December Non-Farm Payrolls Up 1,000; Unemployment 5.7%

[phillybri]

More to come....

[snippy]

1. How very republican.

Since the depression, not a single republican president has had a better rate of job creation than any democratic president. The highest rate of job growth under a republican was 2.2% per year during Nixon's time in office. The lowest rate of job growth under a democrat was 2.3% per year during Kennedy's time in office.

Since WWII ended, a total of 57.51 million jobs were created during the terms of democratic presidents which is an average of 2.054 million jobs per year. During the terms of republican presidents a total of 31.11 million jobs were created which is an average of 1.003 million jobs per year.

[kayell]

6. But Republicans are GOOD for the economy

I know, cause I've been told so all my life. :eyes:

[cthrumatrix]

17. 1,000 new jobs.... they were expecting 181,000 jobs.... you need 120,000

just for new people coming into the workforce every month.

This is quite a shock...and yes ...the markets might have to adjust.

[lebkuchen]

46. It must have taken a lot of bottle for Bush to release this sad stat

...like a bottle of Moet et Chandon, to polish off the Chimp's bag of pretzels during a typical Camp David binge.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Piece on bloomberg.com

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aPT7osubJSQ4&refer=home

[lovedems]

53. proof the trickle down theory is bogus

Standard & Poor's 500 Index members will report that profits grew by 22 percent on average in the fourth quarter, according to analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial.

More profit doesn't equal more work. At the rate this administration is taking in contribution, these companies now need to make millions to keep their CEO's happy and MORE MILLIONS to buy their way into WH. To much money is never enough anymore.

[maxrandb]

69. Hate to be callous

but, this just means that they will push more tax breaks for the wealthy and will succeed in making the cuts permanent. And they accuse Democrats of simply throwing money at a problem.

Mark my words. These numbers will be spun so that even more taxes are cut. You know what. If taxes are so "effing" bad, let's just eliminate them entirely. I'd like to see a millionaire run a company without an educated, qualified workforce

[dusty64]

3. 1,000, oh boy.

Pathetic, I can just imagine the quality of those McJobs as well.

[Maeve]

5. Not only that, November's numbers were 14K worse than previously reported

So we're even worse off than we thought we'd be. :crazy:

[phillybri]

8. I missed that, you're right!!!

Just like they did for 50 weeks w/ the initial jobless number....

Wow...

[snippy]

7. It is a stunningly pathetic number.

[neverforget]

68. From a pathetic President

[phillybri]

4. Details....

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/newsfinder/pulseone.asp?siteid=mktw&guid=%7BF2AB3625-70AF-47CD-AA0B-D1D19EFABE8B%7D&


8:30am 01/09/04
U.S. Dec. jobless rate falls to 5.7%; payrolls up 1,000 By Rex Nutting

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) - The U.S. unemployment rate unexpectedly sank to a 14-month low of 5.7 percent in December, despite virtually no growth in nonfarm payrolls, the Labor Department reported Friday.

Nonfarm payrolls increased by 1,000, far below the 136,000 expected by Wall Street economists and the 181,000 expected by Wall Street traders. Job growth in the previous four months was revised lower by a total of 66,000. Manufacturing industries cut 26,000 jobs, while temp help companies added 30,000. Average hourly earnings rose 0.2 percent to $15.50, bringing the year-over-year gain to 2 percent, the worst in 16 years. Total hours worked in the economy fell 0.6 percent.


1,000 jobs created....That's impressive!!!!:eyes:

[kayell]

9. If unemployment rates are shrinking, but there are virtually

no new jobs, that's a good measure of the number of people who have just flat given up. Or maybe of some new and innovative accounting procedure at Labor.

[Beaker]

12. congress didn't extend the extension of unemployment payments-

so a sizable number of people fell off the rolls as the month was ending.

[cthrumatrix]

18. and you wonder why people are "angry" at being "conned"

it's smoke and mirrors

[mhr]

32. 80,000 Per Week To Lose Unemployment Benefits

If memory serves correctly.

This started on December 19th, 2003.

[trogdor]

15. Give that evil DUer a cigar!

That's exactly correct! The numbers don't quite add up, do they? That's because they're bullshit numbers!

[qanda]

10. The previous numbers are revised downward

And there are only 1,000 jobs added. How does the rate then drop so far?

[kayell]

13. People who are not employed are not counted as unemployed

for a variety of reasons - didn't do an active search for work during the last week (2 weeks?), working on a family business such as a farm, even if not paid for that work, working part time at a much poorer paid job than they used to have, people who decide to try starting a home business to tide them over, etc. Real unemployment is always MUCH higher than the figures they show us.

[mhr]

35. There Are Six Unemployment Stats, This Article Will Help Explain

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/business/5962629.htm

May 29, 2003
Unemployment: It depends on how you define it

By DIANE STAFFORD
Columnist

You've been out of work for 18 months and know 15 others who are vainly job hunting. You suspect that the 5.8 percent unemployment figure for April is government propaganda.In your world, things are much worse off. And, guess what, in your world, you're right.

The "real" unemployment rate for you is 9.8 percent. You can look it up. It's every bit as real as the 5.8 percent that was reported in the media. So what's the deal?

The deal is that there are six government-sanctioned definitions of unemployment. The six measures produce a broad range of unemployment numbers. For April 2003, the range was a scant 2.5 percent to a scary 9.8 percent.

Snip ......

[papau]

11. So where are the predicted 300,000 new jobs? - Dec added 1000!

I expected an increase in the raw numbers - but "Employment in gasoline stations also decreased over the month" shot me down!!!!

:-)

also note shorter work week in terms of hours. recession continues..


http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: DECEMBER 2003



Employment was virtually unchanged in December while the unemployment rate,at 5.7 percent, continued to trend down, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of theU.S. Department of Labor reported today. Following increases that totaled277,000 in the prior 4 months, nonfarm payroll was flat in December (+1,000).

Unemployment (Household Survey Data)

The number of unemployed persons was 8.4 million in December and the unemployment rate was 5.7 percent. Both measures continued to edge down from their recent highs in June 2003. In December, the unemployment rates for adult men(5.3 percent) and Hispanics or Latinos (6.6 percent) declined. The joblessrates for the other major worker groups--adult women (5.1 percent), teenagers (16.1 percent), whites (5.0 percent), and blacks (10.3 percent)--showed littleor no change from the previous month. The unemployment rate for Asians was 5.3percent in December, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

The civilian labor force fell by 309,000 in December to 146.9 million; thelabor force participation rate decreased over the month to 66.0 percent. Overthe year, the participation rate declined by 0.4 percentage point. Both totalemployment (138.5 million) and the employment-population ratio (62.2 percent)were about unchanged in December. (See table A-1.)

Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

In December, about 1.5 million persons were marginally attached to the laborforce, about the same as a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.)These individuals wanted and were available to work and had looked for a jobsometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed, however, because they did not actively search for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. There were 433,000 discouraged workers in December, also about the sameas in December 2002. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached,were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobswere available for them. The other 1.1 million marginally attached had not searched for work for other reasons such as school or family responsibilities. (See table A-13.)

Industry Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey Data)

Total nonfarm payroll employment was unchanged (+1,000 in December, at 130.1 million, seasonally adjusted. Employment continued to rise in the temporary help, construction, and health care industries. Retail trade and manufacturing lost jobs over the month. (See table B-1.)

In December, employment in retail trade declined by 38,000. Weak hiring for the holiday shopping period resulted in seasonally adjusted job losses in general merchandise stores; miscellaneous store retailers; and sporting goods, hobby, book, and music stores. Employment in gasoline stations also decreased over the month.

Manufacturing employment was down by 26,000 in December. From September to December, employment in this industry declined at a slower pace than during the first 8 months of 2003. Employment in nondurable goods manufacturing decreased by 18,000 in December, with the largest losses in printing and related support activities (-4,000) and in textile mills (-3,000). Manufacturing lost 516,000
jobs in 2003 and has shed 2.8 million jobs since July 2000, the last month it recorded a gain.

Within the financial activities industry, employment in credit intermediation declined for the third consecutive month, reflecting the reduced volume of mortgage refinancing. From July 2000 through September 2003, the industry added 251,000 jobs, but since then employment has fallen by 39,000.

Professional and business services added 45,000 jobs in December. Over theyear, employment increases in this industry have totaled 252,000. The majority of this gain occurred in temporary help services, which added 166,000 jobs in2003, including 30,000 in December. Employment in education and health servicesalso continued to rise over the month. Over the year, the industry added301,000 jobs.

Construction employment continued on a modest upward trend in December. The industry has added 173,000 jobs since February.

Weekly Hours (Establishment Survey Data)

The average workweek for production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls decreased by 0.2 hour in December to 33.7 hours, seasonally adjusted. The manufacturing workweek declined by 0.1 hour to 40.7 hours, and manufacturing overtime edged up by 0.1 hour to 4.6 hours. (See table B-2.)

The index of aggregate weekly hours of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls fell by 0.6 percent to 98.8 in December (2002=100). The manufacturing index decreased by 0.4 percent over the month to 94.6. (See
table B-5.)

- 4 -

Hourly and Weekly Earnings (Establishment Survey Data)

Average hourly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 3 cents over the month to $15.50, seasonally adjusted. Average weekly earnings fell by 0.4 percent in December to $522.35. Over the year, average hourly earnings increased by 2.0 percent, and average weekly earnings rose by 1.7 percent. (See table B-3.)

______________________________

The Employment Situation for January 2004 is scheduled to be released on Friday, February 6, at 8:30 A.M. (EST).
...

[snippy]

22. Maybe Saddam has hidden the US jobs in Syria.

[snippy]

14. RNC will create new jobs to parrot that employment is a lagging indicator.

Prepare for this republican bullshit.

As for the fact that employment is a lagging indicator, we are now in the tenth quarter of this recovery. Employment did indeed lag but it does not lag forever.

There are still a lot of headwinds to job creation. These include increasing productivity, globalization, foreign outsourcing, merger and acquisition activity, and the excess capacity which still exists with a lack of pent up demand to drive the creation of additional capacity. The average work week is still below 34 hours. There are also a significant number of part time workers who will move closer to full time and new overtime regulations which make it cheaper to work more existing employees longer hours. Add to these factors the fact that since the 1920's, republican presidents always have been bad for job creation.

[ET Awful]

16. Is it just me or does this sentence qualify for understatement of the year

"The U.S. economy gained 1,000 jobs in December, fewer than the 150,000 that economists had forecast"

[papau]

19. Put on a happy face - UE rate is down to 5.7% as folks give up

:-)

[treepig]

20. indeed, people are leaving the labor force in droves

as evidenced by the Employment-Population Ratio: 62.2% in Dec 2003

(from http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm )

this number was 64.7% in april 2000 - meaning that number of people eligible for employment (based on age, ability, etc), but not in
labor force increased from ~71,000,000 in 2000 to ~77,500,000 today. basically, that's 6.5 million unemployed people not accounted for in the "official" 5.7% unemployment rate.

[Maeve]

28. What the NY Times says

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Economy.html
The 0.2 percentage point drop in the jobless rate occurred because fewer people were looking for work, the Labor Department said Friday. More than 300,000 people gave up their search for jobs and dropped out of the pool of available workers.
``The rate is going down, but it is going down for the wrong reasons,'' said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services, noting that it fell not because people were finding work. ``That doesn't make you feel really good about the state of the jobs market"

[Frodo]

21. That appears to not be it.

The number of "discouraged workers" was essentially unchanged last month. The big swing was the number of unemployed people fell by about 500,000. They didn't "give up", they aren't "marginally attached" ior "underemployed", they just dropped rght out of the labor pool.

And, no, it isn't people who have lost unemployment compensation... those people DO count (and there would only be 70-100,000 between 12/21 and 12/31 anyway, so the monthly number couldn't possibly swing 1/2 million).

Maybe a bunch of people won the lottery and don't need to work any more?

[cthrumatrix]

23. let's ask chimpy about the "smoke and mirrors" number at his

next press conference

[Frodo]

24. I'll continue to assume the #'s are legit - they just don't look very good

Interestingly, the only number the average joe is going to see is the "5.7%". In our favor, however, is that NOW this number is unlikely to improve much over the next few months.

The 500k is more likely a statistical anomally that won't re-appear, and even if the job market continues to improve, the number of people who leave "discouraged" to start looking for work again is likely to keep that number up.

My new prediction is that the # of jobs will actually improve over the next 2-3 months, but the unemployment rate will actually go UP... giving us a more effective spear to use during the primary season.

[West Coast Democrat]

57. Hmmm....I didn't even expect to see you around here today

You usually only post when there's a positive story about the economy.

[Frodo]

58. Not true

It's just that that's all there's been lately. I tend to post when someone has miss-read some data.

If, for instance, a number comes out that is a "good" number but not "as good" as the market expects... the market goes down and posts pop up about "See how bad everything is? We knew things were falling apart".

Todays' numbers were far worse than anticipated, but they still reflected no job losses and an unexpected (and still unexplained as far as I can tell) decline in unemployment. That's NOTHING like what shrub produced in his first couple years (200,000 lost MANY months, NOT steady-state).

I have no reason to hide (though I am busy today and won't be on mch). I just call the numbers as I see them. Obvously today helps us from an election standpoint. PARTICULARLY the lower unemployment number. I doubt the number this fall can get below 5.5% or so, so it means lots of reports with no improvement or actual decline when the REAL numbers might otherwise show improvement.

[Beetwasher]

59. You Seem to Be

The only one who's clueless about why there's a drop in UE:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Economy.html
The 0.2 percentage point drop in the jobless rate occurred because fewer people were looking for work, the Labor Department said Friday. More than 300,000 people gave up their search for jobs and dropped out of the pool of available workers.
``The rate is going down, but it is going down for the wrong reasons,'' said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services, noting that it fell not because people were finding work. ``That doesn't make you feel really good about the state of the jobs market"

[Frodo]

61. No, I got that.

See my post on it (maybe in the daily market thread if it isn't here?)

But when people drop out of the market because things just suck they end up in the "discouraged worker" basket (in U4). The report shows no statistical change in that category... so it's something else.

It could be poor methodology in how they determine "discouraged workers", but that hasn't changed and shuoldn't reflect a one month blip like this - particularly when economic confidence is rising.

It COULD be good news (say the child tax credits and x,y,z have caused more families to be able to afford to get by on one income... so the second spouse - currently unemployed - stops looking for work) but that shouldn't "blip" 500k in one month either.

I KNOW what numbers have changed. I'm unconvinced WHY they changed.

But thanks for the feedback.

[Beetwasher]

63. When You See An Anomoly Like That

And it is an anomoly, it should tell you something. You can't trust the numbers. This is after all the Enron admin.

Mighty convenient that the non-farm payroll numbers suck, yet the UE mysteriously drops and 500K dissapear like magic...Things that SHOULD make you go hmmm....

[JeebusH]

27. ET Awful, you stole my post

:D

[jmcgowanjm]

25. 8.2 3rd qtr GDP-1k jobs in Dec The data is wrong

or irrelevant.

"Nobody here expected these numbers."-Bond pit

How many times have I heard that.

And-"I guess people are out playing golf, or
having babies."-implication, they're too busy to get a
job right now. "Or maybe they're at the malls."-CNNFN

This isn't funny, this is sick.

And BTW-good friends' 18 year old just had a baby.
They put it in the hospital yesterday w/ pneumonia.

Each parent has a job. But they're not playing golf.

Oh, and I want to go one-on-one w/ Kudlow.

[jmcgowanjm]

26. oh, and where's Elaina Chao to explain these # ?

Usually her smiling face is all over the bidness
channels.

Elaina, could you explain to me how a jobless
recovery will make the US stronger?

4.092%-10 year treasury-8:39C

85.53-The dollar at new low.

oil at 34.61

[UTUSN]

29. Faux Magically Spun the Jobs to One Million

After hearing MSRNC's Andrea MITCHELL report on POWELL's "admission" that there were NO Iraq-Al Qaeda connections, PLUS the report that there were NO WMD AND that KAY is quitting "WITHOUT ISSUING A FINAL REPORT," I moseyed over to Faux to see how they would spin these items. HAH!---they didn't mention these items at all, since of course Britanney is MUCH more important. But then there WAS spin, a diversion, which was THIS topic, about the 1,000 new jobs. The Steve DOOZY clown, who has to suffer the indignity of doing the weather after his hosting job is over, at first said (LIED) that the (unemployment rate?) was the lowest in ELEVEN years, which would of course completely obliterate all of the CLINTON years, but then he had to correct himself and say it was ONE year. Then their other Faux employee from another show said that these 1,000 jobs was a misleading number because SELF-employment is not counted, people who start their own businesses, such that REALLY, the number of new jobs for Shrub is ONE MILLION. Can there be any more documentation of how Faux keeps its loyal wingnuts plausibly ignorant?

[Yavin4]

37. Now You Know How Pravda Worked

Man, propaganda is some scary stuff, aint it? They just lie, lie, lie, and lie.

[jmcgowanjm]

45. My theory: there has to be some truth in every lie and

the human body is incapable of lying. It shows
in stress, premature aging, sickness, or you
can go ignorant (for a while).

I keep thinking of that mafioso who pretended to be crazy
to stay out of jail.

He got so good at it that his family couldn't tell
that he was pretending.

[tabasco]

44. Maybe they count dumpster diving as starting a business.

Trash receptacle contents reuse & recycling, INC.

[snippy]

30. I heard that she is on vacation with her husband, Senator McConnell.

Nepotism should be kept in the family.

[phillybri]

31. Holy crap! October revised DOWN from 137,000 to 100,000!

I missed that the first time around.

Review:

-December: 1,000 jobs created.

-November: Downward revision

-October: Downward revision.

HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN!!!!!

:crazy:

[papau]

34. Without downward revision we lost jobs in Dec - will media take note?

What a silly question!

:-)

[Yavin4]

33. Paging, Mr. Frodo! Paging Mr. Frodo

Mr. Frodo

So, where are all of these jobs? Where's that great economy recovery that you keep harping about?

[cthrumatrix]

36. it's a good thing shrub has the economy pumping.....when will truth

ever come out by this mans disastrous record on the economy.

The new teflon man.

[JanMichael]

38. I can't WAIT for the spin.

It ought to be fascinating.

The numbers were bogus just like everything else abut this so called "Recovery".

[lebkuchen]

41. largest shopping month of the year turns into an economic job fizzle

A staggering embarrassment

[Frodo]

39. I'm right here

You can read my take further up.


I don't believe I've EVER used the word "great" just "improving" which it obviously has been doing. Almost every other month of shrub's term has shown job LOSSES.

[slappypan]

55. Hey Mr. Frodo

Yes this economy seems to be great for the landed gentry who inherited lots of loot from their rich uncle Bilbo but the Sam Gamgees are getting laid off or having their hours cut.

[Teaser]

51. Frodo is no Bush cheerleader, though

I disagree with his primary thesis of real economic improvement, but its an honest disagreement.

[Frodo]

60. I appreciate that Teaser

Or are you teasing?

I've started to get a complex around here. :-)

[lebkuchen]

40. Is that exactly 1000 jobs, or was it rounded up to the nearest 1,000

from 657?

Have fun with this, Letterman!

Top ten list of where those 1,000 job placements went to~

1. Extra secret service positions, needed to keep track of the Bush twins...

[Beetwasher]

42. All Those Jobs Were Filled by ONE GUY!!!

He needs them all to make ends meet in the Bushconomy...

[cthrumatrix]

43. does anybody have a link to the downward revsions for Nov & Oct?

[jmcgowanjm]

47. No, but googling I found this little tidbit

http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/oct2003/pi2003107_5561_pi031.htm

Jobs: Solid Growth into the New Year
September's small increase marks a turning
point. Finally, the recovery appears set to see
the employment gains it needs to be sustained.

And we took a flock of shit back then for naysaying.

And Bush immediately came on to say, "yes, we do have
boxes that are made in the USA!."

No, but he was crowing. How does crow taste, Misleader?

[Maeve]

50. This at CBS MarketWatch

"Job growth in the previous four months was revised lower by a total of 66,000. Over the past five months, payrolls have increased by 278,000, according to the survey of some 300,000 business establishments"
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?siteid=mktw&dist=mktwsnap&guid=%7B360707B0%2D6B86%2D405F%2D8B72%2D471B735FF14E%7D

And a link to the full release: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm

[jmcgowanjm]

48. And BTW-talking Econ101-RD proven reserves drop 20%

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid={8CC9A140-1EED-48F2-B9F0-2B63CF9C26C4}&symb=RD&sid=42701&siteid=bigcharts&tool=1&dist=bigcharts

Reserves 'recategorization' a shock
RD moves 20% proven reserves to lesser category

http://chart.bigcharts.com/bc3/quickchart/chart.asp?symb=rd&compidx=aaaaa%3A0&ma=0&maval=9&uf=0&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&type=2&size=2&state=8&sid=42701&style=320&time=8&freq=1&nosettings=1&rand=5801&mocktick=1&rand=6954

PeakOil here now?

[underpants]

49. GRAPH!!!

[cthrumatrix]

52. thnkx..can you provide a link for the graph

[underpants]

54. Sure

FYI you can right click on the graph-select "properties" and then highlight and copy it.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

56. I wonder what God is telling Pat Robertson this morning

Is it still going to be a landslide, Pat? Pat? PAT????

[seasat]

62. Another interesting Stat that you don't see played in the news

is the nonfarm hours work week. I notice that it dropped slightly from 33.9 to 33.7. That is not significant since it has been bouncing around those numbers for the past year. What is significant is that it has been flat. You'd expect an increase in hours worked before an increase in jobs. Unfortunately for workers, it looks like Shrub's dismal employment record will continue for the near future. I think the economy is going to get much worse this year since the employment number will result in a lowering of income and people are running out of credit. People who have good jobs like myself are also now having to support relatives that were laid off. We're having to tighten our finances to help them. I'd be interested in some stats on how many people are having to support relatives who are either unemployed or underemployed.

[seasat]

64. Reason for disparity in Payroll and Unemployment rates.

The unemployment rate is based on a survey of 60,000 households but the payroll data is based on a survey of 400,000 businesses. The Economic Policy Institute makes a pretty good argument that the payroll data is more accurate and this is supported by most economists. Here's a link to their discussion on the matter.

EPI Briefing Paper

Quote from Paper:

Tracking the state of the overall U.S. economy requires accurate employment measurements. However, the two primary measures of employment statistics—the payroll survey and the household survey—have shown differing trends and levels in employment since the recession began in March 2001. Some differences between the payroll survey and the household survey are detailed below:

The payroll survey provides a more accurate picture of employment trends in the U.S. economy. In addition to being significantly larger (with a sample size 600 times greater than that of the household survey), it is also benchmarked annually to unemployment insurance tax records and less likely to be subject to large revisions or misreporting.

According to the payroll survey, employment has fallen by 726,000 jobs since the end of the recession in November 2001 and employment has fallen by 2.4 million since the start of the recession in March 2001. In contrast, the household survey indicates that employment has risen by 2.0 million since the recovery began and by 600,000 since the start of the recession.

Adjustments for differences between the two surveys (e.g., to account for self-employment or multiple job holding) do not affect the difference in the trends of the two surveys since 2001.

[Beetwasher]

66. Thank You!! This is CRITICAL In Understanding What's Happening!

That is an AWESOME link!

This is important:

Population adjustments to the household survey
The BLS periodically revises the household survey to account for new Census Bureau population estimates. In the last four years, there have been two population adjustments: one in January 2000 and one in January 2003. The shift in January 2000 was based on the new population estimates from the decennial Census and added about 1.5 million persons employed. The shift in January 2003, based on new estimates of faster than expected population growth since the 2000 Census, added another 576,000. At each shift, a discontinuity occurs in the series, reflective of only new population estimates and not an actual jump in employment.

To make valid comparisons with the numbers since January 2003, previous employment numbers must be adjusted upward to account for new population estimates. The BLS warns that use of the household survey employment numbers without making these adjustments makes any estimates of trends since January 2003 not comparable with those for earlier months (Bowler et al. 2003). The household employment estimates in Table 1 reflect these population adjustments.

[seasat]

65. One more final note, monthly changes in wages.

You'd expect real growth in wages before a recovery in jobs. I don't expect a recovery anytime soon.

[DemNoir]

67. Yes but

All morning all I heard was that around 150,000 will be announced. So, its the same old story people will think that was the figure.

[are_we_united_yet]

70. Hot diggity dog....

I'm goin to get me one of 'dem 'dare jobs righhhht now.