The October Employment Numbers (110207)
Here’s the lead from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 166,000 in October, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 4.7 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Job gains occurred in professional and business services, health care, and leisure and hospitality. Manufacturing employment continued to decline, and construction employment was little changed.
….. Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 166,000 in October to 138.4 million, following increases of 93,000 in August and 96,000 in September. In October, job growth continued in several service-providing industries, while employment in manufacturing continued to trend downward. Construction employment was little changed over the month.
AP’s report says the results more than doubled expectations only 80,000 additional jobs. It’s amazing how often the “surprises” are to the upside.
Other Detail:
- Revisions to previous months — September, -14,000 (from 110,000 to 96,000); August, +4,000 (from 89,000 to 93,000)
- Net change in new jobs, including revisions to prior months — +156,000 (166 - 14 + 4)
Quick Take:
After the big July and August upward revisions of 118,000 reported in September, I was hoping for at least half of that this time around. Instead, at -10,000 (-14 +4), it went the wrong way. Also, I know there’s a precision issue in gathering the data, but the unrounded unemployment rate went from 4.696% to 4.727%; I only noticed this because the number of unemployed went up, while the total workforce went down.
Media Reax:
If this e-mail flash I received from USA Today is any indication, I think the October news is actually being played up a bit too positively:
Employers boosted payrolls by a surprisingly strong 166,000 in October, the most in five months, an encouraging sign that the nation’s employment climate is holding up relatively well against the strains of a housing collapse and credit crunch.
Not the “housing collapse” part, which is clearly overwrought (NASDAQ from 2000-2002 was a “collapse”; come back when nationwide real estate prices fall by 1/4 as much as NASDAQ did before you hit me with this “collapse” garbage). The overall employment gain with prior quarter revisions isn’t what I had hoped for, and hopefully will be exceeded in future months.
Never mind on the e-mail flash interpretation: Sue Kirchoff’s USA Today article channels John Edwards’ “two Americas” nonsense with an imitative “two economies” riff. More on that later.
On the bright side: If GDP grew by an annualized 3.9% in the third quarter with relatively tepid job growth (less than 300,000 in July, August, and September combined), imagine what it might be if the fourth quarter pickup is 500,000, which is what will occur if November and December are clones of October.
Hey man.. Not to nitpick… But when I view your blog, the type is crashing into the list on the right. Not sure why….
-LJ
Comment by Libertarian Jason — November 2, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
If you could send a screen shot with Browser and OS noted, it might be helpful, though I have already received one and forwarded it to those who need to see it.
Comment by TBlumer — November 2, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
I believe the unemployment stats will not be a timely indicator of the economy as in the past given the numbers of illegals working jobs that Americans should be working. As ICE and the States get their act together in demanding employers properly verify the SS # of applicants, illegals will begin to self deport in droves either to Canada or Mexico. Because of this I believe the unemployment stats will not reflect properly the new scenerio of Americans taking back jobs illegals were working.
If we consider that of the 12 million or so illegals here maybe half of them are working jobs, so that’s about 6 million jobs at the high end. This points out something completely lost on the MSM, the tax cuts didn’t just create 6 million new jobs since 2003 but more like 12 million jobs. Now that those jobs are camoflagued by an illegal worker, they, loosing their jobs will be equally hidden, so that if and when employers shed jobs to cut expenses, the illegals will be the first to go. Under this scenerio, 6 million people could potentially loose their jobs but the unemployment stats would never reflect it. This may be the first economic downturn in history where legal workers didn’t loose their jobs.
Comment by dscott — November 2, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
#3 dscott, in theory the unemployment rate considers illegals, because it’s not in the scope of the questionnaire to ask about legal status. The establishment survey, which tells us about new jobs created, is vulnerable to underestimation if day laborers not put on official payroll are ignored (which they would be). Illegals who manage to become employees with false SSNs and ID would be picked up in the Establishment Survey as “real†employees.
I think you\’re right that a lot of illegals going home might bring down the total jobs numbers or keep them from increasing much, but you would also expect the unemployment rate to drop considerably. Do you realize that if 2-3 million illegals are among the 7.2 million unemployed (semi-likely), the unemployment rate might be as low as 3%, right where we were in 1998-2000? BLS should really study the citizenship status of the unemployed.
Comment by TBlumer — November 2, 2007 @ 10:23 pm