MAR Fri, Apr 7:+98,000 jobs. Unemployment down to 4.5%...MAR details coming.. Jobs since Trump took office?... Unemp. rate under Trump? (not yet updated)

Monday, October 22, 2012

How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in September 2012?




The following numbers are for September 2012.  For more recent numbers or for numbers for ALL of 2012, please click one of the above links. 


114,000 
new jobs were created in the month of September 2012 BUT job totals from both July and August 2012 were increased, and benchmarks were announced that increased the total number of jobs by 386,000.

NO jobs were lost (net) in the month of September 2012.


The private sector generated 104,000 MORE jobs, but this month the  government sector ADDED 10,000 jobs in September 2012.

873,000 MORE people reported themselves as working in September 2012.

The following chart shows cumulative private job loss and growth from January 2008 until September 2012:












The unemployment rate decreased by three tenths of one percent to 7.8%.   The decrease in the unemployment rate was primarily due to:

  • An increase of 873,000 people who reported themselves as employed in September vs. August.  Read about that HERE and HERE.   
  • An decrease of 368,000 people considered unemployed from August to September.
  • The numbers of people who were laid off from their jobs (vs. who quit or entered/reentered the labor force) declined by almost 400,000 in September

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

How Many Jobs Have Been Created in 2012 To Date? (September Update)


How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in All of 2012?


This report has been updated.  Please click at the link above for updated information.



How many jobs were created in all of 2012 to date, from December 2011 through September 2012?   1,314,000  (1,412,000 with benchmark revisions)

How many private-sector jobs have been created in 2012?   1,306,000  (1,417,000 with benchmark revisions) 

How many more people working in all of 2012 to date, from December 2011 through September 2012?  
2,184,000 


Have jobs been lost (seasonally adjusted numbers) in 2012?  NO.  I'll repeat that:  NO jobs have been lost (NET) in 2012. 

How many jobs (in seasonally adjusted numbers)have been lost in 2012?  NO jobs (NET) have been lost in 2012.  




How Many Jobs Were Created or Lost in All of 2012?


This report has been updated.  Please click at the link above for updated information.


How many more people are working in all of 2012, from December 2011 to September 2012?
  • In seasonally adjusted numbers, 2,184,000 MORE people are employed now vs. December of 2011.  That's 242,700 MORE people employed  each month of 2012 to date.
  • In "raw" unadjusted numbers, 2,652,000 MORE people are employed now vs. December 2011.  That's 295,000 MORE people employed each month of 2012 to date.
 Have jobs or workers been lost in 2012? 
  • In 2012, we have had ONLY NET GAINS in seasonally adjusted total jobs, private sector jobs, and in all measures of workers.  
  • We have had very minor gains in the number of government jobs since December 2011.    
  • To reiterate, in terms of private jobs, we have ONLY JOB GAINS in 2012.  
  • Please understand that people are laid off and people quit every month.  About 1,900,000 people have been laid off every month in 2012.  About 2,100,000 people have quit every month in 2012.  But about 4,200,000 have been hired every month in 2012.  When the number of people hired exceeds the number of "separations" (people who quit or are laid off), the jobs numbers go up.  When the number of people laid off plus the number of people who quit exceed the number of people hired, the jobs numbers go down.  That's what we mean by "NET" job numbers.

(Note:  All of my employment number reports are based on monthly reports and data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Monthly numbers reports are based on the monthly Employment Situation Report.  The Employment Situation report includes month over month and year over year jobs numbers.  My analysis is taken from the monthly BLS data copied to an Excel spreadsheet every month.  I calculate detailed percentage increases/decreases, 3 month numbers, 2011 to date numbers, and I compare jobs numbers to those at the time of Obama's inauguration and at the "trough" of the recession.)




  • In seasonally adjusted numbers, 1,314,000 jobs have been CREATED in 2012.  That's 146,000 jobs ADDED per month in 2012.  (1,412,000 have been created in 2012 with benchmark revisions.  That's 157,000 added per month in 2012 with revisions.)
  • In "raw" unadjusted numbers, 832,000 jobs have been GAINED in 2012.  That's 92,000 jobs GAINED per month in 2012.   (929,000 have been created in 2012 with benchmark revisions.  That's 103,000 added per month in 2012 with revisions.) 
  • In terms of seasonally adjusted total jobs and private-sector jobs, we have ONLY JOB GAINS in 2012, but JOB GAINS are lower in unadjusted nuxxmbers.  This is typical for September as most government workers, primarily in education, who were laid off for the summer have not yet xxreturned to work in SepteAugust.  Generally these jobs are added back in Sepxxtember.

How many private-sector jobs were created in all of 2012, from December 2011 through September 2012?  Have private-sector jobs been created or  lost in 2012?
  • In seasonally adjusted numbers, 1,2xx07,000 private-sector jobs have been CREATED or ADDED in 2012.  That's 15xx1,000 NEW private-sector jobs per month in 2012 as of September 2012.
  • In "raw" unadjusted numbers, 1,7xx17,000 private-sector jobs have been GAINED, CREATED, or ADDED in 2012.  That's 21xx5,000 NEW private-sector jobs per month as of September 2012.

How many government jobs were created in all of 2012, from December 2011 through September 2012?  Have government jobs been created or lost in  2012?
  • In seasonally adjusted numbers, 93,xx000 government jobs have been  LOST in 2012.  That's  12xx,000 government jobs LOST per month in 2012.
  • In "raw" unadjusted numbers, 1,5xx90,000 government jobs have been LOST in 2012.  That's 19xx9,000 government jobs LOST per month in 2012.  
  • Remember that most of the lost government jobs are due to summer layoffs in the education sector. This is typical for August as government workers, primarily in education, are laid off during the summer. 

Unemployment in Ohio Under Obama: Down, Down, Down! (Updated with September Numbers)


October Jobs Numbers Have Been Released:
October 2012 Jobs Reports Summary

When Obama took office in January 2009, the unemployment rate in Ohio was 8.6% while the national average was still only 7.8%.


In September 2012, the latest month for which state numbers are available, Ohio's unemployment rate is now 7.0%, almost a full percentage point lower than the national unemployment rate of 7.8%.  

Ohio's unemployment rate went up to a whopping 10.6% in summer and fall of 2009, higher than the national unemployment rate ever reached, and then  started to come down, as the effect of the auto rescue and the stimulus hit Ohio.  (See the graph below.)

How Many Unemployed People?

When Obama took office, there were already 511,409 unemployed people in Ohio.  That number went up to 628,318 in July 2009, and then it started tumbling down.  Now (as of September), 405,900 people in Ohio are unemployed, the smallest number unemployed since July 2008.










Ohio had the 12th HIGHEST unemployment rate in the nation when Obama took office in January 2009.  Now Ohio has the 20th LOWEST unemployment rate, well into the top half of states, a huge improvement.


More jobs; more manufacturing jobs..

The number of jobs bottomed out in December 2009, and since that time, Ohio has added 186,000 jobs.   Ohio has been losing jobs in manufacturing since the 1980's and early 1990's.  The number of manufacturing jobs bottomed out at the "trough" of the recession, in November 2009, and then it started back up.  48,000 new manufacturing jobs have been added in Ohio since that time.


Friday, October 12, 2012

More About Those Jobs Numbers...

October Jobs Numbers Have Been Released:
October 2012 Jobs Reports Summary


They are still complaining about "cooking the books" in terms of jobs numbers.


The monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs numbers and unemployment report was released a WEEK ago, but we still have miscellaneous pundits out there seeming to imply that someone somehow was "cooking the books" or otherwise miscounting jobs.

If you have just come across this post and this blog, you may need a little background.  I would suggest that you start with my posts on "873,000 More People Employed" and 
"Is the BLS Cooking the Books?"  Hopefully those two posts will explain the controversy.

July and August:  Number of jobs up but number of people working down.

In July and August 2012, the number of workers (or people employed) reported on the Current Population Survey (the survey that reports the employment numbers and the unemployment rate) went down even though the number of jobs reported on the Establishment (jobs) Survey went up.  Miscellaneous pundits back then were complaining that the jobs numbers were too high, as the number of  "people employed" went down.

September:  Number of people working up (a lot), but number of jobs not up as much.

This month the inverse has happened:  Though both numbers, jobs and people employed, went up, the number of people employed went up far more than the number of jobs.  The same chorus of complainers erupted again this month and added the charge of BLS book cooking as the increase in the number of people employed brought the unemployment rate down to 7.8%.    

To add some light to the subject, I plotted three absolute measures (not increases or decreases) of numbers of private employees (seasonally adjusted) since January 2011:  

  • The BLS private sector number of jobs as reported by employers on the "Establishment Survey" conducted by the BLS (with benchmark revisions).  These numbers are represented by the RED line on the graph below.
  • The private sector number of jobs as reported monthly by payroll processor ADP.  These numbers are represented by the BLACK line on the graph below.  ADP is NOT a government entity, unlike either the BLS Establishment report or the BLS Current Population Survey.
  • The number of people who say they are employed by a private, incorporated business on the "household" Current Population Survey report.  (This represents about 77% of the total of "people employed".  The other 23% of workers or "people employed" are self-employed workers, agricultural workers, government workers, household workers and a few other smaller groups.)  These numbers are represented by the BLUE line on the graph below.  This was the survey, the survey of "people employed" that seemed to be so over the top.
Here's the graph (though some of the specific numbers are hard to read):










































A few things to note:  
  • The ADP and BLS Establishment private jobs numbers are fairly even straight lines.  The CPS "private workers/people employed by the private sector" number jumps around quite a bit more.  The CPS uses a smaller survey sample than ADP or BLS and this accounts for its volatility.  It is also self-reported by people answering a set of questions, but that may also increase the volatility.
  • Though all three numbers are different, they tend to be rising at about the same rate over time.
  • An adjustment (an increase) was made to the CPS ("people employed" in the private sector) numbers in January 2012 to account for the results of the 2010 Census.  Some of the large bulge in the January 2012 time frame is the result of this addition of about 216,000 employed people.

Conclusions?
  • The September 2011 to September 2012 difference in numbers are, despite the much larger jump in "people employed" in September 2012, fairly similar for all three measures:  BLS private sector jobs:  +2,082,000.  CPS people employed in the private sector:  +2,192,000.  ADP private jobs:  +2,172,000.
  • The January 2011 to September 2012 differences in numbers are also fairly similar among the three measures:  BLS private sector jobs:  +3,745,000.  CPS "people employed":  +3,373,000.  ADP private jobs:  +3,514,000.   That's a difference of about 17,000 employees a month from the low (CPS number) to the high (BLS number).  I did incorporate the recent BLS jobs benchmark revisions, which boosted the BLS jobs numbers by 453,000 jobs from January 2011 to September 2012.  
  • Looking at the chart and the numbers, what is probably true is NOT that the September job estimates are so off...  but that there was unexpected volatility in the "people employed" numbers in the summer that was corrected by September's survey.
  • Most of this whole hoo haa about jobs numbers is just plain silly.  These numbers aren't perfect because they are based on survey samples, and they were never meant to be regarded as the holy grail of the economy.  They were meant to be an "indicator", but, alas, they have become so much more, and that's just plain-- absurd.          

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Weekly Initial Unemployment Claims Down Significantly (Week of October 6th)


First time unemployment jobless claims decreased by 30,000 for the week ending October 6th.  The four-week moving average # of claims decreased by a significant 11,500.  We have not had initial claims lower than this week's 339,000 since January 2008. 


For the week ending September 22nd, 5,044,649 people were receiving unemployment benefits under one of the programs that are available (regular state, extended benefits, federal extended unemployment compensation, or a few other smaller programs).  This is a decline of about 44,000 continuing claims since the prior week. 

Percent of Unemployed People Receiving Benefits is stable at about 
41.7%.


Extended Benefits claims expire as no states are still eligible for Extended Benefits.  Only 6.6%  of the number of people who were receiving Extended Benefits a year ago are receiving Extended Benefits this week.  


The chart above is one of the BEST charts for understanding and observing changes in the weekly initial claims numbers over time.  This year (red-2012) and the past three years (blue- 2009green- 2010 and black- 2011) are marked in different colors.  You can see that, as a trend, first time claims for unemployment have gone down SIGNIFICANTLY from one year to the next, even though there are variations within the year.  




First time unemployment claims decreased significantly by 30,000 over those reported last week.  Last week's claims were revised upwards by 2,000.  The four-week moving average increased by 11,500.  Initial claims had stayed within a small range for the past two months, but starting three weeks ago and culminating with this report, the best report since 2008, the trend in initial claims has been down.  There have been slight upwards revisions  (2,000 to 3,000) in the numbers of initial claims in most of the weeks of the past four months.  (The chart above shows REVISED claims numbers.)

As usual, to put this into perspective, check out the red line on the chart above to see where jobless claims are now, in autumn of 2012, compared to  autumn of the past three years.

From the current report:
In the week ending October 6, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 339,000, a decrease of 30,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 369,000. The 4-week moving average was 364,000, a decrease of 11,500 from the previous week's revised average of 375,500.
The initial claims as announced last week were 367,000, so the claims from that week were revised upwards by 2,000. 

The chart above is one of the BEST charts for understanding and observing changes in the weekly initial claims numbers over time.  This year (red-2012) and the past three years (blue- 2009green- 2010 and black- 2011) are marked in different colors.  You can see that, as a trend, first time claims for unemployment have gone down SIGNIFICANTLY from one year to the next, even though there are variations within the year.  

Be aware that:

  1. These are first time claims, so people who have continued to receive benefits or who have lost unemployment benefits would not be counted in these numbers.  
  2. They are seasonally adjusted, so most variations caused by weather or holidays are already included in these numbers.  
  3. As these are weekly numbers, they are more volatile than the monthly numbers.
Current Summer Initial Claims Continue to be the Lowest Since 2008; Historical Claims Data Below

As a whole, the current numbers of initial claims continue to be the lowest spring-summer initial claims numbers since 2007, as can be seen on the chart above.  

Average initial claims for this time of year for earlier years include:

  • October 2000:  297,000
  • October 2001:  482,000
  • October 2002:  408,000 
  • October 2003:  378,000
  • October 2004:  334,500
  • October 2005:  360,000 
  • October 2006:  315,000
  • October 2007:  312,000
  • October 2008:  474,000

    Early October 2012 4-week moving average:  364,000 

Continuing regular state claims, from people who are continuing to claim unemployment through the initial 20 to 26 week regular unemployment program, decreased 15,000 for the week ending September 29th after increasing by 7,000 the week before.  3,273,000 people filed continuing regular state claims in the week ending September 29th.  As a whole, continuing regular claims continue to decline despite some individual weekly increases.  (There were 3,680,000 continuing claims a year ago.) 

Total number of people receiving unemployment insurance increased slightly to 41.7% of the officially unemployed for the week ending September 22nd.  

The weekly report also tells us the total number of people who are receiving unemployment benefits.  For the week ending September 22nd, 5,044,609 people were receiving unemployment benefits under one of the programs that are available (regular state, extended benefits, federal extended unemployment compensation, or a few other smaller programs).  This compares with 12,088,000 people who are unemployed according to the monthly September unemployment situation report which was released two weeks ago.  Those numbers, showing that only 41.7% of the officially unemployed are receiving benefits, should make it clear that people do NOT need to be receiving unemployment insurance to be counted among the unemployed.

Extended Benefits (EB) Expire

All states have now "triggered" off of Extended Benefits.

As of the week ending September 22nd, only 35,000 people were still receiving Extended Benefits.  As recently as late April, 350,579 people were receiving Extended Benefits.  A year ago, 535,518 people were receiving Extended Benefits.

In about four months, 89% of the people who were receiving Extended Benefits are no longer receiving such benefits.  We do not know how many of these 315,000 people found jobs, how many have another source of income in the family, and how many have nothing. 

To reiterate, while a decrease in the number of people FILING for initial claims is a good thing and indicates that fewer people are being laid off, a decrease in the TOTAL number of people getting unemployment insurance may only show that fewer people are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

Any questions or confusion, please leave a comment or email me!


Tuesday, October 9, 2012

How Many Jobs Created or Lost Under Obama? (September update)

Fact check on jobs numbers...


The first section of numbers do NOT include the numbers with the benchmark revisions which were announced September 27, 2012.   The benchmark revisions will NOT be included in the official BLS data until January 2013.  The second set of numbers DO include the benchmark revisions.  Benchmark revisions added 386,000 jobs in total and 453,000 private sector jobs.  Information about these revisions can be found HERE.



Numbers for September WITHOUT benchmark revisions:


How many jobs created or lost under Obama?

NO jobs have been lost (net) under Obama.  NONE. See below for detail.
 

How many private sector jobs have been lost or added during Obama's presidency?

Continue below for detail.


Since the "trough" of the recession in late 2009/early 2010:

  • 4,256,000 MORE jobs in total
  • 4,727,000 MORE private sector jobs
  • 5,063,000 MORE people working 
Since Bush left office & Obama took office (January 2009):
  • 61,000 FEWER jobs in total 
But:
  • 514,000 MORE private sector jobs
  • 787,000 MORE people working

Since the stimulus was passed (# as of March 12, 2009): 
  • 1,462,000 MORE jobs in total
  • 2,026,000 MORE private sector jobs
  • 2,220,000 MORE people working

Since the beginning of Obama's first Fiscal Year (October 2009): 
  • 3,766,000 MORE jobs in total
  • 4,199,000 MORE private sector jobs
  • 4,573,000 MORE people working

Have any private jobs been lost (net) over the past 31 months?
NO!
  • 31 months of consecutive private-sector job growth.

Have any jobs been lost (net) over the past 24 months?
NO!
  • 24 months of consecutive over all job growth.


Numbers for September WITH benchmark revisions:

How many jobs created or lost under Obama?
How many private sector jobs have been lost or added during Obama's presidency?

Since the "trough" of the recession in late 2009/early 2010:
  • 4,642,000 MORE jobs in total
  • 5,180,000 MORE private sector jobs
  • 5,063,000 MORE people working 

Since Bush left office & Obama took office (January 2009):
  • 325,000 MORE jobs in total
  • 967,000 MORE private sector jobs
  • 787,000 MORE people working

Since the stimulus was passed (# as of March 12, 2009): 
  • 1,848,000 MORE jobs in total
  • 2,479,000 MORE private sector jobs
  • 2,220,000 MORE people working

Since the beginning of Obama's first Fiscal Year (October 2009): 

  • 4,152,000 MORE jobs in total
  • 4,718,000 MORE private sector jobs
  • 4,573,000 MORE people working

Have any private jobs been lost (net) over the past 31 months?
NO!
  • 31 months of consecutive private-sector job growth.

Have any jobs been lost (net) over the past 24 months?

NO!
  • 24 months of consecutive over all job growth.

(Explanations and detail below.  Keep reading.)





How many jobs have been lost or gained during the Obama administration?  Have more new jobs been created or have more jobs been lost under Obama to date?   

Summary:  

We are in positive territory when we look at total jobs numbers, private jobs numbers, and people working compared to the "trough" of the jobs recession in late 2009/early 2010.

We are also in positive territory when we look at total jobs numbers, private jobs numbers, and people working compared to the start of Obama's first Fiscal Year in office which started October 1, 2009.

 
When we look at the BLS benchmark revisions, we are in positive territory in terms of total jobs numbers, numbers of people working, and private sector jobs, both since Obama took office.  The only negative is the comparison of total jobs since Obama took office in the numbers that have not yet been adjusted for the benchmarks, however, we know we have more jobs than the unrevised numbers show.  It is unfortunate that those numbers are not added to the jobs numbers now instead of in January.   


We are now adding jobs at a fair clip, with an average of 169,000 MORE jobs  total added per month since December 2010 with the revised benchmarked data, and an average of  184,000 MORE jobs added per month in the private sector since December 2010 with the revised benchmarked data.






Here's a summary of data from the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics).  All numbers lost to the "trough" of the recession reflect ALL non-farm jobs lost between the time Obama took office and the lowest point of the recession in late 2009/early 2010.  These numbers DO reflect the new benchmarks:
(Note:  All of the jobs numbers are NET numbers.  In other words, we know that jobs are lost and added every month, in good years and in bad.  The numbers reported here, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers, are "net" numbers; that is, the number of jobs gained after the number of jobs lost is subtracted, or the number of jobs lost after the number of jobs gained is added.)  
Seasonally adjusted:
  • All jobs lost from the time Obama took office to "trough" (bottom of recession): .....4,317,000
  • All jobs gained since "trough": ....4,642,000 (with benchmark revisions)
Net GAIN in seasonally-adjusted jobs since Obama took office: .... 325,000                     

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Did the BLS Really Cook the Books?


October Jobs Numbers Have Been Released:
October 2012 Jobs Reports Summary

How Can the Unemployment Rate Have Decreased .3% When We Added Only 114,000 jobs?  And 873,000 more people are now employed?  But only 114,000 jobs?   Something is fishy...


Well, no.  There's nothing fishy about these numbers, and I'm happy to explain what they do and do not mean...   

1.  First, the jobs numbers come from a completely separate source than the employment/unemployment rate numbers. 

The jobs numbers come from the "Establishment" survey of employers, both private employers and government employers.  This is a sample survey, as real data from every employer in the country would be impossible to produce on a monthly basis.  

The employment/unemployment rate numbers come from a survey of the population, the Current Population Survey or "Household" survey, which is conducted monthly by the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  60,000 households are interviewed monthly and asked questions about the employment/unemployment status of every person in the household.  Data from young people under age 16 are not counted.  This is also a sample survey as it would be impossible to interview every household in the country every month.    

2.  The Current Population Survey counts groups of people that the jobs report (the Establishment Survey) does not count; in particular, agricultural and self-employed workers.  

But the sample survey size of the Current Population Survey is smaller than that of the Establishment Survey, so it is more volatile.  The unemployment rate often does go up and down .2% to .3% of a point and the numbers of employed and unemployed people go up and down as well-- while the jobs numbers tend to go either up, as they have now done for almost three years, or down.  My private jobs graph (see bottom of article) is a nice relatively smooth curve; the unemployment rate graph zig zags.

3.  Over time, these numbers rise and fall in parallel, but they are not equal.  The number of jobs is usually about 93.5% to 94.2% of the number of "people employed". 

When the economy is better, this percentage tends to go up.  I don't know why, but I would speculate that self-employed people, such as consultants, are wooed by employers offering more job security and benefits.  When the economy takes a dive, people who may have a hard time finding work create and work in small micro businesses.  More about this some other time; my point here is that there will be more "employed people" as a whole than jobs.          

4.  Seasonal adjustments.

Ah yes, one of my favorites.  The numbers that we hear bandied about on the news are seasonally adjusted numbers.  If you don't understand the concept, please read HERE.  Some months the seasonal adjustments seem hinky to me.. just a good word.  Not skewed, but just not quite what I would expect.  No, nobody is cooking the books; but there is something about the statistics involved in the seasonal adjustment process that I just don't understand... yet.

In any event, sometimes the jobs numbers are seasonally adjusted up while the numbers of people employed are adjusted down.  And vice verse.  That happened this month.  Often looking at the unadjusted numbers clarifies things.      

5.  Underreporting of jobs data..

We've added 32,000 a month in benchmark revisions through March 2012; there's a good chance that jobs are still being under reported.  More about these revisions HERE.


6.  Calendar variance.

I wrote HERE about the effect of August 12th falling on a Sunday this year and what it meant for the August employment numbers.  I was pretty sure that those jobs numbers would go up this month because they were unrealistically down last month, and I was right.



7.  Teachers coming back?.

Added 10/8/12:  
I left this last night with a discrepancy of about 122,000 employees.  This morning I remembered that government jobs, which had gone down just about every month for two years, had shown an increase in the last couple of months.  I started to look at the changes in the various government sectors; in particular, in the local education (teachers) segment.  

A preliminary look at unadjusted government jobs seems to indicate that we have added back 100,000 to 130,000 jobs at the "Local government:  Education" level.  Again, we will know more with the October numbers.

The "local government:  education" sector usually loses jobs (unadjusted numbers) between May and July and jobs are added back to this sector between August and November.  In September, we still have more job losses than gains in this sector.  In 2010 we were down 670,000 in this sector.  In 2011, 641,000.  But this year we are only down 518,000 jobs in this sector  compared to May.  In  unadjusted "raw" numbers, this is a difference of 120,000 jobs.  In adjusted numbers, there is a difference of 114,000 jobs.  We have 10,000 more jobs in "local government: education" than we did a year ago.  That might not seem like much, but the total of jobs in the "Local government: Education" sector has been lower each September than the previous September for 3 straight years.. until 2012.

However, I think I've already counted these extra teaching jobs in education in looking at jobs without seasonal variations, so I'm not sure that this would count towards filling up the final 120,000 jobs in the discrepancy.    

8.  Comparing spring into fall employment numbers across years:

In "raw" unadjusted numbers of people working, numbers generally start to go up in March, peak in July, go down in August, sometimes go up and sometimes down in September, and then go up firmly in October.  In terms of unadjusted numbers of people working in September compared to March, 2012 is a strong year, the strongest year since 2006.  We are up 1,921,000 in "people employed" in unadjusted numbers since March.  In 2006, we were up 2,238,000 "people employed" in September vs. March.    

My point here is that the increase in the number of employed people is simply not that off the wall when we compare these numbers to those of previous years.      

O.K.... so let's put numbers to some of these factors:  

4.  Seasonal adjustments:  

The number of jobs in seasonally adjusted numbers increased by 114,000.
But in unadjusted "raw" numbers, the number of jobs increased by 574,000.  

But:

The increase in seasonally adjusted numbers of people employed was  873,000.
The increase in unadjusted "raw" numbers of people employed was  775,000.

Well.. right off the bat, 775,000  more people employed in "raw" numbers is a lot closer to 574,000 more jobs in "raw" numbers than 873,000 is to 114,000.

Over time the adjustments to "jobs" vs. "household" numbers even out, but in any one month, they can be.... hinky.  

So now instead of explaining a discrepancy of  761,000 jobs vs. employed people, we are looking at a difference of 201,000 (775,000 people employed minus 574,000 jobs)  in unadjusted numbers. 

2. & 3.  The usual difference between the two reports:

94% of 775,000 is 728,000, which would be the expected increase in the number of jobs in raw unadjusted numbers with an addition of 775,000 employed people.  

We're down to a discrepancy of 154,000 (728,000 expected jobs increase minus 574,000 real jobs increase). 

5. & 6.  Underreporting of jobs data and calendar variance:

Benchmark revisions showed that we have underestimated job growth by 32,000 jobs a month from March 2011 through March 2012.  As we are adding jobs, there is a good chance, a very good chance, that we are still undercounting jobs.  Let's just assume that we are still underestimating jobs by about 32,000.   That would take the discrepancy to around 122,000, which is completely reasonable when we are dealing with a labor force of 155,000,000.  

7.  Hmmm.... Teachers?

As I wrote above, even though it appears we will have more teachers this fall than we have for the past three years, this number will probably not explain the final 120,000 discrepancy.  But it is a reason why may have more jobs and more people employed this September vs. the last couple of years.
 

That's it.  Let me make this clear:   

The purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate how there can be such a discrepancy, a logical but large discrepancy, between the number of jobs and the number of people employed in any one month.  As usual, we'll learn more when we see the data from October and November.

Not that this will convince ANY wingnut conspiracy type.