January jobs report: Payrolls jump by 467,000 as unemployment rate rises to 4.0%

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Yahoo! Finance

Yahoo Finance

January jobs report: Payrolls jump by 467,000 as unemployment rate rises to 4.0%

Emily McCormick · Reporter
Fri, February 4, 2022, 8:31 AM · 4 min read

U.S. job growth unexpectedly accelerated in January even as Omicron cases surged at the beginning of the new year. ... The Labor Department released its January jobs report Friday at 8:30 a.m. ET. Here were the main metrics from the print, compared to consensus estimates compiled by Bloomberg:

-- Non-farm payrolls: +467,000 vs. +125,000 expected, +199,000 in December

-- Unemployment rate: 4.0% vs. 3.9% expected, 3.9% in December

-- Average hourly earnings, month-over-month: 0.7% vs. 0.5% expected, 0.6% in December

-- Average hourly earnings, year-over-year: 5.7% vs. 5.2% expected, 4.7% in December

The January jobs report marks the first to reflect a fuller impact from the Omicron variant. The highly contagious variant first discovered in the U.S. in late November had only just begun to spread by the time of the December jobs report survey period. Around the time of the January survey period in the middle of the month, new daily COVID-19 cases in the U.S. had soared to a record.

The renewed jump in COVID-19 cases was expected to weigh especially heavily on the high-contact services sector, which has remained exceptionally vulnerable to rising infections levels.

Heading into Friday's report, estimates for the headline January print on non-farm payrolls ran the gamut as top Wall Street economists attempted to predict the latest virus-related speed bump to the labor market's recovery. At the high end, several economists polled by Bloomberg expected 250,000 jobs to return in January. However, a number of pundits also saw job growth turning negative for the first time since December 2020, with at least one economist forecasting a drop of 400,000 payrolls for January.

{snip}

Read more: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/january-2022-jobs-report-labor-department-unemployment-usa-192453058-185048590.html

---

Emily McCormick's estimate yesterday was that jobs would grow by only 150,000. I see this morning that she lowered that to 125,000.

This is better than what people thought it was going to be.

Related thread in GD:

January Jobs report smashes expectations! +467,000 jobs UE at 4.0%

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216318721

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. Here are this morning's banner and the article Emily McCormick posted yesterday afternoon.

JOBS January report preview: Payroll growth set to slow as Omicron dents recovery
Check back at 8:30 a.m. ET for results

-- -- -- -- -- --

Tomorrow's news today

Why wait until 8:30 tomorrow morning when you can all about it 16 hours ahead of time?

Yahoo Finance

January jobs report preview: Payroll growth set to slow as Omicron dents recovery

Emily McCormick · Reporter
Thu, February 3, 2022, 1:50 PM · 5 min read

U.S. job growth likely slowed further in January as Omicron cases surged at the beginning of the new year and at least temporarily weighed on the labor market's recovery.

The Labor Department is set to release its January jobs report Friday at 8:30 a.m. ET. Here are the main metrics expected from the print, compared to consensus estimates compiled by Bloomberg:

• Non-farm payrolls: 150,000 expected, 199,000 in December

• Unemployment rate: 3.9% expected, 3.9% in December

• Average hourly earnings, month-over-month: 0.5% expected, 0.6% in December

• Average hourly earnings, year-over-year: 5.2% expected, 4.7% in December

The January jobs report is set to be the first to reflect a fuller impact from the Omicron variant. The highly contagious variant first discovered in the U.S. in late November had only just begun to spread by the time of the December jobs report survey period. Around the time of the January survey period in the middle of the month, new daily COVID-19 cases in the U.S. had soared to a record.

The renewed jump in COVID-19 cases is likely to weigh especially heavily on the high-contact services sector, which has remained exceptionally vulnerable to rising infections levels.

"Job losses in leisure and hospitality and health care may drag down overall payroll employment," Daniel Zhao, Glassdoor senior economist, wrote in a note Thursday. "While other COVID-sensitive sectors like education and retail may be impacted, seasonal factors may also help mute job losses in those sectors."

Estimates for the headline January print on non-farm payrolls have run the gamut as top Wall Street economists attempt to predict the latest virus-related speed bump to the labor market's recovery. At the high end, several economists polled by Bloomberg expected 250,000 jobs to return in January. However, a number of pundits also saw job growth turning negative for the first time since December 2020, with at least one economist forecasting a drop of 400,000 payrolls for January.

{snip}

[BumRushDaShow]

2. Yup - that is why I heard them having a conniption fit this morning

about something like "153,000".

U.S. added 467,000 jobs in January despite omicron variant surge

By Eli Rosenberg
Today at 8:32 a.m. EST

The U.S. economy added 467,000 jobs in January as the omicron variant spiked to record heights, with the labor market performing better than many expected because of the virus’s spread. The unemployment rate ticked up slightly to 4 percent, from 3.9 percent the month before.

The monthly report, released by the Department of Labor, stems from a survey taken in mid-January, around the time the omicron variant was beginning to peak with close to 1 million new confirmed cases each day. The rapid spread during that period upended many parts of the economy, closing schools, day cares, and a number of businesses, forcing parents to scramble.

The data in the new report are believed to be heavily affected by distortions from the virus. Nearly nine million workers were out sick around the time the survey was taken, and some of them could have been counted as unemployed based on the way the survey is conducted. With such high levels of infection in many parts of the country, it is likely that many businesses also paused hiring.

January is traditionally a weak month for employment when retail and other industries shed jobs after the holiday season. Economists say that seasonal adjustments made to the survey’s data to account for this have the potential to distort the survey in the other direction, given that the holiday shopping boom appeared to take place earlier this year than typical.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/02/04/january-jobs-report-unemployment-2022/

"Distortions of the virus"... but the last couple months weren't "distortions of the virus". It was a "bad economy". Just because people were out sick didn't mean they were suddenly unemployed.

EDIT ADD - like the weather models, it's time for them to do an overhaul or at least put some fixes in and stop being so obstinate

[mahatmakanejeeves]

4. Good morning. The Post was pretty quick about getting that online.

Last edited Fri Feb 4, 2022, 10:26 AM - Edit history (2)

They probably had a better analysis of the impact of COVID-19 than McCormick did.

Hat tip to you and them

{added}

Now I have to sit back and wait for the complaints about Emily McCormick's uncharacteristically exuberant ( "Payrolls jump" ) language.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. Thanks

They generally try to get it up there - or at least get the breaking news alerts sent out by around 8:33 am or 8:34 am.

The NYT tends to lag more - (just seeing the alert banner as I type but found their article) -

11 minutes ago
Ben Casselman and Talmon Joseph Smith

The U.S. economy added 467,000 jobs in January despite a Covid surge.


A record-setting spike in coronavirus cases wasn’t enough to derail the job market recovery at the beginning of the year. U.S. employers added 467,000 jobs in January, the Labor Department said on Friday. That showed the resilience of the recovery in the face of a resurgent pandemic.The unemployment rate rose to 4.0 percent.

The January data was collected in the first weeks of the year, when coronavirus cases topped 800,000 a day and millions of workers were kept home by positive tests, suspected exposures or child care disruptions. Because of the way the numbers are calculated, people who missed an entire pay period — and who couldn’t take paid time off — aren’t counted in the payroll figures.

Instead, employers continued to add jobs.

“Clearly something is different about this surge,” said Julia Pollak, chief economist for the career site ZipRecruiter. Job seekers remain optimistic, she said, and companies that have been struggling to recruit workers aren’t pulling back on hiring just because cases shot up for a few weeks. The Labor Department counted 10.9 million job openings at the end of December — just a touch off recent record levels.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/04/business/jobs-report-january/january-jobs-report

Lots of swings and misses the past 6 months. (there's nothing "different" about this surge).

I did see this from the NYT "Live" page -

10 minutes ago
Eshe Nelson

That jobs number hugely beat expectations and bonds instantly reacted. The 10-year yield on U.S. Treasury notes jumped higher to 1.90 percent, the highest since December 2019.

[progree]

11. "Now I have to sit back and wait for the complaints ... "

Now I have to sit back and wait for the complaints about Emily McCormick's uncharacteristically exuberant ( "Payrolls jump" ) language.

She left out ANOTHER.

"January jobs report: Payrolls jump by 467,000 "

(missing another)
But when When it comes to jobless claims, it is:

"Jobless claims: Another 238,000 American filed new claims last week"

[mahatmakanejeeves]

18. NYT: "added." WaPo: "added." Emily McCormick: "Payrolls jump." Clear case of media bias.

BLS threw in a lot of 'splainin' this month about how people are counted.

Right on time, the complaints are rolling in.

And good morning to you.

[BumRushDaShow]

23. This use of the "another" is especially important

after last month's report was revised up from 199,000 to 510,000... Yet it's MIA...

I saw the comprehensive 2021 revisions table in there too -



Would make an interesting chart with overlays of "expected" vs "actual" for the year.

[progree]

29. This story has a bar graph of month by month before and after the annual revisions

which helps to see the pattern -- namely that there wasn't the huge summer surge in jobs that was previously reported, nor was there a big weakening in the last couple months either, but much more even job changes thruout the year --

The Jobs Report Was Misleading Us All Last Year. Here’s How, Slate, 2/4/22
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-jobs-report-was-misleading-us-all-last-year-here-s-how/ar-AATtLhS?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U53

A couple of other highlights from the article:

# (SPOILER ALERT) ......................... The seasonal adjustments were the culprit, but they didn't try to explain how

# Over the entire 2021 year: there were 217k more jobs created than previously reported

=============================
Thanks for the TOR (table of revisions) -- it's nice having it here for quick reference. Or is it the TARS - Table A. Revisions ?

Perhaps I can come up with yet ANOTHER acronym. (The "A Word" around here).

[BumRushDaShow]

30. I think it all reflects other things that get reported but are not being connected for some reason

I.e., "people switching jobs". They report about "the great resignation" but then sortof leave that characterization out there like people are then lazily sitting around goofing off with the equivalent of "Obama phones", not working anywhere, nor seeking work. Occasionally I'll see an article talking about people moving to higher-wage jobs and/or to those with more flexibility since those types have also seen more openings when people move laterally to other fields, move upwards wherever they are working, or move into retirement (and sadly in some cases, pass away).

I did also hear month after month, that because of the pandemic, there were continual survey submission delays so there would only be partial data at each report that had to be revised later once the rest came in.

And I know you probably wish, like me, that we could do some kind of table-formatting here again. The lack of that forced me to screenshot that "TOR" - in meteorological terms, that's the acronym for a Tornado Warning by the way. Was considering trying to format the text to attempt to force it into a table, but gave up.

[progree]

31. "Was considering trying to format the text to attempt to force it into a table, but gave up"

Yup, that would be a very ambitious project. I do something like that sometimes for a 3-column table, but that's about my limit.

My big worry is that I can get it to look nice and even on my setup - my browser and computer - but who knows what it will look like on someone else's system. Especially on a phone, where it will wrap the lines around, making it unreadable.

With an Image, it won't all fit on the screen but it won't wrap either -- people on a phone can scroll around or "pan" and zoom.

I had quite a discussion with Make7 on Tables in Community Help in 2018:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/125613549

[BumRushDaShow]

32. Ooooo thank you!

I just bookmarked that!

Even something like the " (ampersand)nbsp; " to get some spaces in can make a big difference, even if it's just for 2 column tables!

I know with the images, there seems to be something in Elad's programming that will sometimes attempt to resize but I have had the unfortunate experience in some instances where either an image or some other string of text, will blow up the ability to read the thread. E.g., a post that has a sentence that will refuse to line wrap and instead continues out of the display area and into oblivion, taking the reply box and the left side menu column with it.

[Etherealoc1]

3. December job numbers

revised up to over 500k from 199k.

Can't wait for January's revision.

[Walleye]

5. Media:unexpected job growth. How this is bad for Joe Biden

[VWolf]

9. Yep - either that or radio silence n/t

[mahatmakanejeeves]

10. Google News does not agree.

https://news.google.com/search?q=us%20january%20jobs%20report&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

Click "view full coverage."

[VWolf]

21. Pleasantly shocked n/t

[mahatmakanejeeves]

22. The monthly jobs report is a big deal.

It doesn't matter who's in the WH. It doesn't matter whether it's a gain or a loss. It will be on every TV nightly news report and in every newspaper.

[JohnSJ]

15. They didn't expect this at all, and all week the media was primed to pounce on Biden and the

Democrats in anticipation this would be a terrible jobs report

It wasn't. It was a blowout

[mahatmakanejeeves]

7. From the source: the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Payroll employment rises by 467,000 in January; unemployment rate changes little at 4.0%

Note that there some appendices to this month's reports that go into adjustments. I've left them out. They provide explanatory material.

Economic News Release USDL-22-0155

Employment Situation Summary
Transmission of material in this news release is embargoed until 8:30 a.m. (ET) Friday, February 4, 2022

Technical information:
Household data: [phone] * [e-mail] * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: [phone] * [e-mail] * www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact: [phone] * [e-mail]


THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- JANUARY 2022


Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 467,000 in January, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 4.0 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment growth continued in leisure and hospitality, in professional and business services, in retail trade, and in transportation and warehousing.

This news release presents statistics from two monthly surveys. The household survey measures labor force status, including unemployment, by demographic characteristics. The establishment survey measures nonfarm employment, hours, and earnings by industry. For more information about the concepts and statistical methodology used in these two surveys, see the Technical Note.

___________________________________________________________________________________
|
| Changes to The Employment Situation Data
|
| Establishment survey data have been revised as a result of the annual benchmarking
| process and the updating of seasonal adjustment factors. Also, household survey
| data for January 2022 reflect updated population estimates. See the notes at the
| end of this news release for more information.
|____________________________________________________________________________________


Household Survey Data

Both the unemployment rate, at 4.0 percent, and the number of unemployed persons, at 6.5 million, changed little in January. Over the year, the unemployment rate is down by 2.4 percentage points, and the number of unemployed persons declined by 3.7 million. In February 2020, prior to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the unemployment rate was 3.5 percent, and unemployed persons numbered 5.7 million. (See table A-1. See the note at the end of this news release and tables B and C for information about annual population adjustments to the household survey estimates.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (3.8 percent) and Whites (3.4 percent) edged up in January. The jobless rates for adult women (3.6 percent), teenagers (10.9 percent), Blacks (6.9 percent), Asians (3.6 percent), and Hispanics (4.9 percent) showed little or no change over the month. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

Among the unemployed, the number of job leavers increased to 952,000 in January, following a decrease in the prior month. The number of persons on temporary layoff, at 959,000 in January, also increased over the month but is down by 1.8 million over the year. The number of permanent job losers, at 1.6 million, changed little in January but is down by 1.9 million from a year earlier. (See table A-11.)

In January, the number of persons jobless less than 5 weeks increased to 2.4 million and accounted for 37.0 percent of the total unemployed. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) declined to 1.7 million. This measure is down from 4.0 million a year earlier but is 570,000 higher than in February 2020. The long-term unemployed accounted for 25.9 percent of the total unemployed in January. (See table A-12.)

After accounting for the annual adjustments to the population controls, the labor force participation rate held at 62.2 percent in January, and the employment-population ratio was little changed at 59.7 percent. Both measures are up over the year but remain below their February 2020 levels (63.4 percent and 61.2 percent, respectively). (See table A-1. For additional information about the effects of the population adjustments, see table C.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons, at 3.7 million, continued to trend down over the month. The over-the-year decline of 2.2 million brings this measure to 673,000 below its February 2020 level. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.)

The number of persons not in the labor force who currently want a job was little changed at 5.7 million in January. This measure decreased by 1.3 million over the year but is 708,000 higher than in February 2020. These individuals were not counted as unemployed because they were not actively looking for work during the 4 weeks preceding the survey or were unavailable to take a job. (See table A-1.)

Among those not in the labor force who wanted a job, the number of persons marginally attached to the labor force, at 1.5 million, changed little in January. These individuals wanted and were available for work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months but had not looked for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. The number of discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached who believed that no jobs were available for them, was also little changed over the month, at 408,000. (See Summary table A.)

Household Survey Supplemental Data

In January, the share of employed persons who teleworked because of the coronavirus pandemic increased to 15.4 percent. These data refer to employed persons who teleworked or worked at home for pay at some point in the 4 weeks preceding the survey specifically because of the pandemic.

In January, 6.0 million persons reported that they had been unable to work because their employer closed or lost business due to the pandemic--that is, they did not work at all or worked fewer hours at some point in the 4 weeks preceding the survey due to the pandemic. This measure is considerably higher than the level of 3.1 million in December. Among those who reported in January that they were unable to work because of pandemic-related closures or lost business, 23.7 percent received at least some pay from their employer for the hours not worked, up from the prior month.

Among those not in the labor force in January, 1.8 million persons were prevented from looking for work due to the pandemic, up from 1.1 million in the prior month. (To be counted as unemployed, by definition, individuals must be either actively looking for work or on temporary layoff.)

These supplemental data come from questions added to the household survey beginning in May 2020 to help gauge the effects of the pandemic on the labor market. The data are not seasonally adjusted. Tables with estimates from the supplemental questions for all months are available online at www.bls.gov/cps/effects-of-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic.htm.

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 467,000 in January, compared with an average monthly gain of 555,000 in 2021. Nonfarm employment has increased by 19.1 million since April 2020 but is down by 2.9 million, or 1.9 percent, from its pre-pandemic level in February 2020. In January, employment growth continued in leisure and hospitality, in professional and business services, in retail trade, and in transportation and warehousing. (See table B-1. See the note at the end of this news release and table A for information about the annual benchmark process.)

Employment in leisure and hospitality expanded by 151,000 in January, reflecting job gains in food services and drinking places (+108,000) and in the accommodation industry (+23,000). Since February 2020, employment in leisure and hospitality is down by 1.8 million, or 10.3 percent.

In January, professional and business services added 86,000 jobs. Job gains occurred in management and technical consulting services (+16,000), computer systems design and related services (+15,000), architectural and engineering services (+8,000), and other professional and technical services (+7,000). Employment in temporary help services continued to trend up (+26,000). Employment in professional and business services is 511,000 higher than in February 2020, largely in temporary help services (+185,000), computer systems design and related services (+161,000), and management and technical consulting services (+151,000).

Retail trade employment rose by 61,000 in January. Job growth occurred in general merchandise stores (+29,000); health and personal care stores (+11,000); sporting goods, hobby, book, and music stores (+7,000); and building material and garden supply stores (+6,000). Retail trade employment is 61,000 above its level in February 2020.

Employment in transportation and warehousing increased by 54,000 in January and is 542,000 higher than in February 2020. In January, job gains occurred in couriers and messengers (+21,000), warehousing and storage (+13,000), truck transportation (+8,000), and air transportation (+7,000). All four of these component industries have surpassed their February 2020 employment levels, with particularly strong growth in warehousing and storage (+410,000) and couriers and messengers (+236,000).

Employment in local government education rose by 29,000 in January but is down by 359,000, or 4.4 percent, since February 2020.

Employment in health care continued to trend up (+18,000) over the month but is down by 378,000, or 2.3 percent, from its level in February 2020.

Wholesale trade added 16,000 jobs in January, with gains in both durable goods (+11,000) and nondurable goods (+8,000). Employment in wholesale trade is 125,000, or 2.1 percent, lower than in February 2020.

Employment showed little change over the month in mining, construction, manufacturing, information, financial activities, and other services.

In January, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 23 cents to $31.63. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by 5.7 percent. In January, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees rose by 17 cents to $26.92. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls fell by 0.2 hour to 34.5 hours in January. In manufacturing, the average workweek edged down by 0.1 hour to 40.2 hours, and overtime edged up by 0.1 hour to 3.3 hours. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls decreased by 0.2 hour to 33.9 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In accordance with usual practice, the seasonal adjustment models are updated as part of the annual benchmark process. As a result of the updates, there were some large revisions to seasonally adjusted data that mostly offset each other. (See the note at the end of this news release and table A for information about the revisions, the annual benchmark process, and the seasonal adjustment model updates.)

_____________
The Employment Situation for February is scheduled to be released on Friday, March 4, 2022, at 8:30 a.m. (ET).

Revisions to Establishment Survey Data

In accordance with annual practice, the establishment survey data released today have been benchmarked to reflect comprehensive counts of payroll jobs for March 2021. These counts are derived principally from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), which counts jobs covered by the Unemployment Insurance (UI) tax system. The benchmark process results in revisions to not seasonally adjusted data from April 2020 forward. Seasonally adjusted data from January 2017 forward are subject to revision. In addition, data for some series prior to 2017, both seasonally adjusted and unadjusted, incorporate other revisions.

The total nonfarm employment level for March 2021 was revised upward by 374,000. On a not seasonally adjusted basis, total nonfarm employment for March 2021 was revised downward by 7,000, or less than -0.05 percent. Not seasonally adjusted, the absolute average benchmark revision over the past 10 years is 0.1 percent.

As part of the benchmark process, the seasonal adjustment models are also updated. These models remove normal seasonal fluctuations--such as regular employment changes due to major holidays--from the data series, making it easier to observe cyclical and other economic trends. Now that there are more monthly observations related to the historically large job losses and gains seen in the pandemic-driven recession and recovery, the models can better distinguish normal seasonal movements from underlying trends. As a result, some large revisions to seasonally adjusted data occurred with the updated models; however, these monthly changes mostly offset each other. For example, the over-the-month employment change for November and December 2021 combined is 709,000 higher than previously reported, while the over-the-month employment change for June and July 2021 combined is 807,000 lower. Overall, the 2021 over-the-year change is 217,000 higher than previously reported. Going forward, the updated models should produce more reliable estimates of seasonal movements. Table A presents revised total nonfarm employment data on a seasonally adjusted basis from January to December 2021.

All revised historical establishment survey data are available on the BLS website at www.bls.gov/ces/data/home.htm. In addition, an article that discusses the benchmark and post-benchmark revisions and other technical issues is available at www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbmart.htm.

{snip tables of explanatory material and much more text}

* * * * *

[center]Facilities for Sensory Impaired[/center]

Information from these releases will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: [phone], Federal Relay Services: 1-800-877-8339.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

8. Links to earlier reports:

Wed Feb 2, 2022: Links to earlier reports:

Wed Jan 12, 2022: Links to earlier reports:

Wed Jan 5, 2022: Links to earlier reports:

Sat Dec 4, 2021: Links to earlier reports:

Wed Dec 1, 2021: Links to additional earlier reports:

Fri Nov 5, 2021: (I had to split the links into two posts, due to "Forbidden 403" issues)

Links to earlier reports:

Links to additional earlier reports:

Wed Nov 3, 2021: Links to earlier reports:

Fri Oct 8, 2021: Links to earlier reports:

Wed Oct 6, 2021: Links to earlier reports:

Fri Sep 3, 2021: Links to earlier reports:

Thu Sep 2, 2021 (in the Friday, August 6, BLS thread): Links to earlier reports:

Wed Aug 4, 2021: Links to earlier reports:

Sat Jul 10, 2021: Links to earlier reports:

Wed Jun 30, 2021: Links to earlier reports:

Fri Jun 4, 2021: Links to earlier reports:

Thu Jun 3, 2021: Links to earlier reports:

Fri May 7, 2021: Links to earlier reports:

Wed May 5, 2021: Links to earlier reports:

Fri Apr 2, 2021: Links to earlier reports:

Wed Mar 31, 2021: Links to earlier reports:

Fri Mar 5, 2021: Links to earlier reports:

Wed Mar 3, 2021: Links to earlier reports:

Fri Feb 5, 2021: Links to earlier reports:

Wed Feb 3, 2021: Links to earlier reports:

Fri Jan 8, 2021: Links to earlier reports:

Wed Jan 6, 2021: Links to earlier reports:

Updated from this post of Friday, December 6, 2019: Good morning. Links to earlier reports:

-- -- -- -- -- --

[center]Past Performance is Not a Guarantee of Future Results.[/center]

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in January 2022 (this one):

January jobs report: Payrolls jump by 467,000 as unemployment rate rises to 4.0%

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in January 2022:

Companies unexpectedly cut 301,000 jobs in January as omicron slams jobs market, ADP says

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in December 2021:

December jobs report: Payrolls rise by 199,000 as unemployment rate falls to 3.9%

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in December 2021:

December private payrolls rose by 807,000, far exceeding expectations: ADP

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in November 2021:

U.S. economy adds just 210,000 jobs in November

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in November 2021:

November private payrolls rose by 534,000 topping expectations: ADP

Nonetheless, what is important is not this month's results, but the trend. Let’s look at some earlier numbers:

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in November 2021:

November private payrolls rose by 534,000 topping expectations: ADP

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in October 2021:

October jobs report: Payrolls grew by 531,000 as unemployment rate fell to 4.6%

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in October 2021:

October private payrolls rose by 571,000, topping expectations: ADP

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in September 2021:

Yahoo Finance September jobs report: Economy adds back disappointing 194,000 jobs, unemployment rate

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in September 2021

September private payrolls rose by 568,000, topping estimates: ADP

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in August 2021:

August jobs report: Payrolls rise by disappointing 235,000 while unemployment rate falls to 5.2%

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in August 2021:

August private payrolls rose by 374,000, missing estimates: ADP

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in July 2021:

July jobs report: Economy adds back 943,000 payrolls, unemployment rate falls to 5.4%

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in July 2021:

Private payrolls rose by 330,000 in July, missing estimates: ADP

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in June 2021:

U.S. economy added 850,000 jobs in June as labor market showed renewed strength

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in June 2021:

Private payrolls increased by 692,000 in June, beating expectations: ADP

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in May 2021:

U.S. economy adds 559,000 jobs in May, as the recovery shows signs of strength

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in May 2021:

Private-sector employment increased by 978,000 from April to May, on a seasonally adjusted basis.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in April 2021:

Economy picked up 266,000 jobs in April, fewer than expected as economy tries to rebound

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in April 2021:

Private-sector employment increased by 742,000 from March to April, on a seasonally adjusted basis.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in March 2021:

The U.S. economy added 916,000 jobs in March as recovery gains steam again

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in March 2021:

Private employers added back 517,000 jobs in March, missing expectations: ADP

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in February 2021:

The economy added 379,000 jobs in February

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in February 2021:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 117,000 Jobs in February

Bureau of Labor Statistics, for employment in January 2021:

Unemployment rate falls to 6.3% in January; payroll employment changes little (+49,000)

ADP^® (Automatic Data Processing), for employment in January 2021:

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 174,000 Jobs in January

[RussBLib]

12. didn't ADP show a 200,000 job LOSS yesterday?

that is quite a discrepancy.

Good news.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

14. Yes, give or take.

Jobless claims: Another 238,000 American filed new claims last week

[mahatmakanejeeves]

45. Late reply, on March 2:

That number got revised this morning:

Wed Mar 2, 2022: Private payrolls rose by 475,000 in February, topping expectations: ADP

February's report also came alongside a sharp upward revision to January's payrolls. In January, private sector employment rose by 509,000, ADP said in its revised monthly print. Previously, ADP reported January payrolls fell by 301,000, which would have been the first drop since December 2020.

[JohnSJ]

13. The media was drooling all week with anticipation that they would able be able to slam Biden and the

Democrats on this, thinking this would be a terrible jobs reports.

F**k the doom and gloom media pushing the republican "sky is falling" talking points

[mahatmakanejeeves]

16. Here is a link to the crowd pushing the "sky is falling" talking points:

BRIEFING ROOM

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki, January 31, 2022

JANUARY 31, 2022 • PRESS BRIEFINGS

{snip}

Go ahead.

Oh, sorry, I’ll come back to you, Jacqui. I didn’t mean to —

Q Okay. That’s all right.

Q Thank you. Members of the economic team have been sort of frontrunning the jobs number on Friday, saying that the figures would be wonky because of the course of all the Omicron cases we had during the sample period. I’m wondering what your expectation or the White House’s expectation for this report is. And in particular, you’ve had a lot of revisions of these reports in recent months. Do you think it’s time to overhaul how the Department of Labor does this survey — the methodology and that kind of thing?

MS. PSAKI: I have no prediction or call for any changes to how the process is run. But what I can tell you is we’re looking in preparation for the Friday jobs numbers. We’ll get the monthly jobs report, of course, for January on Friday.

The way the jobs numbers are calculated is: Every month is — there are — is calculated — every month — it’s a little complicated. But there are some simple things here to understand that most people don’t realize: If a worker was out sick during the week the survey was taken — because it’s — the data is taken over a week, and that is ba- — that is what the monthly jobs numbers is based on — and did not receive paid leave, they are counted as having lost their job.

Now, that is an inaccurate depiction — and this is why I think you’re asking the second question — of whether or not they were unemployed, but that’s how it’s calculated.

Because Omicron was so highly transmissible, nearly 9 million people called out sick in early January when the jobs data was being collected. So, during that same period of time, in the week the survey was taken, the week of January 12th, was at the height of the Omicron spike.

So we just wanted to kind of prepare, you know, people to understand how the data is taken, what they’re looking at, and what it is an assessment of. And as a result, the month’s jobs report may show job losses in large part because workers were out sick from Omicron at the point when it was peaking during the period when — the week where the data was taken.

{snip}

The calls are coming from inside the house!

[JohnSJ]

17. so pleasant to see them with egg on their face

[mahatmakanejeeves]

19. Jen Psaki and the White House economic team?

Last edited Fri Feb 4, 2022, 12:08 PM - Edit history (1)

They were the source of the "don't get your hopes up" line of thinking.

[JohnSJ]

20. of course not. The illustrious media, whose anti-biden bias is so evident

https://www.rawstory.com/sean-spicer-2656557494/

[JohnSJ]

25. All the expert financial analysts were pushing that before the administration did though

[mahatmakanejeeves]

38. If there earlier citations for the expression of that thought, this search term should find them:

https://news.google.com/search?q=disappointing%20january%20jobs%20report&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

Then click on "View Full Coverage."

There is one article from the Thursday New York Times, but I'm not a subscriber, so I can't read it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/03/business/economy/jobs-report-covid-omicron.html

That article follows Jen Psaki's Monday press briefing by several days. Here's an article from Bloomberg that was published in the wake of the press briefing. It went online Tuesday.

Politics
Economics

White House Warns Latest Jobs Data Will Be Ugly Due to Omicron

Deese, Psaki warn Covid illnesses are counted as job losses
January jobs data were collected as U.S. omicron cases soared

ByJosh Wingrove
February 1, 2022, 10:40 AM EST Updated on February 1, 2022, 3:02 PM EST

@josh_wingrove

The White House is lowering expectations for this week’s U.S. jobs report, saying that brief absences of workers due to omicron could overstate the number of unemployed people for last month. ... Several White House officials have teed up Friday’s report with warnings, saying that the week when surveys were taken for the January payroll numbers was the height of illness absences in the aftermath of the holidays. Federal Reserve officials delivered similar words of caution.

Brian Deese, the director of President Joe Biden’s National Economic Council, said the numbers could be “confusing” as Covid illnesses are recorded as job losses. ... “We expect that that will have an impact on the numbers,” Deese told MSNBC on Tuesday. “We never put too much weight on any individual month; this will particularly be true in this month, because of the likely effect of the short-term absences from omicron.”

Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia President Patrick Harker said on Bloomberg TV Tuesday, “We’re probably going to have a bad jobs report in the end of this week. I mean just because of omicron.” St. Louis Fed President James Bullard similarly said the January jobs data won’t be good, citing omicron.

Biden has repeatedly touted employment data as an indicator of a robust economic rebound, and highlighted the tumbling jobless rate to blunt criticisms about overheated inflation. Friday’s report may still show historically low unemployment, which is based on a separate survey from the one for payrolls and counts temporary, unpaid sick leave differently.

{snip}

I repeat, the calls are coming from inside the house.

[JohnSJ]

39. It was on Bloomberg surveillance all last week where the anchor Jonathan Ferro and other guests

were pushing it all last week, blaming it on various things including the pandemic and shortages, and how people were dropping out of the job market, and this would hurt the administration. One financial analyst after another was repeating that mantra

It was all over the financial networks and Wall Street

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2022/02/04/the-experts-expected-a-bad-jobs-report-but-instead-467000-jobs-were-added-in-january-the-discrepancy-raises-some-skepticism/?sh=3bf34892791c

It was only after these economist and analysis predicted the dire job numbers, that the administration started to downplay expectations

[mahatmakanejeeves]

40. Thank you for that. Can you find a gloomy prediction that predates Psaki's Monday afternoon

press briefing? When did the gloomy predictions start?

I'm excluding Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, Scott Baio, the guy who draws "Dilbert," etc., from the list of candidates, as they are perpetually gloomy. And certifiable knuckleheads.

Thanks again, and good morning. We have a few days without economic reports coming out.

[JohnSJ]

41. Good morning to you to mahatmakanejeeves. I enjoy the informative economic data that you present

here

[mahatmakanejeeves]

42. Gawrsh

Fri Mar 8, 2019: (Rerun from last month): Gawrsh





Thanks for the thanks. I really do try to present the economic reports on a straightforward, unembellished basis. There is a lot of behind-the-scenes work that goes into my posts here. Work on the BLS report post starts on the day before the report comes out and goes on well after the OP appears.

Thanks again.

[JohnSJ]

43. I could tell

[mahatmakanejeeves]

44. It's the replies -- yours included -- that really make the thread what it is. NT

[amaico]

33. Pundits are depressed today

For sure..
Nothing worse than a broken narrative.

[AZLD4Candidate]

24. I always view jobs reports with suspicion because they rare say what kind of jobs they are

Are the McJobs as I call them, or jobs that require higher degrees, skills, or a vocation?

If, of the 467K new jobs, how many are low end, let's keep working people in poverty jobs?

[JohnSJ]

26. It was Across the board.

[AZLD4Candidate]

27. Good. We need a mixture of job growth, not just explotive McJobs

That is sustainable for economic growth.

[JohnSJ]

28. At least that is what I saw in the President's presentation on the jobs report numbers today

[cadoman]

34. thank you Democrats!

Sheesh folks, learn to celebrate good news. This is an awesome job report and indicative of the great work done in Biden's first year.

[Kingofalldems]

35. Kick and rec

[mahatmakanejeeves]

36. Job growth under President Biden is so high that even Chachi is on TV again.

Job growth under President Biden is so high that even Chachi is on TV again. Flushed face

Link to tweet

[Emile]

37. The economy is strong despite Predatory Capitalism inflation!