Employment data may be too good to be true

[xchrom]

http://economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/08/10611579-employment-data-may-be-too-good-to-be-true

&width=600
At first glance, the U.S. job market seems to be moving in the right direction, although at a crawl. When you take a closer look, some of the data showing improving conditions for job-seekers may be too good to be true.

The latest signs of improvement came Wednesday from a report by payrolls processor ADP, which showed the pace of job creation by U.S. private employers accelerated more than expected in February. Separate reports from the government showed wages rose much faster than initially thought in the fourth-quarter as worker productivity continued to inch higher.

The pace of layoffs has helped too, as seen in a slowdown in government jobs cuts, according to John Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a job placement firm that conducts a monthly payoff survey.

"That's been a real driving force of layoffs over the last two years, but not in the last two months," he said.

On Friday, the Labor Department is expected to report that the economy created more than 200,000 jobs in February with the unemployment rate holding steady at 8.3 percent.

It's that last number - the portion of the workforce still out of work nearly three years after the recession ended - that remains stubbornly elevated.

[RBInMaine]

1. Source: Gallup? Two words. FUCK THEM !

[tridim]

2. IT hiring is exploding, at least in my neck of the woods.

It changed on a dime last month after two years of nothing. It's starting to feel like 1995 again, I have recruiters calling me nearly every day.

FWIW.

[msongs]

3. but do you call back? hmmm :-) nt

[tridim]

6. Yes, each recruiter has had at least two jobs available.

There is actual hiring going on, active recruiting, good salaries too. Something I haven't seen for years.

I'm about to take a job so I'm just accruing backup plans and future contacts.

[bluestateguy]

4. Don't pee in my Wheaties.

I will not tolerate Debbie Downers.

[ProSense]

5. Gallup

removes seasonal adjustment and says things are not what they seem?

They are what they seem, which is that without seasonal adjustment the rate was 10.3 percent in February 2011 (climbing 1.5 points from late 2010) and it's 9.1 percent in February 2012 (climbing .6 points from late 2011)




I mean, even without the seasonal adjustment, the year-over-year is down 1.2 percent.

Still, it's Gallup.




Edited math.

[Nye Bevan]

7. I've noticed (unscientifically) the restaurants in my area getting more and more crowded.

Even on weekdays. That has to be a good sign for the economy.

[sad sally]

8. The magic used to come up with employment numbers can produce whatever is called for.

At the end of December 2011, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said there were 132.9 million people working, and at the end of January 2012 there were 130.4 million people working. There were 243,000 jobs reported as added in January.

How can 2.5 million fewer jobs result in 243,000 jobs created? The magic continues, as the unemployment rate dropped from 8.5 to 8.3 percent. Using this logic, (243,000 jobs reduces the unemployment rate by .2%), for every 1,215,000 people that become employed, the unemployment rate is reducted by a full 1%.

If this pace of continued for two years, 5,832,000 new jobs would be created, and the magic math would bring the unemployment rate down to 3.5% (from the 8.3%) - which would be lower than the boom years of the '90's.

The BLS says 12.8 million people are unemployed, so using the magic math, if half these people got new jobs, the unemployment rate is reduced by over half. This can only be made possible by reducing the number of people seeking jobs and eliminating the number of jobs available.

The official government numbers are suspect.

[xchrom]

9. Shhh- you're gonna upset somebody. Nt

[cthulu2016]

10. How could that chart be published without the labor stats as a second line?

Gallup's unemployment measure is not worthless... it's essentially half of what the Labor Dept does, a poll aksing ""do you have a job".

But since the Gallup measure is unconventional and volatile, why would it be presented without the standard unemployment number for comparison? After all, the piece compares the two February measures.

It has always anoyed me that Gallup doesn't do that on their site.