ADP, the provider of 1 in every 6 payroll checks throughout the U.S. private sector, issued their January 2009 Payroll Report an hour ago, and it demonstrates a projected decline of 522,000 jobs on a month-over-month, seasonally-adjusted basis, comparing January '09's numbers versus December '08. Despite the supposedly positive spin that some media outlets may try to pin on this information (i.e.: "...less than projected," etc.), the reality is more inline with a direct quote from the first few paragraphs of today's report:
Sharply falling employment at medium- and small-size businesses clearly indicates that the recession continues to spread well beyond manufacturing and housing-related activities.
Due to the sheer size of the ADP sampling, many find it to be a more reliable indicator of actual U.S. joblessness than the government's own numbers. The full report may be found here: "ADP January 2009 National Employment Report."
The report continues by elaborating upon its numbers as follows:
--non-farm employment in the service-providing sector fell by 279,000 jobs
--employment in the goods-producing sector fell by 243,000 jobs
--manufacturing sector employment fell by 160,000 jobs
If you note the numbers, above, they total 682,000 jobs lost, not the publicized loss in today's report of 522,000. This is part of the seasonal adjustment factor, something John Williams discusses at great length at his Shadow Stats website.
I wonder how those 160,000 folks--the ones who've been "seasonally-adjusted" to the point where their job losses aren't even tallied--feel about this?
Upcoming Bureau of Labor Statistics "U6" numbers, expected with the full, monthly BLS report over the next week, should certainly show an unemployment rate around or above 15%; but, "U3" employment statistics are projected to be around 7.5%+/-, per an article about this in today's Bloomberg Media: "ADP Says U.S. Companies Reduced Payrolls by 522,000."
(Up until a couple of years into the Clinton administration, publicized "U6" rates were the norm, which included folks that had been out of work for more than a year, as well as underemployed members of the workforce--those forced into part-time and significantly lower-paying occupations primarily due to current economic conditions. These two segments are not accounted for in the "U3" rate, which is the "standard" unemployment rate that is widely publicized by the U.S. government now, even though the "U6" rate is also/still updated by the BLS on a monthly basis. )
IMHO, when conducting a historical comparison between U.S. unemployment rates prior to the mid-90's and today, an apples-to-apples review of statistics may only be obtained by referencing U6 statistics. Historically, U6 unemployment numbers have been running at approximately twice the rate of U3. Therefore, it's fairly self-evident to project that actual U6 unemployment numbers as of January '09 will be at or around 15%, increasing proportionally from 13.5% in December.
"...and the band played on..."