Unemployment rate at 7.8 percent?

ECONOMIC REPORT Archives | Email alerts
Oct. 4, 2012, 8:47 a.m. EDT
U.S. initial jobless claims climb to 367,000
Latest increase suggests no improvement in availability of work

Overall, the economy added 114,000 jobs in September, in line with analysts' expectations. Job growth for August was revised up to 142,000 from 96,000; and the new-jobs figure for July was bumped up to 181,000, from 141,000 previously estimated.

Far more surprising was the dramatic 0.3 percentage point decline in the jobless rate, which all year long had been hovering between 8.1% and 8.3%. The big drop would seem out of sync with the modest job gains last month.

But the explanation is that the unemployment figure is based on a different survey than the one that produces the monthly payroll job tally. The job growth numbers come from a survey of employers and is considered more reliable month to month.

The Labor Department also surveys 60,000 households, and this one, while more volatile, includes a broader category of workers such as the self-employed and people working in family businesses and even in the underground economy.

Based on the household survey, there was a whopping 873,000 more people working in September than the prior month. There was a huge increase in the number of part-time workers. And the number of unemployed fell by 456,000 last month from August.

The drop in the jobless figure, though likely to be seen with skepticism from some corners, will be welcomed by the Obama administration. For the month that's remaining in the campaign, his challenger, Mitt Romney, will no longer be able to say that unemployment has been above 8% since Obama took office.

Still, job growth as measured by the survey of establishments was hardly impressive. Even with the upwardly revised figures for July and August, the average for the third quarter was only about 146,000 -- slower than the pace of early this year and still leaving the economy about 4 million jobs shy of the payroll employment in late 2007 when the recession began.

Of the 114,000 new net jobs added in September, healthcare accounted for 44,000, while transportation increased by 17,000 and financial services grew by 13,000. That included a gain of 7,000 jobs in the real estate sector, another sign of a recovering housing market.

Manufacturing, however, lost 16,000 jobs, underscoring the slowdown in exports and business investments.

Labor Force participation rate up .1%? This is beginning to look alot more like smoke and mirrors at this point.. I'll go through the number later.

The 162,000 increase in employment followed a revised 189,000 jump in August, figures from Roseland, New Jersey-based ADP Employer Services showed today.

The Labor Department said employers added 114,000 jobs in September. It also said the economy created 86,000 more jobs in July and August than the department had initially estimated.

According to private-sector payroll processing company ADP, the government is dramatically undercounting the number of jobs being created. The Labor Department's revisions to prior months sustains this contention:

ADP:


Labor Department


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/201...rolls.html

http://www.boston.com/business/ne...story.html

ADP is apparently more accurate--this chart shows the initial ADP payroll number vs the revised number that comes from the gov't 1 mo later:

are you saying this is the first time reporting in this manner (by this company) is being used.. so a new standard is being used that shows a more reliable number than previously used?

Definition of 'ADP National Employment Report'
A report that measures levels of non-farm private employment. The ADP National Employment Report is based on payroll data from over half of ADP's U.S. business clients. The data represents about 24 million employees from all 19 of the major North American Industrial Classification (NAICS) private industrial sectors.

The ADP Employer report is sponsored by ADP Employer Services and is maintained by Macroeconomic Advisers LLC., and is based on an analysis of over five years of data and a monthly review of payroll records.

No, ADP has been around for years. They have access to private data that the Feds don't get until later:

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms...z28Qw8PeL5

Well, what I'm asking is if the government has been using this same companies numbers all year long.. or even for the past 10 years.

The Current Employment Statistics (CES) program, also known as the payroll survey or the establishment survey, is a monthly survey of approximately 140,000 businesses and government agencies representing approximately 410,000 worksites throughout the United States. From the sample, CES produces and publishes employment, hours, and earnings estimates for the nation, states, and metropolitan areas at detailed industry levels.

The ADP National Employment Report®, sponsored by ADP®, was developed and is maintained by Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC. It is a measure of employment derived from an anonymous subset of roughly 500,000 U.S. business clients. During 2011, this subset averaged about 344,000 U.S. business clients and represented over 21 million U.S. employees working in all private industrial sectors.

Well, what I'm asking is if the government has been using this same companies numbers all year long.. or even for the past 10 years.

According to private-sector payroll processing company ADP, the government is dramatically undercounting the number of jobs being created. ]

I don't see where the government is using ADP's numbers.

Far more surprising was the dramatic 0.3 percentage point decline in the jobless rate, which all year long had been hovering between 8.1% and 8.3%. The big drop would seem out of sync with the modest job gains last month.

But the explanation is that the unemployment figure is based on a different survey than the one that produces the monthly payroll job tally. The job growth numbers come from a survey of employers and is considered more reliable month to month.

it's in my quote from the LATimes at the top..

Ah ok. Well if that's a new practice then it certainly is troubling.