Pages

Friday, June 2, 2017

Interesting job numbers?

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/01/adp-private-sector-payrolls-may-2017.html
Job creation surged in May thanks to a jump in construction positions and a boom in professional and business services, according to a report Thursday from ADP and Moody's Analytics. Private payrolls increased by 253,000, well ahead of expectations. Economists surveyed by Reuters expected the report to show that private payrolls grew by 185,000 in May from 174,000 in April.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/02/nonfarm-payrolls-may-2017.html
Job creation fell sharply in May with just 138,000 new positions created, while the unemployment rate declined to 4.3 percent, according to Labor Department data released Friday. Economists surveyed by Reuters expected nonfarm payrolls to grow by 185,000 and the unemployment rate to hold steady at 4.4 percent.



So how do you get one report showing that nearly 70K more jobs were created than expected, and then another report showing that there was nearly 50K less jobs? I can understand some variance in how these numbers are reported, but to see a difference of 115K for one month?

There was also a substantial difference in March, as ADP/Moody's found that 255K new jobs were created, while the Labor Dept found only 50K. That's a staggering difference. Especially considering that the methodology in gathering the surveys is very similar.

15 comments:

wphamilton said...

The BLS includes government government payroll while the ADP survey's only private sector.

The BLS is revised twice, to include late responses. The initial estimate is based on ~70% of the total survey data.

So the discrepancy may be due to fewer people employed by the government. And it may also be that later responses to the Bureau of Labor will show greater job gains.

opie said...

Of course they are interesting to a trump cheerleader like yourself. And naturally, it is all credited to the donnie for bringing the employment rate to a 16 year low. Congratulations are certainly in order for the bias you exhibit and all those coal jobs, carrier jobs intel factory jobs that helped reduce the rate!!!! In the mean time, the world is laughing at the US as trump leads us from behind.

wphamilton said...

Lower unemployment in March primarily due to shrinking labor force participation rate. ie, discouraged job-seekers dropping out of the search for jobs. Either report shows a pretty anemic jobs situation, with one worse than the other.

James said...

It is my understanding that experts are saying that "no way" will we attain the 3% growth target that Trump is promising.

C.H. Truth said...

Lower unemployment in March primarily due to shrinking labor force participation rate. ie, discouraged job-seekers dropping out of the search for jobs

I think at 4.3% unemployment we are pretty close to what is referred to as full employment. So it's unlikely that we have a lot of discouraged workers anymore.

We are starting to see your baby boomer population retire (the oldest are about 70 right now - 67 is now the retirement age).

Most people believe this will bring down the unemployment rate (we may actually get to the point over the next few years where more people are retiring than entering the workforce - thus reducing the actual need for more jobs).

James said...

When will we hit 3% growth, Ch?

C.H. Truth said...

The BLS includes government government payroll while the ADP survey's only private sector.

If that is the case (and I am sure you are correct) then it suggests that we have dropped well over 300K government employees just over the past three-four months. Long term, the move from public to private sector would be good for our economy and definitely good for our deficit.

C.H. Truth said...

When will we hit 3% growth, Ch?

How about second quarter?

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZqT5ABxCG-0/WTGVIDLHlPI/AAAAAAAAJLc/G-sKOtfz_H4TOAT1yUVAfv57uSqPpvbrQCLcB/s1600/gdpnow-forecast-evolution.gif

James said...

Wonderful. Now respond to this:

White House Tells Agencies to Ignore Democrats

The White House is telling federal agencies to blow off Democratic lawmakers’ oversight requests, as Republicans fear the information could be weaponized against President Trump,” Politico reports.

“At meetings with top officials for various government departments this spring, Uttam Dhillon, a White House lawyer, told agencies not to cooperate with such requests from Democrats.

“It appears to be a formalization of a practice that had already taken hold, as Democrats have complained that their oversight letters requesting information from agencies have gone unanswered since January, and the Trump administration has not yet explained the rationale.”
_________________

Here's their rationale: We have a President who wants to run this country the way Putin runs Russia.

C.H. Truth said...

How about business as usual, James?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-deflects-house-oversight-committees-request-documents/story?id=47646196

C.H. Truth said...

Hard to take congressional inquiries seriously when you have special counsel investigations going on.

wphamilton said...

I concur, maybe not taking congressional inquiries less seriously but they're now in the context of the special investigation so you'd have to tread lightly avoiding disclosing something that might interfere with a line of inquiry, and not inadvertently adding fuel to the fire, so you don't want to cooperate easily if a congressional request is political grandstanding. Which it sometimes is, either party.

I wouldn't bluntly ignore everything from one party though. Not as an overt policy at least.

opie said...

Even more interesting numbers for our esteemed host who thinks his health care costs will decline under trump. Seems Jowls McConnell feels that the free health care people get while employed, should pay taxes as if that was income. Gotta love how elections have consequences as you sit back an burp up cheeto's and cheer all these things that will cost you in the end. I'm enjoying your squirming, CH. It's fun to see how far you will go to defend the idiot in chief. lOLOLOL

wphamilton said...

Those of us paying "imputed income" are already taxed for health care. It probably goes up under Trump's DontCare plan.

opie said...

It probably goes up under Trump's DontCare plan.

Probably correct since I would guess the imputed income is probably understated a bit and would have to be more accurate under donnie care. Isn't the R plan a great leap forward for us menial workers. LOLOL