Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama on jobs report: 'Today, as a nation, we are moving forward again' (136 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have a question: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Losty

    Yesterday ADP reported 162,000 new jobs added in September.  Today the BLS reported 117,000 new jobs for September.  Why the discrepancy?  Anybody know?

    "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

    by SueDe on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 09:35:35 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Happens every month. (7+ / 0-)

      For one, ADP doesn't count government job (losses), only private sector.

      Also, they don't necessarily survey the same people.  

      VULTURE/VOUCHER 2012. FUCK YOU, MIDDLE CLASS!

      by GOPGO2H3LL on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 09:37:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  looking at different things (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sethtriggs, mirandasright, doraphasia

      ADP is from payroll data and is only from businesses that use them.  

      The jobs number comes from the survey of 60,000 households.

      •  I know BLS surveys businesses too, (0+ / 0-)

        but they may not count part-time or temp workers in the numbers they release.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 11:45:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Just for the record.......for the past few months (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Janie14, SueDe

      ADP appears to be more accurate than BLS which reported today. ADP has been reporting job gains of >150k while ADP has been reporting gains of <150k......yet, unemployment has been steady or declining, suggesting that >150k is the more accurate number. I expect a big BLS revision in January.

    •  That's not so odd. The odd part is how 117,000 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SueDe

      (I thought it was 114,000 -- but more is better) jobs equates to such a large drop in the unemployment rate.

      117,000 is a decidedly anemic number -- not enough to keep up with population growth.  How does unemployment jump down?

      I'm sure it will all become clear when I have a chance to sit down with the numbers.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 11:12:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're right - it was 114,000 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dinotrac

        Too bad my computer can't read my mind instead of recording my keystrokes.

        Could be that ADP picks up new part-time employees and BLS doesn't, but unless gobs of people dropped out of the job market (and I'm certain quite a few baby boomers retired), I don't understand it either.  I'll let the economics blogs explain it to me.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 11:44:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah. I remember glancing at something that (0+ / 0-)

          indicated a large bump in in people working part-time who wanted to work full time -- something on the order of 7.5 %, and that would equate to 500,000-600,000 people.

          That would make a big dent on unemployment, which considers you employed if you work at least 6 hours in the week, but...

          even if that's true, and not just a product of my fuzzy fuzzy brain (bad cold for the last week or so), it's a hard number to believe.  That would be a huge jump for one month.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 12:04:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site