July 6, 2012 - 9:51 am
CNBC drilled down into the June jobs numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here is the shocking truth about the figure of 80,000 jobs supposedly created.
The birth-death model, which approximates the amount of jobs gained through new businesses created too recently to be counted in the formal survey, added 124,000 positions, meaning that without the estimation the total count would have been a loss of 44,000.
Watch for the July jobs report period in a few weeks. That’s when we’re likely to see that June’s numbers get revised down, as has been the trend during the Obama era. June may get revised into negative job growth.
Clinton did the same thing. Every single jobs and inflation report during his administration was always (quietly) bent in the direction favoring the administration and then “corrected”. That’s why people think he did a great job economically.
Instead, Dems always play hot potato with Republicans. If you think Bush left a few problems for Ostupid, wait until you see what he l;eaves for Romney.
Don’t worry, though. The press will blame it all on Romney, after turnign a blind eye to bad news while the Kenyan is still in office.
Greenspan should have been prosecuted for what he left Bush.
If you still trust any data coming from this corrupt government, you’re a fool!
When is Romney going to start calling a spade a spade (no pun intended) and call Obama out as a liar who is deliberately misleading the public on jobs figures. Obama keeps touting these “4 million jobs” HE HAS CREATED in the last 36 months. We know this to be 100% pure bovine scatology but nobody will call him an absolute LIAR, not disengenuous or some other sissy way of sugar coating the issue.
This man (our president) is the most utterly incompetent man to ever hold this office. Putin and every other despot on Earth make him look like the weak little man-child he is. Its not because of a lack of experience, as some would argue, its because of a lack of American character and principles.
We’re going to vote you in Mr. Romney because we cannot stomach this buffoon any longer, but you had better man-up and show some guts or you’ll only be there for four years also.
“That’s when we’re likely to see that June’s numbers get revised down, as has been the trend during the Obama era.”
I’m sorry, but this is not true. I work with economic data for a living. I keep track of the monthly payroll figures — both as originally reported and as subsequently revised (and keep in mind that the numbers are subject to several subsequent revisions, not just one). Of the 40 months from February 2009 (Obama’s first full month in office) through May of 2012 (the most recent month which has been subject to at least one revision), 24 have subsequently been revised higher, and 16 have been revised lower. The infamous “zero jobs” figure originally reported last August, for example, is now +85,000. The average revision over these 40 months has actually been +6,000 jobs. And most of the negative revisions came in 2009 and 2010. Among the most recent 23 months, only 2 have ended up with downward revisions in the final figures.
I’m not trying to defend Obama. I can’t stand the guy, and I think his economic policies are a disaster. But you shouldn’t make assertions about the data that just aren’t true.
This is a helpful comment. Thank you.
I am not a big Clinton fan but jobs growth was strong throughout most of his tenure especially after the R’s gained control of congress.
What is going on now is beyond awful. I doubt that Obama is fudging the numbers. My proof? If he was, I would have to think he would do a better job than this. Then again, it is Obama we are talking about. If he were a mortician everyone would stop dying.
Hey, when do those of us who are underemployed at the minimum wage or just over it, with few or no benefits, get REPARATIONS from our evil-hearted “fellow citizens” who ruined our lives by voting Obama into office?
Just askin’.
So those new businesses that managed to get a business license, a loan from the bank, and hire an average of 10 employees (12,400 businesses) came out of thin air in this wondrous environment was the only portion that increased employment.
Do you know anybody opening a business right now?
I understand the birth-death model and it should be there, but someone cooked it recently to get the number better.
– revisions mean look to the market, when it plummets the machines know.
Very poorly written by CNBC, which, as the “business news” portion of the Peacock Empire, should know what the Birth/Death Model is. Since it is an adjustment of the seasonally-unadjusted numbers (which was +391K total) to estimate the effects of newly-launched businesses that are too new to possibly be part of the CES survey, it means that roughly 32% of the job gain may well be a bunch of Bravo Sierra.
Unfortunately, we won’t know for certain until the end of December whether the jobs report is VX or mustard gas. In either case, it’s toxic.
I agree with John Galt above: Does anybody believe it even remotely likely that in the current economy, 12,400 *more* businesses would open in a single month than folded? Do you know *anyone* who’s opened a small business recently?
But even aside from violating common sense–which is sometimes wrong–go look at the summary of the birth/death model’s results for the past year, at http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbd.htm which breaks the model’s results down by economic sector. Look at the swing between Jan and Feb of this year: For “Construction” there’s a huge loss of jobs in Jan and a big pickup the next month, and that seems pretty reasonable, since construction is heavily influenced by weather.
But then look at the same months for the heading “Professional and businesses services”: a loss of 95,000 jobs in Jan, then a gain of 30,000 in Feb.
You wouldn’t expect much weather factor in that sector.
Then go read the “FAQ” for the model. You’ve never seen so much crap verbiage in your life. These guys should all be fired.
I can understand how job gain or loss among *already established* companies could show a big swing from month to month, since a big company can decide to layoff 20,000 employees at a time. But opening a new business would seem overwhelmingly likely to be a function of the economic outlook of the entrepreneurial class, which would seem to be a much less volatile function.
Similarly, I would suspect the number of businesses folding is even less volatile, since owners of small businesses usually try to keep going as long as they can, hoping for a miracle. While there’s probably a small annual pattern (“If it doesn’t look better by the end of the year we’ll fold it”), I’d be hugely surprised if the number of business “deaths” changes more than ten percent from month to month.
With all that said, I’m with Steven above in not calling this political chicanery, simply because the model’s alleged results vary so wildly in both directions from month to month, so don’t seem to help Obama. I think it’s more likely just a screwy model.