Comments on: The March Employment Report http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/04/04/the-march-employment-report/ The Business End of the Blogosphere Sun, 07 Sep 2008 03:01:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: TBlumer http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/04/04/the-march-employment-report/#comment-121602 TBlumer Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:23:10 +0000 http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/04/04/the-march-employment-report/#comment-121602 dscott, you need to stay consistently with the raw data for a rundown like the one you did. In this case that means you'd stick with the data in Update 1, which does have some anomalous numbers: Adult population - up 186 Labor force - up 632 Employed - up 558 (as noted) Unemployed - up 74 Not in labor force - down 446 Currently want a job (but apparently not actively looking, otherwise they'd be considered unemployed) - down 197 My take (net) - a whole lot of people came out of the woodwork to start looking for work in March (apparently happens every year, at least it has the last two). 88% of them (net) found work. Not sure how I get immigration into the narrative, except in the sense that the adult pop is not going up much at all. Adult pop: - March 2005 -- 225,236 - March 2006 -- 227,975; up 2739 - March 2007 -- 231,034; up 3059 - March 2008 -- 232,995; up 1961 The 12-month change from March 2007-2008 is the lowest since 1995-1996. The adult population has been adjusted for changes in population controls every January for the past six consecutive years -- something that apparently wasn't necessary except for one time before that. Every adjustment except one (2004, -348) increased the adult population from the previous December, presumably based on Census input (2000 - +578; 2003 - +256; 2005 - +197; 2006 - +128; 2007 - +552). 2008's adjustment was DOWN -540. Something's going on in the population that the Census and BLS folks don't have a handle on; otherwise, such a large adjustment wouldn't have been necessary. What I also don't get is that employment in financial services at Table B-1 hasn't dropped all that much in the past two months, or in the past year (-112,000). dscott, you need to stay consistently with the raw data for a rundown like the one you did. In this case that means you’d stick with the data in Update 1, which does have some anomalous numbers:

Adult population - up 186
Labor force - up 632
Employed - up 558 (as noted)
Unemployed - up 74
Not in labor force - down 446
Currently want a job (but apparently not actively looking, otherwise they’d be considered unemployed) - down 197

My take (net) - a whole lot of people came out of the woodwork to start looking for work in March (apparently happens every year, at least it has the last two). 88% of them (net) found work.

Not sure how I get immigration into the narrative, except in the sense that the adult pop is not going up much at all.

Adult pop:
- March 2005 — 225,236
- March 2006 — 227,975; up 2739
- March 2007 — 231,034; up 3059
- March 2008 — 232,995; up 1961

The 12-month change from March 2007-2008 is the lowest since 1995-1996.

The adult population has been adjusted for changes in population controls every January for the past six consecutive years — something that apparently wasn’t necessary except for one time before that. Every adjustment except one (2004, -348) increased the adult population from the previous December, presumably based on Census input (2000 - +578; 2003 - +256; 2005 - +197; 2006 - +128; 2007 - +552).

2008’s adjustment was DOWN -540.

Something’s going on in the population that the Census and BLS folks don’t have a handle on; otherwise, such a large adjustment wouldn’t have been necessary.

What I also don’t get is that employment in financial services at Table B-1 hasn’t dropped all that much in the past two months, or in the past year (-112,000).

]]> By: dscott http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/04/04/the-march-employment-report/#comment-121601 dscott Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:59:00 +0000 http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/04/04/the-march-employment-report/#comment-121601 What's interesting is the Not in Labor Force: Feb 79,436 March 79,211 -225,(000) So what's the explanation of the drop here when in fact unemployment increased??? Which is just the opposite of what happened in February's report where the unemployment rate went down but the Not In Labor force # increased. Are we seeing evidence of some kind of slosh factor between the two due to the way people ask the survey questions or interpret the questions? Given the unadjusted Employed # of +558,000, maybe the scenerio occured one of these ways: 1. 225,000 people who were long term unemployed or retired got jobs, and a net 80,000 people lost jobs. 2. 225,000 illegals went home and a net 80,000 people lost jobs. 3. 225,000 represents a combination of illegals going home, seniors coming back to the work force for part time jobs and long term unemployed getting jobs. Since employers fire and lay off workers for various and sundry reasons, a net of 80,000 people lost their jobs in any event even though a sizable number of others gained employment. Also given the recent Bear Stearns fiasco, I would think lots of people in the financial services sector would be getting laid off. What’s interesting is the Not in Labor Force:
Feb 79,436 March 79,211 -225,(000)
So what’s the explanation of the drop here when in fact unemployment increased??? Which is just the opposite of what happened in February’s report where the unemployment rate went down but the Not In Labor force # increased. Are we seeing evidence of some kind of slosh factor between the two due to the way people ask the survey questions or interpret the questions?

Given the unadjusted Employed # of +558,000, maybe the scenerio occured one of these ways:
1. 225,000 people who were long term unemployed or retired got jobs, and a net 80,000 people lost jobs.
2. 225,000 illegals went home and a net 80,000 people lost jobs.
3. 225,000 represents a combination of illegals going home, seniors coming back to the work force for part time jobs and long term unemployed getting jobs. Since employers fire and lay off workers for various and sundry reasons, a net of 80,000 people lost their jobs in any event even though a sizable number of others gained employment.

Also given the recent Bear Stearns fiasco, I would think lots of people in the financial services sector would be getting laid off.

]]> By: Ben Keeler http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/04/04/the-march-employment-report/#comment-121600 Ben Keeler Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:39:06 +0000 http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/04/04/the-march-employment-report/#comment-121600 Should be fun to watch the doomsday predictions on the nightly news tonight Should be fun to watch the doomsday predictions on the nightly news tonight

]]>