NOV Fri, Dec 2: +178,000 jobs. Unemployment rate drops to 4.6%.NOV details here!.. Jobs since Obama took office?... Unemp. rate under Obama?

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

How Seasonal Adjustments Affected the Jobs Numbers in July 2012

Seasonal adjustments change the July 2012 job picture.


It's that time of the year again.  We're entering a time of the year in which the "raw" unadjusted numbers of jobs and workers is LESS than the "seasonally adjusted" numbers of jobs and workers.  This is primarily due to jobs in the education sector that disappear or end during the summer.  (Click this link for more explanation and information about seasonal adjustments.)

So here are a few facts and figures:

In July 2012, in "raw" unadjusted numbers, we:
  • LOST 1,204,000 jobs in total.
  • ADDED 27,000 private sector jobs. 
  • LOST 1,204,000 government sector jobs.
  • Of those government sector jobs lost, 1,225,600 were in "local government: Education" 
  • 76,000 FEWER people say they are employed 
These numbers adjusted as below for July 2012:
  • 1,204,000 total jobs LOST seasonally adjusted to 163,000 total jobs ADDED
  • 27,000 private jobs ADDED seasonally adjusted to 172,000 private jobs ADDED
  • 1,231,000 government jobs LOST seasonally adjusted to 9,000 government jobs LOST
  • 1,225,600 "Local government education" jobs lost seasonally adjusted to 7,000 local government education jobs lost
  • 76,000 fewer people employed adjusted to 195,000 FEWER people employed 
So... does this mean that jobs/employment picture is worse than the BLS numbers seem to portray?

Actually, the jobs/employment picture for July MAY be BETTER than the BLS numbers portray as you can see from the chart below.  



Even though numbers are seasonally adjusted, it is always a good idea to compare year over year numbers, both adjusted and unadjusted year over year numbers, before jumping to any conclusions.



Here's how the private and government jobs numbers look for the month of  July since 2000:











































The red bars represent the huge annual decrease in government jobs, almost all of which represent a decline in "Local Government Education".  This year's decrease in government jobs is lower than it has been in the prior two years.  The blue bars represent the decrease or increase in private sector jobs which is usually a decline or a minor increase in July.  The green and black bars represent the adjusted numbers.

Notice that we had only one year with "real" unadjusted private sector job growth in July from 2000 until 2009, and that was 2005 with only an addition of 5,000 private sector jobs.  This July has been the second best July for private sector job growth in 12 years in unadjusted "real" numbers.


In terms of adjustments, notice that the additional 5,000 private sector jobs in 2005 "adjusted" to an increase of  280,000 private sector jobs.  This year, the additional 27,000 private sector jobs only "adjusted" to 172,000 new private sector jobs.  I do see some of these discrepancies whenever I compare adjusted and unadjusted numbers, and I really don't understand why these adjustments can be so different from one year to the next.  If the adjustment this year has been along the lines of the adjustment in 2005, we would be celebrating 300,000 new jobs instead of complaining about "only" 172,000.

13 comments:

  1. Unemployment went UP in July, just as it did every month this year since APRIL. There are NO NET JOBS being created. The 160,000 jobs supposedly 'created' in July were LESS THAN the number LOST due to people LOSING JOBS or QUITTING THE WORKFORCE. That's why unemployment ROSE from JUNE to JULY. On top of that, NONE of this data takes into account the number of people who just plain GAVE UP looking for work (the U-6 numbers), which would show unemployment at levels greater than 15%. All this other 'presentation' of data that you do where you are twisting yourself into pretzels trying to somehow make something POSITIVE out of HORRIBLE jobs numbers is an interesting exercise in die-hard support for this pathetic president and liberal policies and spending that has done ZILCH to get our uneployment EVEN BELOW 8 for 40+ months (which is why I link here all the time). You do realize that unemployment is going UP now 4 months in a row, right? THERE IS NO NET NEW JOBS BEING CREATED.

    http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/us/

    http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/us/

    The funny thing is that even at this point nearly 4 years into this presidency, you can FACTUALLY state that Romney created MORE NET JOBS with the relatively few millions of dollars at his time as CEO at Bain capital than OBAMA did spending a TRILLION DOLLARS and their other 'policies'. In fact I think he added something like 40,000 jobs while governor of Massachusetts..

    http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/03/news/economy/obama-jobs/index.htm

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303292204577519293959381060.html

    http://thehill.com/video/campaign/228617-fehrnstrom-says-romney-created-well-in-excess-of-100000-jobs-at-bain

    good day 'Mollie'

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also, since you provide not much context, the SEASONALLY ADJUSTED UNEMPLOYMENT ROSE for JULY when compared to JUNE as well, and not only that, the 'seasonally adjusted' unemployment typically criss-crosses with 'unadjusted' over the course of a year and thusly in the end it's about a wash. Note that in 1/2 of the months the seasonally adjusted numbers were WORSE.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/156404/Unadjusted-Unemployment-Rate-Increases-July.aspx

    Also some more information about why some people post seasonally adjusted unemployment.

    http://www.bls.gov/cps/seasfaq.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_adjustment

    http://www.hoosierdata.in.gov/nav.asp?id=219

    good day

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Unemployment went UP in July, just as it did every month this year since APRIL. There are NO NET JOBS being created. The 160,000 jobs supposedly 'created' in July were LESS THAN the number LOST due to people LOSING JOBS or QUITTING THE WORKFORCE."

    Let me ask you one simple question: If we have 141,865,000 jobs in April and we have 142,220,000 now, did the number of jobs go up or down? Is 142,220,000 more or less than 141,865,000?

    The employment/unemployment situation is ALWAYS complicated. That's why I can write so many posts about various issues in counting jobs and the employed/unemployed. I would suggest that you spend some time at the BLS website and that you read more here, as I explain many of these things over and over and over again.

    I'm not really sure I should spend any time reiterating basics that you should be able to find here or at the BLS site for yourself. I've included links throughout my various posts so that you can investigate the BLS data and methodology for yourself.

    Because I am a patient person, I will repeat that the number of jobs and the number of employed come from two different sources. Over time the two numbers are similar. However, in any period of a month or two, there can be differences.

    The number of employed includes people who work in agriculture, people who are self-employed, and a few other smaller groups. As a result, the number of jobs is usually about 92-94% of the number of people who are employed.

    The number of jobs has gone up by 314,000 since April. The number of people employed, which is more variable, has gone up by 355,000 since April. These numbers are very much in synch. Since April, the civilian labor force has increased by 648,000 as people enter or re-enter the labor force. Therefore the number of people who are unemployed has gone up by 294,000 people. (648,000 minus 355,000 equals 294,000.)

    It is very possible to have the unemployment rate stay the same or rise while the number of jobs continues to rise. This would be due to people entering or re-entering the labor force.

    Let me make that clear: The unemployment rate has gone up from April to July NOT because we have fewer jobs or fewer people employed, but because we have MORE people in the labor force. In particular, we have about 300,000 more people who are on temporary layoff, while all other reasons for unemployment have decreased.

    I have written about that HERE .

    I am done dealing with your nonsense. You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about; you don't want to listen; you ignore what I post that contradicts your reality, and you seem unable to understand what is being presented in these articles. You believe what you believe and numerical comprehension seems to elude you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Did you bother to read this post at all or to read the post I link to which discusses seasonal adjustments?

    I write, and I quote: "Click this link for explanation and information about seasonal adjustments."

    I also include an article
    HERE which discusses the Gallup numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. MOLLY ASKS: Let me ask you one simple question: If we have 141,865,000 jobs in April and we have 142,220,000 now, did the number of jobs go up or down? Is 142,220,000 more or less than 141,865,000?

    REALITY RESPONDS: if you earned $120,000 last month but spent $130,000 how much money do you have now? Silly Molly.. the unemployment rate went UP. How can UNEMPLOYMENT GO UP if the number of NET JOBS also goes up? you can't have HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT numbers if NET JOBS is increasing. You don't take into consideration that 195,000 jobs were LOST in JULY. You see how it works? There are 165,000 NEW jobs but there wer 195,000 jobs LOST. a net LOSS of jobs is why unemployment went from 8.2% in JUNE to 8.3% in JULY. See how it works silly molly? Any calculation that somehow has UNEMPLOYMENT GOING UP while JOBS IS GOING UP is complete BS, how can the two BOTH RISE and WHY WOULD THEY LOGICALLY DO SO? None of this matters ANYWAYS, when new jobs created is SO FREAKING LOW to be laughable.


    MOLLY SAYS: I'm not really sure I should spend any time reiterating basics that you should be able to find here or at the BLS site for yourself. I've included links throughout my various posts so that you can investigate the BLS data and methodology for yourself.


    REALITY RESPONDS: and yet you leave out important things like the NUMBER OF JOBS LOST. Isn't that an important BLS number? OOPS! It's right here silly molly..

    http://www.bls.gov/cps/


    MOLLY SAYS: Let me make that clear: The unemployment rate has gone up from April to July NOT because we have fewer jobs or fewer people employed, but because we have MORE people in the labor force. In particular, we have about 300,000 more people who are on temporary layoff, while all other reasons for unemployment have decreased.


    REALITY SAYS: Wow.. then you really are confused about what the BLS numbers state clearly. PEOPLE ARE LEAVING THE WORKFORCE FOR MANY REASONS.. SOME DIE, SOME ARE LAID OFF, WHATEVER. SOME JUST GAVE UP LOOKING. 165,000 'new jobs' created in one month is pathetic, and is NOWHERE NEAR 'recovery' numbers.


    MOLLY SAYS: I am done dealing with your nonsense. You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about; you don't want to listen; you ignore what I post that contradicts your reality, and you seem unable to understand what is being presented in these articles. You believe what you believe and numerical comprehension seems to elude you.

    REALITY SAYS: say what you will. it's YOUR site. Unemployment numbers are also affected by people that just GAVE UP LOOKING FOR WORK. If you take THOSE numbers (U-6 numbers) then the unemployment rate is even WORSE, probably over 15%. The bottom line is that 195,000 people LEFT the workforce in July and only 165,000 came into it. Unemployment rose for the 4th month straight. There is NO NET JOBS BEING CREATED. Go argue with the BLS people, it's RIGHT THERE IN THEIR REPORT.

    BLS REPORT: (http://www.bls.gov/cps/)

    Change in Employment Level:
    -195,000 in Jul 2012

    FURTHER.. there is still LESS JOBS than when Obama was elected, although he might 'break even' by the time November gets here. I challenge you to leave this in place and let OTHERS read and decide for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 86 Share on print Share on email


    Don’t fire me, Obama says: ‘We’ve got too many jobs to create’

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/dont-fire-me-obama-says-weve-got-too-many-jobs-to-create/article/2504477#.UCQNhdnN2Pg

    President Obama urged Colorado voters to support him today by citing, among others, the very reason that he remains a vulnerable incumbent.

    “[W]e’ve come too far to turn back now,” Obama said in Pueblo, Colo. “We’ve got too much more work to do. We’ve got too many good jobs we’ve got to create. We’ve got too many teachers we still need to hire. We’ve got too many schools we need to rebuild.” He also emphasized his belief in the renewable energy industry in Colorado, the need to support college students, and to disengage the military from foreign conflicts.

    If Obama had fewer jobs still in need of creating, he might not have to fight so hard to keep his own. The national unemployment rate rose to 8.3 percent last month — the second time it has increased this year — as it remained above 8 percent nationally for the 42nd straight month.

    ..................

    Can't make this stuff up.. lol..

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear coward afraid to identify yourself, i.e. Reality, Anonymous, Reality Responds. Having just run across this blog, it seems that the host provides a well researched, clearly written, well documented picture of the employment situation in this country backed up by a myriad of properly interpreted references. You just as clearly do not give them any credence, don't appear to understand the information provided, or even make an attempt to do so. And insults like "silly Molly" are invariably the Hallmark of closed, and small minds. Don't bother to attempt your insulting crap with me. This is not my site, I am not a regular reader, and I do not engage in debate which is not debate, but an attempt to waste the time of people honestly trying to get a hold on the employment situation that we might do something about it. I also give no credence to the opinions of those who hide behind the cloak of anonymity. My name is Paul R. Laubhan. Would you like my address?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, by the way. I think her graphs are really pretty!

    ReplyDelete
  9. the host is a liberal. plain and simple. a quick glance of her articles and you can see that she is in the tank for obama. apparently the suckfest of an economy and the last 4 years have just been 'peachy' for her (and apparently for you too 'Paul'). This site is just another site like many that try to put roses on top of a pile of crap. her charts and her liberal talking points don't give ANY solutions, and her support for the CURRENT ADMINISTRATION'S handling of the economy the last 4 years shows that she has NO IDEA how to fix things, because there has literally been ZERO IMPROVEMENT and in fact WORSENING of most economic indicators.

    I am on here to provide context and an opposing view and a big dose of REALITY to complement the 'pretty charts' and 'liberal spin' on the bleak and horrific jobs numbers. Whether you choose to 'agree' or open your mind to it is up to you. To say that nobody is giving any ideas on how to FIX the economy is just plain STUPID and IGNORANT. the problem is that the actual FIXING of the economy can't occur until the PEOPLE WHO ARE KEEPING THIS RECESSION GOING are REMOVED and the people who will UNLEASH THE ECONOMY are brought in. Unfortunately alot of people like 'MOLLY' still think OBAMA is some sort of economic savior, although the data they provide ON THEIR OWN SITES shows just how bad it is...

    OBAMA can't create jobs and government cannot create jobs. the PRIVATE SECTOR creates jobs and increases the economic engine. Until we have leadership and congress willing to accept that again and get government out of the way and start reigning in the uncontrollable spending then NOTHING IS GOING TO GET BETTER. thank god that we have elections to get rid of failed leaders and failed policies.

    i give mollie 'credit' for leaving my posts in place.

    have a good day 'paul'.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1. My name is Paul, not 'Paul'. I suppose you have chosen to address me in this fashion in some snide attempt to imply that this is not actually my name. I have included my web page address, on which I advocate for Veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States, being one myself. The Viet Nam War, if that fact interests you.
    2. My closing words to you were that I choose not to debate those who do not wish to debate, but waste the time of those who do and insult them if they do not agree with you, which is still the Hallmark of small and closed minds.
    3. I note that you have still not provided your name, remaining the faceless coward I addressed a couple of days ago. I told you then, as I am telling you now, I have had exactly one more conversation with you than I normally have with idiots, and bid you...good-bye.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear Coward,

    Click on my name, Paul R. Laubhan, to access my web page, which is entitled Veterans, you retain the honor of saluting our Flag, National Anthem, and while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

    www.facebook.com/vetsyoucansalute

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dear friends of Molly. If you're out there' and I have no idea what her following is like, she could use your support in defusing this anonymous coward of a troll who is occupying, seemingly, 100% OF HER TIME. She wishes only to engage in intelligent discussion of economic and employment issues facing our country without having to explain herself constantly to this moron who comes here only to prevent anyone else from doing so. I'm new to all this blogging and the like, but it seems to me that Molly has a small following of dedicated fans or participants or whatever. Please assist her in giving this guy to waste her time insulting one who it appears to me is just trying to learn and pass on what she has learned as honestly as she possibly can. Thank you for your time.

    ReplyDelete

I appreciate intelligent comments and questions, including those that are at odds with anything posted here. I have elected not to screen comments before they are published; however, any comments that are in any way insulting, caustic, or intentionally inflammatory will be deleted without notice. Spam will also be immediately deleted.