Article

2004-02-06 Home Front

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by rkb 2004-02-06 11:28:36 AM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 the gap between the household and the employer reports was even worse than usual this month -- the imputed job increase based on the household survey was about 500k as opposed to the increase based on the employer report of about 100k.

Posted by mhw 2004-2-6 11:34:12 AM|| 2004-2-6 11:34:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 mhw, that's because the employer report is inaccurate. People make the claim that it represents more people than the household survey but they are missing the point. It doesn't represent the country it only represents the companies that are being polled. With more new companies being started in the US as time goes on and the churn of leadership in business due to technology advances affecting every industry you cannot judge the economy by a group of companies anymore. You are simply missing what has become a huge part of our payrolls... new companies and independent consultants. The past 15 years have dramatically changed our economy. As it stands the household survey is the one that gives the true picture.

It's obvious this is true even on a personal level. Ask yourself this... if there are barely anymore jobs today than a year ago (according to employer survey) and the labor pool has grown it should actually be harder to find a job. Now look at your own and your friends situation... 1 year ago I had a few unemployed friends and everyone was worried about getting laid off. Now I have no unemployed friends and some are looking at better job offers. On a personal level it's clear to me which report is giving the accurate picture.

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-2-6 11:54:06 AM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-2-6 11:54:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Damn Proud,

Actually, the labor force has barely increased in the past year and, in fact has decreased since Oct. based on the household survey: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

A problem with your 'more new companies' hypothesis is that this is not easy to understand quantitatively. A single person may be a sole proprietor in 3 or 4 companies each doing a slightly different business. Furthermore, a lot of people are contract workers rather than payroll workers (my daughter for example). Whether she is working or not, she would respond to the household survey that she is a contract worker. Also the household survey has discontinuities in it because of adjustment for census estimates. I'm not that confident of either survey frankly. There isn't a good survey that measures the 'difficulty of finding a job' or the 'worry about getting laid off' either in a way that correlates well to either the employer or the household survey. Bummer.

Posted by mhw 2004-2-6 12:41:39 PM|| 2004-2-6 12:41:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Or as my macro eco-prof once said... "Well technically this is a big ass country, so who knows?"

Posted by Shipman 2004-2-6 2:50:25 PM|| 2004-2-6 2:50:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 A couple of econobloggers had an interesting theory, what if the Bush tax cuts brought more people into the workforce since there was more takehome?

Posted by Anonymous2U 2004-2-6 3:31:27 PM|| 2004-2-6 3:31:27 PM|| Front Page Top

08:16 Raptor
00:50 Traveller
00:38 Lucky
00:10 Lucky
23:53 BH
23:30 Aris Katsaris
23:30 Sonnie
23:07 Jarhead
23:05 Garrison
23:01 Old Patriot
23:00 Jarhead
22:58 Jarhead
22:53 dataman1
22:46 Old Patriot
22:43 dataman1
22:43 Jarhead
22:34 Old Patriot
22:34 GK
22:32 Jarhead
22:32 Traveller
22:30 Old Patriot
22:29 Barbara Skolaut
22:27 Korora
22:25 B