it is

Again, I ask: statistical bias or political bias?

If the former: fix it already, BLS.

Hint to BLS: just add 2k or .8% to your prelim forecast !

image

>> Latest Posts

BLS streak shamelessly continues …

July 20, 2012

BLS bias continues

Now we’re up to 70 out of 71 weeks that the BLS’s “headline number” has under-reported the number of initial unemployment claims … and cast the jobs situation as brighter than it really is.

Based on Thursday’s BLS report, the number for the week ending July 7 was revised upward from 350,000 to 352,000.

In itself, the 2k isn’t a big deal.

But, in context it is

Again, I ask: statistical bias or political bias?

If the former: fix it already, BLS.

Hint to BLS: just add 2k or  .8% to your prelim forecast !

image

* * * * * *

Increase in Unemployment Claims

And, don’t miss the big point: initial unemployment claims increased by about 10% to 386,000

I expect Team Obama to whine:

“Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available.”

Safe bet since, as we reported before, that’s exactly what they’ve said each month for over 2 years.

image

>> Latest Posts

The BLS streak continues …

July 16, 2012

No, we didn’t forget … just got busy yesterday.

Now we’re up to 69 out of 70 weeks that the BLS’s  “headline number” has under-reported the number of initial unemployment claims … and cast the jobs situation as brighter than it really is.

Based on Thursday’s BLS report, the number for the week ending June 30 was revised upward from 374,000 to 376,000.

Again, I ask: statistical bias or political bias?

If the former: fix it already, BLS !

image

>> Latest Posts