How to grow 21000 jobs in Feb,= revised down Dec by 8000 and Jan by 15000!

[papau]

From Reuters today "Over the last three months, employment has risen an average of just 42,000 per month, down from the 79,000 average of the prior three months. It is also far short of the 150,000 or so jobs needed each month just to keep pace with growth in the labor force.

The report also showed job creation in December and January was weaker than previously thought, adding to the weak tone of the report. The department revised lower its count of jobs gains in January to 97,000 from 112,000 and for December to just 8,000 from 16,000."

[HFishbine]

1. What a minute

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't December initially reported with an astounding 1,000 new jobs? Am I mis-remembering that?

[papau]

2. Nope - 1000 got revise to 16000 when we needed that headline

now we need a new headline.

[HFishbine]

3. I see

But it was, at one point reported as 1,000? I wasn't dreaming?

[papau]

4. You weren't dreamimg - hey - they revised the GDP numbers back to Reagan

so as to up Reagan and Bush 41 a little tiny bit!

History is written by the "victors" is an old GOP/US Media mantra!

:-)

[stopbush]

6. The weekly "bad news dump" by the bushies

Friday = bad news.

Right on schedule.

[freeforall]

10. No, you weren't dreaming

I remember seeing that figure and thinking WTF? Only 1000? In the US? In December?

[seasat]

5. I'll bet that January gets revised down further next month.

I pointed out last month that the establishment survey numbers were seasonally adjusted and the seasonal adjustment is revised as further numbers come in along with it takes two months to get all the surveys back. They can revise these numbers 2 more times I think, before they lock in the numbers. The adjustments had to be changed because we did not have the large hiring in Nov/Dec followed by large layoffs in January/February. Someone on this board (not anyone that has chimed in on this thread so far) didn't believe me so I thought I would point this out being the spiteful little ass that I am. :evilgrin:

[papau]

7. You are correct - but lock in the numbers? -seems a "project " can unlock

them back to Reagan!

Granted they were GDP - and not DOL - numbers

but I am impressed with the media's ability to watch and say nothing!

:-)

[seasat]

8. LOL, you're right Papau.

I was referring to "lock" as in no further revisions due to seasonal adjustments or survey forms coming in. The BLS revises their establishment surveys back either 2 to 3 months due to new information. That's the reason that it makes sense to wait before declaring the numbers good or not and why I expected the January numbers to be revised down. They were making seasonal adjustments based on previous years and the seasonal employment this year did not conform to the same pattern.

The one that bugs me is that they revised the population growth for the household employment survey in Jan. 2003 up so unemployment appeared lower. The BLS then revised it back down in Jan. 2004. The talking heads that support Shrub's failed economic policies keep reporting the unrevised numbers from 2003 saying that the Household Survey shows job growth. If you apply the 2004 population growth numbers to them, then the job growth disappears!

[54anickel]

9. And those 21,000 were gov't jobs

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/040305/economy_jobs_6.html

In its report, the Labor Department said private-sector employment was unchanged in February, while the government added 21,000 workers.

[swinney]

11. Sad Sad Clinton created jobs fast fast

Clinton-Gore got an average of 237,000 per month for 8 years. That is success.

Jimmy Carter got 218,000 per month.

Reagan 167,000. Yuk.

Two Bushes and a Reagan will not equal one Clinton-Gore.

Democrats create wealth and jobs. Republicans create weapons of mass destruction and shock and awe.

From Harding in 1921 to Bush in 2002---Democrats created an average of 1,825,200 jobs per month versus Republicans 856,400.

Dow increased by 52% more under Democrats.

GDP grew by 30% more under Democrats.

How can anyone support a Republican administration except country clubbers.

[Zynx]

12. That's an interesting point.

Because the changes are based off of the level of current jobs, that means that if the previous levels are lower, jobs would therefore be created.