Tag Archives: Unemployment statistics

Newsflash From The December ‘Jobs’ Report—–The US Economy Is Dead In The Water, by David Stockman

From David Stockman at davidstockmanscontracorner.com:

Here’s a newsflash that CNBC didn’t mention. According to the BLS, the US economy generated a miniscule 11,000 jobs in the month of December.

Yet notwithstanding the fact that almost nobody works outdoors any more, the BLS fiction writers added 281,000 to their headline number to cover the “seasonal adjustment.” This is done on the apparent truism that December is generally colder than November and that workers get holiday vacations.

Of course, this December was much warmer, not colder, than average. And that’s not the only deviation from normal seasonal trends.

The Christmas selling season this year, for example, was absolutely not comparable to the ghosts of Christmas past. Bricks and mortar retail is in turmoil and in secular decline due to Amazon and its e-commerce ilk, and this trend is accelerating by the year.

So too, energy and export based sectors have been thrown for a loop in the last few months by a surging dollar and collapsing commodity prices. Likewise, construction activity has been so weak in this cycle—-and for the good reason that both commercial and residential stock is vastly overbuilt owing to two decades of cheap credit—–that its not remotely comparable to historic patterns.

Never mind. The BLS always adds the same big dollop of jobs to the December establishment survey come hell or high water. In fact, the seasonal adjustment has averaged 320,000 for the last 12 years!

For crying out loud, folks, every December is different—–and not just because of the vagaries of the weather. Capitalism is about incessant change and reallocation of economic activity and resources. And now the globalized ebbs and flows of economic activity have only accentuated the rate and intensity of these adjustments.

Yet the statistical wizards at the BLS think they can approximate a seasonal adjustment factor for December that at +/- 300k amounts to just 0.2% of the currently reported 144.2 million establishment survey jobs, and an even smaller fraction of the potential adult work force which is at least 165 million.

But that’s a pretentious stab in the dark. The December seasonal adjustment (SA) could just as easily be 0.3% of the job base or 0.1%, depending upon the specific point in the business cycle and structural trends roiling the economy.

Indeed, these brackets alone would vary the headline SA number by 150k to 450k. The fact that the seasonal adjustment factor for December has oscillated tightly around 300,000 for the last 12 years proves only one thing—–namely, that the bureaucrats at the BLS have chosen to invent the same guesstimate year after year; its not science, its political fiction.

The fact is, the seasonal adjustment factors are about the closest thing there is to pure noise among all the dubious “incoming” data that the Fed and Wall Street obsess over.

To continue reading: The US Economy Is Dead In The Water

Amazing Math from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, by Chris Hamilton

From Chris Hamilton, at econimica.blogspot.com:

According to the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics release, the UE (unemployment) rate fell to 5.5% as of February. The last time the UE rate was this low was May of 2008.

What I’m fascinated by is the fact that the US population grew from February 2008 to February 2015 by 16.8 million persons, or a 5.5% increase in total population, and on a net basis, not a single one of those 16.8 million persons got a FT (full time) job…while a net 2.7 million were lucky enough to get a (or multiple) PT (part time) job.

This means that 14.3 million persons, or 4.4% of the current US population, were added without a single job among them (chart below). This makes for fascinating math when a 4.4% increase of the total US population without jobs can nearly halve the UE rate down to 5.5%, equal to 2008’s UE rates?!?

http://econimica.blogspot.com/2015/03/amazing-math-from-bureau-of-labor.html

To continue reading: Amazing Math

See also “He Said That? 3/7/15

He Said That? 3/7/15

From Daniel Quinn Mills, a professor of business administration at Harvard University, in a Wall Street Journal article, “Seasonally Adjusted Jobs Numbers Offer Cold Comfort,” 3/6/15:

The U.S. economy lost more than 2.7 million jobs between the middle of December and the middle of January, but the big news from the January jobs report was that the economy added 275,000 jobs during the same period.

Why the discrepancy? The Bureau of Labor Statistics touts “seasonally-adjusted” figures, which attempt to measure how recurring seasonal events affect employment. The raw figures are available to researchers, but the adjusted figures are the priority in public announcements.

Yet reporting a statistically adjusted figure as if it were original data is a mistake, and a significant distortion of reality that only adds to public distrust of the government and the media. People know that jobs were scarcer in January than in February, even if the government told them the opposite.

Seasonally adjusted figures also contribute to less effective policy-making.The Labor Department reported on Feb 26 that applications for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose to a six-week high. This would not have been a surprise if observers had paid attention to the drop in unemployment between December and January.

Mr. Mills then makes a persuasive case that the present seasonal adjustment process overstates employment, because they date from a time when there was  significant diminution in manufacturing during the winter months. Manufacturing is now much less a part of the economy, and services do not have the same winter diminution.

What is most important here is that the a Harvard professor took notice of a rather obvious flaw in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) model, and he did so in The Wall Street Journal. The seasonal adjustment flaw has been well-known for years to the tiny subset of bloggers who make economics and finance their domain (see SLL and its blog roll, and Zero Hedge—undoubtedly the leader—and its blog roll). They also know the shortcomings of the birth-death adjustment, whereby the BLS assumes that new businesses create a certain number of jobs each month. That statistic is especially problematic now, when more small businesses are closing than opening. The bloggers are the ones who highlight each month the drop in the labor force participation rate, due to unemployment people who simply give up and often go on government-provided relief. Such people are obviously unemployed, but since they are no longer looking for work, they are not considered unemployed, flattering the unemployment rate. Often, the bloggers’ accusations of error are borne out months after the original BLS release, when statistics and benchmarks are revised.

It is perhaps not surprising that most of the MSM accepts the unemployment numbers (and other statistics) at face value. It’s hard work and requires some expertise to dope out  government statistics. What is surprising is how many people, including fund managers and others who are responsible for investing large sums of money, also ignore the underlying issues, and base crucial investment decisions on flawed statistics. Thus SLL’s excitement over a Harvard prof publishing a critique in the WSJ. It’s tempting to say if someone is taking on government statistics and the media hordes who dutifully report them without question, some progress is being made, but SLL is certainly not expecting miracles. After all, there has been story after story wondering why, with all that “job growth”, consumers don’t seem to be opening their wallets and purses. The best answer comes from Mr. Mills: there has been no spending because there has been no job growth.

A final point: the Fed is being hoisted on this petard. It almost has to raise its federal funds target this summer because of the “strong” jobs numbers. It cannot very well disparage the government’s own figures, even though it is becoming an open secret that those numbers are wrongly calculated and lead to erreneous conclusions about the economy. The rest of us get to enjoy the irony.