Skip to main content

ADP's count of new private-sector jobs
It's that time of the month again. Come Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will announce its seasonally adjusted count of jobs added to the U.S. economy in July. Or, actually, how many were added between about June 13 and July 12 since the bureau closes its data collection at mid-month for its report.

Two days before that report appears, however, in conjunction with Moody's Analytics, Automated Data Processing, a "human capital management" company, releases its own seasonally adjusted survey of jobs added or shed in the private sector. And even though it fails time and again to come up with a count that meshes closely with those of the BLS, economists and other analysts eagerly await the results each month. Today's ADP seasonally adjusted count for July? 200,000 new private jobs. That compares with the revised count of 198,000 private jobs added in June, originally reported as 188,000.

One valuable element of the ADP report is that it breaks down jobs gains or losses by the size of the company.

• Small businesses
   ° 1-19 employees: 51,000
   ° 20-49 employees: 31,000

• Medium businesses
   ° 50-499 employees: 60,000

• Large businesses
  ° 500-999 employees: 7,000
  ° 1,000+ employees: 50,000

By sector:

• Construction: 22,000
• Manufacturing: -5,000
• Trade/transportation/utilities: 45,000
• Financial activities: 4,000
• Professional/business services: 49,000

Unlike the ADP report, the BLS survey covers both private- and public-sector jobs. The consensus of a small group of experts surveyed by Bloomberg is that the BLS will report Friday that, seasonally adjusted, 175,000 new jobs were added July. But for the past four-plus years, the consensus has been wrong about as often as the ADP report has.

For some time now, the BLS report itself has come under considerable criticism, including from the former chief of the bureau from 2008-2012, Keith Hall. He first made his criticisms publicly known last October.

More analysis of the job report can be read below the fold.

It's not a conspiracy, as former GM CEO Jack Welch would have it, nor BLS statisticians distorting the numbers themselves. Rather it is, as I—and other critics with far better credentials—have said for several years, a question of emphasis, of formula and of the bureau's presentation. All that encourages media outlets to focus on two numbers, the headline numbers, pretty much to the exclusion of the wealth of other data included in the BLS report. Those two are the number of payroll jobs businesses report they have created (again, seasonally adjusted by formula) and the unemployment rate.

But as we critics have repeatedly noted, and Keith Hall now concedes, the numbers are tallied in such a way that it's too easy for one to be considered employed and too hard to be considered unemployed. For instance, if you report to the BLS surveyors that you worked one hour a week, you are counted as employed. If you still want a job but you've been turned down so many times you've given up looking for more than a year, you aren't counted at all. You're considered out of the labor force altogether. And that skews the headline numbers.

Simply stated, if there are 1,000 people in the labor force and 100 of them aren't working, the unemployment rate is 10 percent (100 ÷ 1,000 = 0.10). But if 50 of those 1,000 job seekers stop looking for work out of frustration, they are considered no longer in the labor force, which now clocks in at 950. The unemployment rate thus falls to 5.3 percent (50 ÷ 950 = 0.53).

A rate that falls from 10 percent to 5.3 percent makes for a good headline. But it doesn't make for a good economy if those 50 drop-outs still want a job but are too discouraged by rejections to keep looking for one.

And that, as Keith Hall said in an interview with the New York Post earlier this month, is what's been happening over the past several years. Just as many critics have been saying for years. We've seen a steep drop since the Great Recession begain in the "labor-force participation rate," which is the proportion of the population that is in the labor force, and the "employment-population ratio," which is the proportion of the population that is employed.

Result: The count of the jobless is "artificially low," perhaps 3 percentage points too low, according to Hall. Since the official unemployment rate is currently 7.6 percent, Hall puts the "real" rate at 10.6 percent. Stated another way, instead of 11.8 million being unemployed, 16.5 million are.

Add in those who work part-time jobs even though they want full-time jobs, and underemployment plus unemployment ratchets up the numbers to at least 23 million and probably closer to 25 million.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:18 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  However bad the numbers are (12+ / 0-)

    at reflecting the underlying reality of the economy's performance, because they use a consistent methodology over time they are still relevant indicating the change in the economy.

    We want to know if more or less people are suffering today than a year ago, or six months ago, or six years ago.  The BLS (and ADP) numbers may be horrendous at telling us exactly how many are suffering, but they are excellent at telling us if more or less people are suffering today.

    The ADP report, then, is unvarnished good news.

    When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

    by litho on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:27:29 AM PDT

    •  Yes (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      litho, Sybil Liberty, PrahaPartizan

      If you've got a bucket full of water with water pouring in and leaking out, and the bucket is vigorously sloshing, you can still get a decent estimate of how full the bucket is by measuring how much sloshes over the edge.

      Is it accurate? No. But will more slosh out as the bucket fills? Yes.

      Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

      by blue aardvark on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:39:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Only in la-la land. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Words In Action

      The BLS numbers purport to tell us EXACTLY how many people are unemployed, but the don't, do they?  Not only that, but because they don't count all the unemployed, one cannot believe whether or not net jobs have been added- BECAUSE THEY DON'T COUNT ALL THE UNEMPLOYED!  Perhaps as many, or more, people have quit looking for work as the number of people who have started new jobs.
      However bad these numbers are, they mean nothing, because they are incorrect, so that ANY conclusions one may make based on those numbers are incorrect.  Period.

      Math is hard.  But not that hard.

      •  You know what, you're right! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aquarius40, smartalek

        There's absolutely no measurable difference between an economy that produces 100,000 jobs in a month and one that produces 200,000 jobs in one month.

        Whatever was I thinking?  I surrender in the face of your unparalleled brilliance.

        When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

        by litho on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:52:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Was that too hard for you?. Math is math. (0+ / 0-)

          It's counting, there are no differences in opinion in math.  Ya either count and add correctly, or your numbers are bullshit.

          I do believe you're trying to base an evaluation of how good Obama has been on the economy on bad numbers.  There are other metrics that provide honest numbers.  BLS doesn't even try. I'm  not going to quibble with you if you want to see the glass as half full.  I do that on occasion myself.  But you should seriously consider getting another glass, cause this one is empty all the way down to the bottom.

          •  Simple Counting Fails (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Meteor Blades, Eric Nelson

            The BLS cannot simply just count the number of new jobs being reported and expect it to reflect the condition of the economy.  For one thing, the BLS needs to include seasonality into the computation.  Otherwise, the numbers incorporate excessive spikes and dips which just confuse the situation.  They need to add other factors into the calculation as well to reflect other long-term changes known to be operative in the economy.  If anyone thinks that the modern MSM crowd could take the raw numbers the BLS might assemble and generate a meaningful report, they really should take a look at the talent talking on most news stations and be honest.

            "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

            by PrahaPartizan on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:21:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Given how shallow 95% of the reporting... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eric Nelson

              ...on BLS numbers is, it's hard to imagine their digging through the raw numbers and coming up with anything even close to understandable.

              One way the BLS could help matters is to better emphasize some of the data from its own surveys that provides a more complete picture than the official unemployment rate and formula-ized count of jobs created does. The data are there, but the broader focus is not.

              Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

              by Meteor Blades on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 09:02:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  This is true. (0+ / 0-)

              But before you start compensating for "seasonality", you must FIRST start with honest numbers.  BLS does not.

            •  I thought BLS #s *were* "seasonally adjusted"... (0+ / 0-)

              You are saying that they are not?

              •  I think the commenter is saying these things... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                ...ARE being done and that without their being done, the press wouldn't be able to grasp much of anything useful from the raw data.

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 10:45:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Pretty Sure They're Both (0+ / 0-)

                I seem to recall that the BLS reports both unadjusted and adjusted data as they've collected it, but the reported numbers are based on the seasonally adjusted figures.  MB's comment is correct in my assertion that the MSM is incapable of discerning the true state of affairs from anything but a spoon-fed report.  American journalism has really deteriorated into an overpaid stenography pool.

                "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

                by PrahaPartizan on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 12:33:03 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  i'm still suffering (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      out of work for 10 months now, can't collect unemployment. if it weren't for my family i'd either be homeless or a suicide statistic. or both.

      I'm still waiting for Obama to end the damned wars, and torture, and stand up to the Republican hegemony.

      by jsepeta on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:46:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Absolutely! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PorridgeGun, PrahaPartizan, smartalek

      It's strange that the real rate of unemployment is only discussed when a Dem is in office. Sure the recovery is slower than it could be but that's because of Repub obstruction. As long as the BLS is computing the number the same as in the past, there is a constant rate of error and the current time period can be compared with previous times. Repubs are trying to create a more severe standard to measure a Dem by but are silent when a Repub is in office. Unfortunately, by libs trying to be accurate, we point out the fallacies even when a Dem is in office and that gives credibility to questioning the numbers. Bush's job numbers were terribly erractic over the course of his presidency. Many of us knew that the jobs numbers were being inflated by a bubble economy and massive government spending (wars, stimulus, tax cuts) that distorted the real economy. Obama and the Dems (Jan 2009- Jan 2011) deserve the credit for whatever level of recovery we are currently experiencing--plus Bernanke, and the Repubs should be run out of town for doing everything possible to stall the recovery all for political gain.

      •  I don't know about you (5+ / 0-)

        but I remember having these exact debates back when Reagan was president.

        It's also my sense that Democrats are more interested in having accurate and precise numbers for unemployment than Republicans are.  Democrats care about the plight of the unemployed, so we want our numbers to tell us exactly the scale of the problem in order to develop effective policies to remediate it.  Republicans don't care about the unemployed, and the numbers are simply a means of attacking their opponents.

        When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

        by litho on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:50:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Respectfully, it's not what *we* debate that... (0+ / 0-)

          "We" are no more a representative sample of the populace in general than are, say, astrophysicists.
          To Jane & Jo Sixpakk, what matters is what's on the teevee "news," and -- maybe -- what's above the fold on the local and regional newspapers' front pages.
          And I'm reasonably confident that massive, public questioning of the accuracy of the unemployment metrics happens only -- or at least an order of magnitude or two more -- when there's a Dem in the Oval Office.

        •  On your larger point, I totally agree. (0+ / 0-)

          Sorry, I should have said that first.

    •  No disagreement about trends. And the trend... (8+ / 0-)

      ...has been positive for four years. Compare today's numbers and those released on Friday with those for July 2009 when the seasonally adjusted loss in jobs hit 351,000. Indeed, the numbers for July have gotten better year over year every since then.

      But "unvarnished" would describe the ADP jobs report (and presumably the BLS report coming Friday) as great. And given the huge hole the recession carved in employment, the numbers cannot be considered great until they hit 275,000 to 300,000 steadily each month for a couple of years. That's the territory shown in the best year of the Clinton administration.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:19:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Had Rmoney won, we'd be hearing all about... (0+ / 0-)

        ...the Romney Recovery, if not the Romney Boom.
        To the Publicans, never mind "half full" or "half empty."
        To them, and their media whores (no denigration of honest sex-workers intended), the glass is always either totally empty -- and cracked (when a Dem's in office) -- or full to overflowing (when it's one of their own).

  •  Boehner will say "We don't need any job improving (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue aardvark

    legislation; because the unemployment numbers keep going down".

    Nah - not likely

    with RWNJ honesty is never the best policy!

    Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

    by laserhaas on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:31:06 AM PDT

    •  And the Democrats will effectively accept that. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      After Bradley Manning, I don't give two shits about this President, his corrupt fascist administration or this fraudulent "Democratic" Party. I'll support a real Democrat, but they can shove the Republicrats right up their stinking ass.

      by Words In Action on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:44:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  GOP is biggest drag on economic growth (5+ / 0-)

    If it were not for the Republicans in Congress, the economy would be doing a whole lot better.
    The so-called sequester is not only causing havoc in federal agencies throughout the country, it is also dragging down economic growth and, thus slowing the creation of jobs.
    The GDP growth estimate for the second quarter, to be released today, is forecast to show a measly 1 percent growth; that would have been double if Congress was doing its job.
    The GOP doesn’t care about the economy, the voters or those without jobs. It seems to have a death wish. I blogged about this July 12: Is the GOP bent on Self destruction?


    by Warren Swil on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:35:58 AM PDT

    •  Example: I just drove I-80 from Denver to CT (5+ / 0-)

      We probably had about 5-10 areas of construction in that distance.  Each site might have had 50 workers (plus whatever downstream and off site workers might have been involved.  Call that about 500 workers along I-80.

      But in looking at the roads and bridges, it was obvious that there were probably five times as many areas that were just as in need of repair as those areas being repaired.  Now multiply that by the number of interstates out their.  And then figure that the closest we came to an actual metropolitan center was skirting around the southern border of Chicago, so we saw NOTHING of what was needed inside metro areas.  Nor did we see any work related to mass transit expansion.

      All in all - my point being that there are probably 10s of thousands of good solid construction/infrastructure jobs that could be funded by very low rate federal borrowing, which would 1) provide jobs, 2) boost tax revenues, and 3) repair a badly frayed infrastructure and even upgrade it to one that is more energy efficient.

    •  Actually reported better than expected... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PorridgeGun, thomask, smartalek

      ...growth in real GDP for second quarter at 1.7%. But first quarter revised from 1.8% to 1.1%.

      With little doubt, had the obstructionists been out of the way, and a strong jobs program put into place, things would have been better, perhaps much better.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:04:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed - The Numbers Aren't Bad, But They Could (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      be much better were it not for Republican obstructionism.
      The GOP only cares about their REAL constituents - the wealthy 1%. Everyone else they claim to represent (i.e. the gun nuts, the anti-abortion crowd, the Christian evangelicals, the Tea party loons, etc.) are all convenient idiots for them, useful only for their votes.

  •  Maybe parsing too finely, but apples to apples (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    would report by gender, age cohort and educational level, at a minimum.  As reported now, it is hard (but I think maybe possible) to sort out non-participation because of aging out vs. non-participation because of discouragement.  But then how does one address the skewing that occurs because you are still working at 66 because your 401K was trashed in the great recession and you couldn't stick around and wait for it to recover (as the markets have pretty much done in the past 3-4 years).

    Lots of moving parts and looking at only a couple of the numbers can be - as you note - quite deceiving.  On the other hand, you don't want to be too Cassandra-ish if there is some underlying pockets of progress.

    As one of my former colleagues said: "You can torture the data until it tells you what you want to hear"

    Maybe that's why economics is such a "dismal science"?

  •  Paul Krugman (genuflect!) uses labor (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boatsie, smartalek, Eric Nelson

    participation rate - what percentage of those 25 to 55 years of age are working full time. I may be off on the 25, but you get the idea - people post-college and pre-retirement. What fraction of those people have jobs?

    Next question ought to be the median (and yes, MEDIAN) hourly wage for those people.

    And then the goal of economic policy ought to be to maximize the product participation*median hourly salary.

    Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

    by blue aardvark on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:37:34 AM PDT

  •  Good, we'll replace the jobs lost by the 30s. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pescadero Bill, HeyMikey

    Good enough for neoliberal gubmint work.

    After Bradley Manning, I don't give two shits about this President, his corrupt fascist administration or this fraudulent "Democratic" Party. I'll support a real Democrat, but they can shove the Republicrats right up their stinking ass.

    by Words In Action on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:43:44 AM PDT

  •  money (0+ / 0-)

    Is there a reliable way to know the average salary of the new jobs?

    Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. John Kenneth Galbraith .

    by melvynny on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:44:45 AM PDT

    •  The National Employment Law Project has... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smartalek, Eric Nelson

      ...done some work in this regard. The BLS tallies average pay (mean) by sector. But that's for all jobs, not just new ones. You can see the results here and here. Notice that the first is all employees and the second is non-supervisory employees. Means tends to skew the total upward. A median is a better measure.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 09:08:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  is it true we need 375,00 new jobs for growth? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Egalitare, HeyMikey

    i recall a Marketplace report on public radio during the Bush years that stated we need 375,000 new jobs per month for the economy to be thriving, like it was under Clinton's leadership.

    I'm still waiting for Obama to end the damned wars, and torture, and stand up to the Republican hegemony.

    by jsepeta on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 06:45:46 AM PDT

    •  Boomers Retiring (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Since the start of the baby boom generation has now reached retirement age and some of them have started actually retiring, the number of jobs in the workforce needed to meet full employment will continue to decline.

    •  Bush Bites brought this to my attention (5+ / 0-)

      Probably has been cited by MB or other FPers before, but it was the first time I clicked on the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Job Calculator

      How many jobs we need to create monthly is a function of what level of unemployment one thinks we ought to be at and how quickly we ought to get there. If as Fed Chair Bernanke seems to "suggest" the goal for U3 is 6.5% and we resolve to get there in 36 months, then we need to average 150 k jobs a month. Note however that there are some variables in the calculator, and one of the more important ones is participation rate (CPR in the calculator). Over the past couple decades it's been higher than the "suggested target" 63.5% so if you plug in 65% (still below the two decade average), you need to average close to 250 k jobs a month for 36 months.

      I plugged in a target of 5% U3, a participation rate of 65% and 36 months to achieve it and got very close to your 375 k a month figure.

      When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:10:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  More like 100-125,000/month to have actual growth (4+ / 0-)

      Because that is roughly the monthly increase in the working-age population. So fewer jobs than that added in a month actually means that unemployment is getting worse.

      To have a thriving economy is a different story. With today's unemployment rates, 200,000 jobs/month is nice, but only improves the situation very slowly. It will for instance take pretty much the rest of the decade to get back to the employment rate we had in early 2008 if growth continues at this pace.

      "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw

      by Drobin on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 08:32:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes. 200k jobs/mo = job recovery by 2021. 2021!!!! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades

        At 200,000 jobs a month, we'll be back to 2007 levels of employment by 2021.

        At 321,000 jobs a month (= to best year in the Clinton boom), we'll be back to 2007 levels of employment by 2017.

        And it's even worse:

        * That just counts "jobs." It doesn't account for new jobs being lower-paid than old jobs, or part-time replacing full-time.

        * That uses a very optimistic figure of only 88,000 new workers per month entering the work force.

        Plug in your own number and see the resulting "recovery" date here:

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 01:48:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Another issue with the data (0+ / 0-)

    At least around here, there are a lot of people working cash (under the table), either in casual service work like dog-walking or baby-sitting or hair-dressing, or in full-time construction jobs or landscaping or whatever for employers that don't want to have to pay FICA, unemployment, workers' comp, etc. Some of those workers are also collecting unemployment and/or disability. So when someone asks them "Are you employed?" they're likely to answer "no," and their employer(s) won't list them either. But they're also not "unemployed" in the sense of having no earned income. And some of them are earning a lot, just off the books. Many of them have no idea what they're earning, because it comes in and goes out and never gets written down.

    I don't know a good way to measure this shadow economy, since everyone involved will either lie or legitimately say "Oh, I didn't think you meant that." But IMO it's skewing all the statistics that we rely on to figure out how the economy as a whole is doing.

  •  The U.S. economy is showing a lot more (5+ / 0-)

    resilience than many thought it would.

    When one considers that Republican obstruction has led to the economy bleeding public sector workers and that efforts to increase productivity via robotics/automation is also causing a hit, the U.S. economy is showing some fundamental strength.  Much of this is probably due to the fact that U.S. oil imports are continually decreasing due to increased oil production in the U.S. combined with strongly strengthened automobile efficiency standards.  The stimulus investments in cleantech and renewables increasingly taking over new-built electricity production also is a positively contributing factor.

    I wouldn't expect this growth to last all too long, however, if the above-mentioned issues of a shrinking public work force and increasing automation aren't addressed and income inequality isn't reversed.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:34:33 AM PDT

  •  Nice report Meteor Blades! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson, Meteor Blades

    Written in a very clear and concise manner so that even a numbers dummy like me could understand it.  Thank you!

  •  Instead of the BLS report, why not a report (0+ / 0-)

    showing how many new tax dolllars came in last month?  I am sure that they could find out how many individual tax payments came in recently.  If that goes up by 1 then 1 new job was created.  That would be so much more accurate that what is done now.

    •  Should be "as well as," rather than "instead of" (0+ / 0-)

      ...because I imagine it's a lot harder to get the specific breakout data -- fields of commerce/industry, nature of jobs, age/gender/education of employees, etc.
      There might also be statutory or regulatory limits precluding such disclosures from IRS.
      And all of the under-the-counter "employment," mentioned by rugbymom a bit upthread, wouldn't show.
      Even with all these caveats, tho, I think you make a good point.
      I wonder why they don't do that?

    •  TrimTabs does this. You can see... (0+ / 0-)

      ...what they're saying here.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 10:49:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What is the figure (0+ / 0-)

    they use these days for the number of jobs needed to keep up with population growth?

    I've seen anywhere from 90k to 150k/month. It certainly makes a difference in how you look at the job stats.

    We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

    by denise b on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 03:05:14 PM PDT

    •  EPI used to use 127,000 a month... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      denise b

      ...until the 2010 Census when they shifted to 90,000. The Atlanta Federal Reserve has Jobs Calculator at its site that it says provides a reasonable gauge.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 10:52:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site