Job Growth since 2003 Q4. Something changed DRAMATICALLY in the last 8 months.

[Roland99]

Note first this chart which I last updated in Jan. 2007:


Note how low Sept/Oct 2005 are (at or below 50k jobs each month). (Numbers were pulled from bls.gov)


Now, here's a chart I just made based on the lastest numbers from bls.gov. Something has changed DRAMATICALLY in how jobs are calculated:


Note that Sept/Oct 2005 numbers have essentially doubled! And. Dec. 2005/Jan. 2006 numbers are up about 50k each, too. Revising data *2 years* after the fact?!? :wtf:

And notice how the monthly average is much higher than the previous chart.

Somebody changed how new jobs numbers are calculated and it happened sometime this year.


Here is the chart with the original values plus update numbers from Jan. 2007 to Aug. 2007:

[Richard Steele]

1. New lies on top of old lies.

Where's all this "job growth"? Anybody seen it? I sure haven't.

Recommending this thread anyway, though.

[Roland99]

2. I'll have to make a chart breaking out public sector from private sector.

But the Economic Policy Institute did do that a couple years ago and showed that there was a very large % coming from public sector jobs. IOW, bigger government.

And I wonder if you took out public sector and the Defense industry what would be left?

[Coyote_Bandit]

5. New Job Growth

has taken up residence and lives in the spare corner of one of my bedrooms. Not exactly a preferred occupant. When it is lucky it does a bit of consulting work - and earns about 20% of what it did as a full time employee five years ago.

[AuntPatsy]

3. Due to continued outsourcing?

[Roland99]

4. No, something changed in the calculations!!

The new numbers show 8.1 million jobs created since Oct. 2003.

The original numbers show a 7.1 million job increase since Oct. 2003.

They've exaggerated jobs by 1 million!!

[AuntPatsy]

8. A bit of a stretch they would do such a thing? Nawwww, I believe it.

[SoCalDem]

16. Counting the bullshit-jobs?

Outsourced $25 hr jobs, traded in for a bunch of 'service sector' el shitto jobs?

One good job lost...but 3 crappy ones taken on part time by the same person? (Bush math declares that a +2 job) :shrug:

[cutlassmama]

13. that's my take on it

[Hekate]

6. The Bushites are cooking the books again. It's what they do. Thanks for drawing attention to this

:argh:

Hekate

[coco77]

7. It is probably worse than this...

[AuntPatsy]

9. You know I was thinking, How is it even fair to show any kind of real job

growth without showing exactly what jobs are on the rise. I mean let us look at just how many minimum wage jobs are available, we all know how far that can aid someone in today's economy verses much better paying jobs.

I hate that they fail to be honest overall in letting most Americans realize that the good life may not be so good for them even if they do stand to find a job.

[Roland99]

10. Ah HA!! Something *DID* change. Here's an EPI article from Feb. 2007 >>>>>>>

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_jobspict_20070202

Extensive revisions in today's release, however, reveal faster job growth than was previously reported in prior months. In 2006, for example, employment grew by 2.2 million, 405,000 more than was reported last month. Over the course of the full recovery (beginning November 2001), payrolls added about one million more jobs than were originally reported. Yet even with these additions, the overall jobs recovery still remains weak in historical terms, with jobs growing at half the rate of the 1990s recovery (4.9% vs. 10%).

...

Today's release incorporates the annual benchmark revision wherein the BLS adjusts its payroll data based on more complete information about job growth. The revision increased the level of jobs last March (the month by which the revised data are phased into the survey) by 752,000, a historically large upward revision. As noted above, while this addition obviously improves the recent jobs record, it does not alter the uniquely weak historical performance over the current recovery.

The Household Survey was also revised to reflect changes in population estimates. While the Bureau does not incorporate these revisions into earlier data, they do provide a historically consistent series of labor force growth, one that incorporates all recent changes to population estimates.

The chart below shows yearly growth in the labor force (along with a moving average to bring out the underlying trend). What is important to note here is that labor force growth has accelerated in recent months, and is again growing relatively quickly, at about the same rate as in 2000 (around the last business-cycle peak). This acceleration belies an oft-repeated claim that labor force growth underwent a structural downshift in the 2000s, with various groups supposedly opting to leave the job market for non-economic reasons.

But yet my data in the OP shows the changes going back to a year before that even!!


And here's a nice chart showing how this "recovery" is lagging WAY behind any previous recovery period:

[On the Road]

14. Not Very Specific, Is It?

The language would seem to allow for changes in methodology. A while ago they began estimating people who sold eBay from home as a new employment category. Maybe something like that is going on.

[Roland99]

17. Catch DICK's cooments re: Greenspan? And who was talking up Ebay a few yrs ago??

Smells like DICK all over that.

[jaksavage]

11. First the stats look rosie

then a month later they revise them downward and too few notice.
the army is hiring.

[Roland99]

12. And so far in 2007 only 2 months have been above equilibrium level.

Quelle surprise.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. sharp eye

I'd say the department of truth is at work here