"The decline in the jobless rate was not a matter of discouraged workers dropping out."

[Clio the Leo]

Au contraire mon frer!

January employment reports are typically tricky to interpret because the Labor Department makes adjustments to its population counts, which means comparisons to December are not always apples-to-apples when looking at the data from the department's household survey. However, the agency said the labor force count did not change this time.

Smoothed to take into account the change in the population count, the household survey showed the number of people reporting they were employed jumped by 589,000, and the number unemployed fell by 590,000.

That means the decline in the jobless rate was not a matter of discouraged workers dropping out, something that had been a significant factor in previous months, but rather fully a sign of labor-market strength.

The household survey is notoriously volatile, and economists are reluctant to read too much into any given month's data. However, the job gains in this survey match up with strong readings on January manufacturing and services.

It is hard to square the strong household survey readings with the weak data coming from the establishment polls.

Weather was clearly a factor. The establishment survey showed the construction sector lost 32,000 jobs, which a Labor Department official said may have been caused by weather. Courier and messenger jobs -- which can also be weather-sensitive -- fell by 45,000.

Manufacturing added 49,000 jobs, well above expectations, with big gains in durable goods and motor vehicles. That fits with recent data showing strong auto sales.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/04/us-usa-economy-jobs-idUSTRE71337H20110204

[vaberella]

1. Great contrary article which says a lot and gives another view.

Most of the negative news is just a set up by the media by right wingers to destroy Obama anyway. The good news is quickly snuffed.

[w4rma]

2. Negative economic news is right-wing propaganda? Do you live in a bubble? (nt)

[vaberella]

5. ~sigh~ That's not what I suggested.

However, there is enough evidence out there to suggest that the media in many cases intentionally uses some projections to make the reality 10x worse in a way to ensure that Obama "fails". This has been going on since his presidency.

[Clio the Leo]

10. It was lazy reporting....

.... "falling off" really WAS a factor in the past and the press just got lazy in their reporting trying to explain it all. The previous article posted here was accurate ... in part " many more workers left the labor market," yes but many MORE JOINED it. And a reporter had to actually do some RESEARCH to notice that.

But research takes time, time you dont have when you're trying to be the first to get the headline up.

[former9thward]

3. I love how people blame January weather for a lack of jobs.

Canada added 69,000 jobs in January and they have 1/10 of the population of the U.S. Did Canada have better weather in January than the U.S.?

[Clio the Leo]

11. they're better capable of dealing with it.

2 inches of snow in Georgia does NOT have the same affect that 2" has in Michigan.

[former9thward]

13. So a couple days of snow in GA caused the anemic job numbers?

Most of the snow/ice was in the same places it always is and that is the Northern states. They know how to deal with it just as well as Canada. I'll be looking forward to your explanations of the February numbers.

[Clio the Leo]

14. We had 10" of snow here in TN...

.... two weeks later, before the first round had melted, we got another 3".

We've had so much snow here lately that 1" (which would normally send us in to a state of panic) is no longer newsworthy. We just sit in the house and wait it out (because we dont have the equipment to deal with it.) One of the local school systems has run out of school days, trying to decide what their solution is.

What else ya got?

[former9thward]

15. I doubt snow in TN or GA caused the job numbers.

I know you think you are important but in terms of the U.S. economy you really aren't. The places that power the U.S. economy had typical January weather. Canada produced 69k with 10% of the population. That is the equivalent of 690,000 jobs created in a month in the U.S. Again I will wait for your Feb analysis. I'm sure you will find a windstorm or something to blame.

[ProSense]

16. Canada has nothing to do with U.S. job creation.

The snow in TN is far more relevant.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

27. "The U.S. and Canada are each others largest trade partner

and have been since the 1940s."

Yeah, that relationship saved the U.S. from the worst economic crisis in more than 70 years, right?

Don't be condescending when you make no sense.

[former9thward]

31. You love strawmen, don't you?

It was YOU who made the statement that Canada and the U.S. have nothing to do with one another. They clearly do. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with the U.S. being saved from anything as you well know. Are you denying Canada is the U.S.' largest trade partner? That its economy has nothing to do with the U.S.?

[ProSense]

33. The thread is about job creation in the U.S., not Canada

Posting how many jobs were created in Canada is irrelevant. Claiming that it's more relevant that a crippling snow storm in the states is beyond absurd.

[former9thward]

35. The survey was taken before the "crippling storm in the states"

But you can use that for the February numbers.

[ProSense]

36. Canada is still irrelevant to the discussion.

Totally irrelevant.

[Clio the Leo]

18. Yes because the snow was ONLY in TN and GA...

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2653281/weather_101_u_s_national_snow_cover.html?cat=9


next....

[former9thward]

19. And we have never had snow in January have we?

[Clio the Leo]

23. You get most of your news from Fox, dont you?

"the fifth major storm of the winter set snowfall records"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/27/us-usa-weather-business-idUSTRE70Q6M120110127

Egads, even John Boehner didn't poo poo today's report.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/2/4/941210/-Flashback:-GOP-claimed-credit-for-todays-jobs-report

[jefferson_dem]

26. Oh please...

What's next: "I know you are but what am I"?

You just want to be a contrarian, don't you?

[polmaven]

28. What we had in the Northeast

was far from "typical" January weather. Storm after storm rolled through here in an unusual pattern which brought life to near standstill at times.

[former9thward]

32. Did Canada have those storms?

[ProSense]

34. NJ is under a state of emergency

Canada can deal with its own problems, and whether or not Canada has experience bad weather is irrelevant to this discussion.

[treestar]

30. Construction workers were hardest hit

Their unemployment rate is the highest and drags the overall rate up.

So for that, weather would matter.

Canada may not be so focused on construction.

[mkultra]

37. Canadian economics are vastly different than ours

Just like Northeastern vs southern in the US. If we get 6 inches of snow in Oklahoma, everything shuts down. That doesn't happen in Maine.

[Hillprop]

4. Contradictory information..

The BLS reported the following:

"To show the impact of the
population adjustment, however, differences in selected December 2010 labor force
series based on the old and new population estimates are shown in table B. The
adjustment decreased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population
in December by 347,000, the civilian labor force by 504,000, and employment by
472,000;"

http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Reuters is lying.

[ProSense]

6. That's the adjustment. The changes after the adjustments are made is in

Table C.

In accordance with usual practice, BLS will not revise the official household
survey estimates for December 2010 and earlier months. To show the impact of the
population adjustment, however, differences in selected December 2010 labor force
series based on the old and new population estimates are shown in table B. The
adjustment decreased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population
in December by 347,000, the civilian labor force by 504,000, and employment by
472,000; the new population estimates had a negligible impact on unemployment rates
and most other percentage estimates. Data users are cautioned that these annual pop-
ulation adjustments affect the comparability of household data series over time.
Estimates of large levels, such as total labor force and employment, are impacted
most. Table C shows the effect of the introduction of new population estimates on
the changes in selected labor force measures between December 2010 and January 2011.
Additional information on the population adjustments and their effect on national
labor force estimates are available at www.bls.gov/cps/cps11adj.pdf.

Table C. December 2010-January 2011 changes in selected labor force
measures, with adjustments for population control effects

bls

[Hillprop]

7. Exactly,

that states what I already posted. The changes were a 500k reduction in the total survey size. That means the 2010 estimate had 500k more people measured. Table C is not an actual report of the figures, it just shows how the population estimate changed.

If you go to the top of the page and search other data sets, you will see the total civilian labor force size was reduced by 500k from December 2010. The number of employed and unemployed dropped by proportional amounts. Series LNS11000000 has this information.

So, in reality, 117k more people were employed in January than in December in adjusted terms. Not 500k, not 600k, and not 35k as the payrolls would indicate. However, the Census data changed the estimated size of the labor force from 153,690,000 in December to 153,186,000 for January. That is a drop of 504k as reported. Those were not jobs created or more people employed, it was an adjustment to the base model.

Whatever the case, 117k more people are now employed than they were in December. That is the only relevant fact.

[ProSense]

9. The information is consistent

with the OP, which is there was no change in the labor force.

The unemployment rate (9.0 percent) declined by 0.4 percentage point
for the second month in a row. (See table A-1.) The number of
unemployed persons decreased by about 600,000 in January to 13.9
million, while the labor force was unchanged. (Based on data adjusted
for updated population controls. See table C.)

[Hillprop]

12. In that case, something is being misreported

The BLS report states the labor force remained unchanged. Please search for dataset LNS11000000, "Civilian Labor Force", which is the series being reported, which shows:

December 2010: 153690
January 2011: 153186(1)

That is a change of 504k. Either the report is incorrect, or it was incorrectly entered into their database.

The next one mentioned is the civilian employment level, dataset LNS12000000.

December 2010: 139206
January 2011: 139323(1)

A change of 117k. This means 117k more were working in January than in December.

The final set reported is the number of unemployed, dataset LNS13000000.

December 2010: 14485
January 2011: 13863

A decrease of 622k unemployed. Yet only 117k more became employed.

Now, note the decline in the number of unemployed. If we subtract 622k from the original, we get 153,068, agree? Now we add the 117k who became employed, 153,185, agree? That figure is 504k less than the total labor force in December, and consequently equals the labor force size reduction. 504k people are unaccounted for, agree? This is the amount the BLS and Census Bureau adjusted for with their new population model.

Unemployment still fell, but do you see why it is wrong to state that 500k people found a job?

[ProSense]

17. "Unemployment still fell, but do you see why it is wrong to state that 500k people found a job?"

Who said that?

[Hillprop]

20. Its in the OP

"the number of people reporting they were employed jumped by 589,000"

This is the error I have been trying to point out. Whoever wrote the Reuters article misread the BLS report.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pirate Smile]

22. K & R

[impik]

24. Things are getting better all the time. I know that it's bad news for DU

[Democat]

25. If things get better, what can we all blame Obama for?

Please, don't let life be too good! :)

[mkultra]

38. we can always blame him for taking too long.

That's the standard fall back.

[treestar]

29. Even the people who dropped out might have found jobs.

They just aren't being reported, so no one knows.

They ought to be counted. It must be government laziness - they just count people collecting unemployment, and when unemployment runs out, don't have an easy way to track the people who were still unemployed when it ran out.

Of course the ideal would be not have it run out until the person actually gets a job.

[mkultra]

39. UE claims do not figure into the household survey