So, yes, the US unemployment rate was released this morning, and no real surprises there - up .1% to 6.1%, the highest level in 9 years. Economists actually expect the rate to continue to climb over the next few months, even if the economy turns around, as only phenomenal economic conditions could accommodate the millions of high school and college graduates expected to enter the job force this summer.
But the real story is the one mentioned here yesterday, newly instituted changes in the "Establishment Survey Data", which essentially counts the number of jobs created or eliminated in any given month. Not only does the BLS plan on using these new "adjustments" going forward, but it plans on revising previous data as well. I got my first clue as to just exactly what that might mean from this snippet in this morning's AP report on the jobless numbers:
Payrolls fell by 17,000 in May following a revision in April, in which no jobs were lost (my emphasis). Industries driving the cuts were manufacturing, transportation and government.
Now, I seem to remember that somewhere around 50,000 jobs were reported to have been lost in April, but I couldn't pull up that data on the BLS website, as, in place of the usual archives, I found this notice:
The data from the Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National) program is currently unavailable. We will restore the data as soon as possible. For immediate assistance, contact our data specialist listed below. Thank you for your interest in BLS data, and we apologize for the inconvenience.
Well, fortunately, I wasn't kidding yesterday when I suggested people download the old data, and took my own advice. Lo and behold, when I looked up it up in my trusty Excel spreadsheet, as of yesterday, prior to today's "revisionism", the BLS reported a loss of 48,000 jobs in April. I sometimes hate it when I'm right.
I guess it's one more thing to add to the list of MIA under this Administration:
WMDs in Iraq
The Child Tax cut for the working poor
Indictments for Ken Lay
Jobs
BLS reporting of jobs
Earlier today on Wampum, I hinted as to some developing controversy regarding tomorrow's unemployment numbers. This has its roots the Cassandra Complex (tm) I unfortunately developed back in January, when I first began to read the raw unemployment reports from the BLS. I noted back then that January's employment picture looked particularly rosy not due to any major upswing in the economy, but because the Administration had altered the way it was collecting and reporting data, conveniently skewing results in the process. February and March's results were also tampered with, but decidedly less so than January's. Then, in April, I noticed that the BLS had planned in June to once again institute major changes to the employment reports. Whether these changes will effect the spinning of tomorrow's unemployment report, I can't say. But it's also a question I noticed was asked by at least twomedia sources today:
Before investors react to Friday's report, however, they may spend some time scratching their heads about it. The Labor Department is revising the numbers in its surveys of employers' payrolls.
In addition to changing seasonal adjustments and updating benchmark figures, the department is shifting some job descriptions and moving some jobs from manufacturing into services in what it says is an effort to more accurately reflect the current economy.
Economists, on average, expect employers cut 39,000 jobs outside the farm sector last month, according to a Reuters poll, down from 48,000 job cuts in April -- but prior data, going all the way back to 2001, are being revised, so comparisons to prior months might be difficult.
When I went over to the BLS press release on the changes, it stated that reports were being revised back to at least 1990! Talk about having the ability to rewrite economic history. In fact, for the sake of the historic record, maybe it's time to start downloading the old data.
Since only CNN Asia and the Post noted the changes today, I'll be curious to see how the report is spun tomorrow, particularly if it differs substantially from the 30-50K job loss forecasted by analysts and the market. But then again, if the unemployment rate jumps more than .1%, I suspect some great WMD (Weapon of Media Distraction) to suddenly appear.
[Update] I've been thinking about what these changes in the report might entail from a political perspective, and this fictitious exchange popped into my head:
Fox News, June, 2004
Sean Hannity: So, Terry McAuliffe, what again are these charges you're making against our fearless leader's stewardship on economic issues?
Terry McAuliffe: Under George Bush's watch, this economy has lost 2.7 million jobs.
Hannity: 2.7 million? Who says?
McAuliffe: The Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Hannity: Really. Well, I'm looking at the website right now, and its says that George Bush has created 2.7 million jobs.
McAuliffe: Yes, but, but, but... that's only because last summer, he had the BLS change all the numbers.
Hannity: Yes, sure he did, Terry (winking to the camera.) By the way, Terry, have you seen my Pulitzer, er, Peabody?
Okay, so now maybe I really am suggesting that people do in fact download the current statistics at the BLS website. Just in case.
