AUG#: +130,000 jobs.

Unemployment up at 3.7%...AUG jobs under Trump HERE

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Private & Government Jobs Lost and Gained Month by Month in 2011

How many jobs, total, private, and government have been gained (created) or lost month by month in 2011?

(Numbers of jobs in thousands, jobs lost/gained as stated.)

Month   Total Jobs  Jobs lost/gained   Private Jobs  Prvt Jobs lost/gained    Gov't Jobs  Govt Jobs lost/gained  
Jan. 130,328+68,000108,102+94,00022,226-26,000
Feb.130,563+235,000108,363 +261,00022,200-26,000
March130,757+194,000108,582 +219,00022,175-25,000
April130,974+217,000108,823 +241,00022,151-24,000
May130,999+25,000108,896 +73,00022,103-48,000
June131,047+48,000108,997 +101,00022,050-53,000
July131,174+127,000109,170 +173,00022,004-46,000
August131,278+104,000109,242 +72,00022,036+32,000

The numbers above represent the latest revisions, which often differ from the preliminary numbers announced by the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) on the first Friday of a given month.  (* - Revisions since the last month's numbers). 

A total of 1,640,000 jobs have been ADDED/CREATED in 2011.  That is an average of 137,000 new jobs per month this year.  

1,920,000 jobs have been ADDED in the private sector in 2011; that is an average of 160,000 new private-sector jobs per month this year.

280,000 jobs have been LOST in the government sector in 2011; that is an average of 23,000 government sector jobs lost per month this year. 

Other jobs reports HERE!!

(Note:  All of my employment number reports are based on monthly reports and data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  States numbers reports are based on the monthly Regional and State Employment/Unemployment Survey .  The BLS reports include month over month and year over year numbers of state job 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 rank the states according to various metrics.)


  1. It seems that many of your numbers are incorrect Molly. November was revised down for a second time to 100k.

    I suspect much of your data is flawed to some extent.

    Another issue you did not address as did none of the progressive liberal media did, is that 43k of the 200k were courer jobs, mostly from FedEx and UPS strictly for the Holiday. These are temp jobs.

    Come next month, Dec will revised down...again. As the data has been for many months.

    The real headline U3 rate is 11.3%, NOT the purported and manipulated 8.5%. U6 is above 22%.

    Your obvious pro-democrat slant comes through in all of your posts, which kind of dilutes your pov, but more importantly, your credibility to report unbiased numbers.

    Perhaps you could rethink your bias and try to be more independent. Thanks.

  2. Hi Pegroup.. I'm sorry to say but you know very little about labor statistics. Let's take these things one at a time. First of all, if you believe that my data is flawed, are you also saying that all of the work of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from which I get my numbers, is also flawed?
    Secondly, my 2011 figures clearly show the revision for November 2011. Where is your source that November was revised for a "second time"? But October was revised up for a "second time". Somehow you neglect to mention that.

    More tomorrow....

  3. Ah, nice deflection Molly. But I happen to be fairly knowledgeable about statistics, numeration and economics. I've been at it for over 10 years now working for banks, lenders and private clients.

    Yes, in fact the BLS data is somewhat flawed and often unreliable. Month after month, year after year the BLS revises their data from a few percent to over a hundred percent in some cases.

    The fact that you seemingly believe whole-heartedly in government data, reveals a bit of naivety on your part in the research and information realm.

    I did not question Octobers revision. I pointed out that Novembers data was revised twice from 125k, to 120k to 100k.
    The (P)number for Oct is 100k,
    so far.

    I also hope you do not buy into the manipulated U3 rate of 8.5%, because if you do, it would point to the fact that you may have a lack of understanding about labor statistics and how the metrics are manipulated. The real U3 rate is approx., 11.3%.

    If you want to be taken seriously and more than just a politically biased blogger, it is imperative you perform due diligence on your research and facts.

    Most of your work is decent, but your verification of what you write is somewhat lacking in reliability.

    I'm guessing you do not seek any other data sources besides the BLS? That is a major problem Molly. Relying solely on government data is not exactly the path to credible researching.

    You have to expect that will you receive negative feedback in your comments when you write about such high-profile topics such as unemployment.

    I understand that you put a lot of time and effort into your blog. I can understand you are passionate about it as well.

    But, just reciting what the BLS say's is not really providing anything of real value to the public. You need to uncover the facts. And the there are plenty of facts missing from the BLS's reports.

  4. I'd also like to point out that Octobers data was revised upward as you correctly stated Molly.

    I have no problem with correcting my own comments and data, when there is proof and verification.

    "The BLS revised supposed gains in nonfarm payrolls for November to 100,000 from 120,000 and up to 112,000 from 100,000 previously reported for October." - Housing Wire

  5. I would say to you, read up on some other very well respected economists and what they have to say about the BLS and their reports.

    Robert Shiller, Roubini and John Williams for starters.

    Here is Shillers blog- good insight.

  6. More tomorrow, but, first, I'm supposed to trust somebody who can't even spell "skeptical"? Everybody makes typos, but in the name of your blog? In any event, if you spent any time reading through my articles, you would also see that I do publish an alternate unemployment numbers, which correlates with that published by a few other groups of people. (I came up with mine independently and discovered the correlation after several months.) My alternate unemployment index is 17.2% now. But all components are going down. More tomorrow..

  7. "I did not question Octobers revision. I pointed out that Novembers data was revised twice from 125k, to 120k to 100k.
    The (P)number for Oct is 100k,
    so far." I'm not sure what you are getting at. Right now September 2011's number is 131,488,000. October 2011's number is 131,600,000. That's an increase of 112,000, and it is no longer considered preliminary. Originally it was published as 131,516,000, an increase of 80,000 over September's 131,436,000. I'm not sure what your point is about the October jobs number.

    Also, is (are) pegroup, Geo, and GEO/PE the same person? I just want to know if I am talking to one person here or many.

  8. "The fact that you seemingly believe whole-heartedly in government data, reveals a bit of naivety on your part in the research and information realm." We have BLS data, and BLS data shows us what BLS data shows us. It is useful for comparison, but it doesn't show us the whole employment picture. We can't count every person and every company in this country, so we are going to have to struggle with data that is constantly improved, but never perfect.

  9. John Williams' Shadow Stat apparently hides his statistics behind a pay-to-view wall. He apparently also believes that people who claim they don't want a job really do want a job and should be considered as unemployed. I can't buy that, no matter what credentials he might have. If people say "No, I don't want a job", then they don't want a job.

  10. Yes, Geo/PE is the same person- me, Geo.

    Molly, first of all,

    is Robert Shiller's blog, and it is intentionally spelled that way. Questioning a man like Shiller is silly. Look at his
    Bio please. he really is a very intelligent economist.

    While it is all fine and good that you publish the alternative data, you give the perception that the BLS's numbers are unequivocally correct- when
    they are not.

    We know that the U3 rate is NOT 8.5%, yet that is what you push along with the BLS.

    My big point of contention is that the public are mostly unaware of the true numbers.
    And most people will only a read a paragraph or two in the news or on a blog. It's only people like us that delve deep into these subjects and topics.

    So, if in the first paragraph, you have manipulated figures, that is what most people will see and believe. I'm saying that the perception you create is not credible, ala the BLS.

    Do you really trust the government?
    I know you say on your site that you are fed up with all politicians, well it's not just politicians who lie and deceive.
    That is what I am driving at.

    You say the rates are going down.
    But in reality it is more people dropping out and expiring their 99 weeks that are NO longer counted in the calculations.

    Long term UE is at 41 weeks, (again, not a complete picture- as this number is likely higher) which is staggering. 43% of all unemployed are LT. Those two metrics alone tell you that the labor market is worsening, not improving.

  11. I still haven't replied to all of your questions and comments. I will get back to those. I have read most of the technical notes of the various BLS reports, and I know that BLS numbers are not unequivocally correct; however, they are the best we have.

    The U-3 number measures the U-3 number.. that is what the BLS says it is. Is that the actual number of people who are out of work and desperately searching for a job? It's a good estimate. It's based on samples from a population of 60,000 households and is manipulated statistically. But it can be used to compare numbers month to month, year to year, and country to country.

    You do realize that whether or not a person is or isn't getting unemployment insurance has nothing to do with whether or not they are counted as unemployed. That data comes from two completely different reports. Someone who has exhausted their unemployment benefits is still counted as unemployed if they have actively looked for work inthe past month.

    I don't have a background in statistics, but I have several good friends who make their living as Master's level statisticians crunching data and interpreting data for many large organizations. Based on what they have read, they both believe that the BLS does a reasonably good job using, sampling, and interpreting data. And I never said on my site that I am fed up with all politicians.


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.