Guest View
User: Pass: | become a member


Sign up today for an exclusive discount along with our 30-day GUARANTEE — Love us or leave, with your money back! Click here to become a part of our growing community and learn how to stop gambling with your investments. We will teach you to BE THE HOUSE — Not the Gambler!

Click here to see some testimonials from our members!

Today’s Real Payroll Number: 750,000

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) unemployment numbers underestimate true unemployment – compare March jobs losses of 663,000 (BLS) with the Shadow Government Statistics’s estimate of 750,000. – Ilene

Today’s Real Payroll Number: 750,000, Total Unemployment Rate at 19.8%

Courtesy of Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge

John Williams, who runs the great Shadow Government Statistics site, presents the true numbers behind today’s "seriously flawed BLS payroll reporting." The upside bias coming out of the BLS is almost scandalous: one wonders how much "push from above" there is to concoct these numbers.

From John’s distribution earlier today:

BLS Jobs Reporting Is Seriously Flawed, at Best. This morning’s (April 3rd) reported March jobs loss of 663,000 again was close to consensus expectations, but, as has been common in recent releases, major downward revisions to prior reporting helped to mute the current headline jobs loss significantly. In each of the six most recent monthly payroll reports, the prior month’s payroll level was revised lower. For October 2008 to March 2009 reporting, the downward revisions to the prior month’s seasonally-adjusted payroll level were respectively: 179,000, 199,000, 154,000, 311,000 (still significant net of benchmark revisions), 161,000 and 86,000. Five of the six revisions exceeded the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) 95% confidence interval of +/- 129,000 jobs for monthly change.

Net of revisions, the March jobs loss would have been 749,000. Net of the Concurrent Seasonal Factor Bias (CSFB), which reflects the reporting problems, the loss would have been 750,000, in line with my estimate in the March 29th Flash Update.

Payroll Survey. The BLS reported a statistically-significant, seasonally-adjusted jobs loss of 663,000 (down 749,000 net of revisions) +/- 129,000 (95% confidence interval) for March 2009, following an unrevised 651,000 jobs loss in February, but January’s jobs loss was revised from 655,000 to 741,000. Annual contraction (unadjusted) in total nonfarm payrolls continued to deepen, down 3.56% in March, versus a revised 3.10% (was 3.12%) in February. The annual decline in March was the deepest since July 1958. The seasonally-adjusted series also continued contracting year-to-year, down by 3.48% in March versus a revised 3.08% (was 3.02%) contraction in February.

During the Clinton Administration, "discouraged workers" — those who had given up looking for a job because there were no jobs to be had — were redefined so as to be counted only if they had been "discouraged" for less than a year. This time qualification defined away the bulk of the discouraged workers. Adding them back into the total unemployed, unemployment in line with common experience, as estimated by the SGS-Alternate Unemployment Measure, rose to about 19.8% in March, from 19.1% in February.

ZH is now taking bets what the backward revisions will be for February and March, when April and May numbers are announced (assuming the U.S. hasn’t defaulted by then).

 


Do you know someone who would benefit from this information? We can send your friend a strictly confidential, one-time email telling them about this information. Your privacy and your friend's privacy is your business... no spam! Click here and tell a friend!



Comments (reverse order)


    You must be logged in to make a comment.
    You can sign up for a membership or get a free SWW trial or log in

    Sign up today for an exclusive discount along with our 30-day GUARANTEE — Love us or leave, with your money back! Click here to become a part of our growing community and learn how to stop gambling with your investments. We will teach you to BE THE HOUSE — Not the Gambler!

    Click here to see some testimonials from our members!

  1. tealady

    in the 1929- depression, females  in general didn’t work. So they didn’t count as unemployed.
    Now most do. in 1929 if the "breadwinner" lost a job, it often meant the whole family was without anyone working.
    The equivalent toay would be to add a certain percentage, perhaps 35%(a guestimate) to the reported unemployment figures to obtain some "comparative" figure..as far as real impact would be.
     What do you think of this idea. The figures are guesses, just the concept.
    Thanks

Dashboard

 Sector Performances (Today)

 Thermal Imaging