Nerdy Job Number Item
The September employment report came in somewhat stronger than most people (including me) had expected, showing a gain of 110,000 jobs. In addition, August's numbers were revised upward to show a gain of 89,000, instead of a loss of 4,000. Most reporting has rightly focused on the good news.
However, it is worth noting another item in the report. The September report included preliminary benchmark revisions to the establishment survey based on state unemployment insurance records. These records, which provide a virtual census of payroll employment, show that the establishment survey overestimated job growth by 297,000 in the 12 months from March of 2006 to March of 2007, an average overestimate of approximately 25,000 per month.
The obvious culprit in this overestimate is the imputation for job growth in nearly created firms that could not be included in the survey. It would seem that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) overestimated job growth in new firms last year.
This fact is relevant to the September jobs data because BLS has actually imputed slightly more jobs into the establishment survey in the last three months than it did over the same period last year. If the imputation led to an average overestimate of job growth of 25,000 last year, it is reasonable to believe that the overestimate may be at least as large this year, since the economy seems weaker by most measures.
Reported job growth has averaged 97,000 over the last three months, so if BLS is overstating job growth by 25,000 a month due to a faulty imputation for jobs in new firms, the error would account for a substantial portion of reported job growth. We'll know the answer to this one in September of 2008 when next year's benchmark revisions are first released, but it is worth keeping an eye on this issue.
--Dean Baker
Feeds: 


COMMENTS (4)
don't know if this is updated but the birth/death model added 137,000 "jobs" in august and september.
http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm
Posted by: John | October 5, 2007 11:50 PM
Dean is it possible for Elaine Chow to manipulate these numbers ?
I don't trust anything BushCo gets its hands on ?
Posted by: Michael McKinlay | October 6, 2007 2:16 AM
The folks at BLS are very straight. I think it would be very difficult for Elaine Chow to directly manipulate the data for political purposes. I think that this imputation may overstate job growth, but that is due to the inherent difficulty of picking up economic tunring points, not tinkering with the numbers.
Posted by: Dean Baker | October 7, 2007 12:41 PM
Actually, the dollar is immediately borrowed by the Government and put to use in all the things they do. In a way the Trust Fund is a type of forced savings. The payee eventually gets back the principal with interest when he retires or is disabled. Any kind of retirement savings does the same thing, though private retirement funds obviously invest much more in the private sector.
Posted by: san | April 7, 2008 10:41 PM