A Reader Asks "How Did 558,000 People Lose Their Jobs When Only 190,000 Jobs Were Lost?"

Here is an excerpt from today's Bureau of Labor Statistics Non-farm Payrolls report.

"The unemployment rate rose from 9.8 to 10.2 percent in October, and nonfarm
payroll employment continued to decline (-190,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. The largest job losses over the month were in con-
struction, manufacturing, and retail trade.

Household Survey Data

In October, the number of unemployed persons increased by 558,000 to 15.7
million. The unemployment rate rose by 0.4 percentage point to 10.2 percent,
the highest rate since April 1983. Since the start of the recession in
December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has risen by 8.2 million,
and the unemployment rate has grown by 5.3 percentage points...

The civilian labor force participation rate was little changed over the month
at 65.1 percent. The employment-population ratio continued to decline in
October, falling to 58.5 percent."

An astute reader noticed that the BLS press release says that 190,000 jobs were lost from payroll employment, but the number of unemployed persons increased by 558,000. What's up with that?

The BLS report consists of two independent data samples. BLS has two monthly surveys that measure employment levels and trends: the Current Population Survey (CPS), also known as the household survey, and the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey, also known as the payroll or establishment survey.

There is the "Establishment Survey" which is based on responses from a sample of about 400,000 business establishments, about one-third of total nonfarm payroll employment. The headline payroll number, the job loss of 190,000, is based on this data.

Then there is the "Household Survey" which is a statistical survey of more than 50,000 households with regard to the employment circumstances of their members, which is then applied to the estimates of the US population to obtain the unemployment number. This survey was started in the 1950's and is conducted by the Census Bureau with the data being provided to BLS. It is from the household survey that more detailed information is obtained about employment statistics within population groups like gender and age, wages, and hours worked. It is this study that is responsible for the unemployment rate of 10.2%.



So which survey is correct? Neither. The truth is somewhere in between.

The most obvious reason for the discrepancy is that job creation in the US seems to be centered in the smaller business and the self-employed areas in recent years. These sectors are not polled by the BLS and their impact would only be obtained by the Household Survey's interviews.

The BLS does have a way to account for this called the "Birth Death Model" which is supposed to estimate jobs created by smaller businesses. That model is a bit of a joke actually since it almost always follows the same pattern of adding jobs, with two big corrections in January and July of each year when it will do the least damage to the headline number. Any model that does not reflect the job declines that started in 2007 can most certainly be called a statistical joke. Small business is not immune to business cycles.



The payroll survey for October will be revised several times in the short term, with each release of monthly data, and even larger revisions will be done periodically, every year or so, to correct the whole series and sometimes dramatically.

The household survey is not revised per se, but the data against which it is statistically evaluated, the census data of the population, will be revised and this will change the representation of the monthly samples. Let's hope that lowering of the population is only done by revision of the numbers, and not the more draconian things practiced throughout the earlier part of the 20th century.

There was a famous joke that the Household Survey and the Establishment Survey were synchronized under George W. Bush by getting rid of people, by lowering the estimates of the population that is, which is something his pappy did when he was the president. In the states there will be a new Census conducted in 2010 as you yanks may already know, so we will have to see if the census bureau's population estimates are lowball or highball.

So what are we to conclude from this?

First, that Wall Street and the government use the monthly jobs data as tools to achieve their particular ends, to justify programs, to buy and sell, to promote certain ideas and behaviours in the public. Secondly, people will believe what they wish to believe to suit their biases if they are not fact-based in their thinking.

The truth is more clearly demonstrated in the long term trends, the averaging of the data over time. It does not seem that the long term data is as manipulated as the Consumer Price Index information which has become a statistical disgrace with its hedonic adjustments.

So what do we do, the average person with too little time and too many other priorities, at times seemingly held captive by the flows of information from the mainstream media? As always, we must sift what the government and business tell us, with a keen eye for deception which is an unfortunate part of human nature especially when things are not going well and it is easy to rationalize many things, and do what seems to be the right thing based on our own judgement and a broader analysis of all the news.

Perspective: SP 500 Rally From the First Bottom of the Financial Crisis

Here is a longer term chart of the SP 500 showing the decline with the unfolding financial crisis, and the rally from the first major market bottom in equities. The rally has been a nearly perfect 50 percent retracement.



Here is the same view of the SP 500 but deflated by the Euro. This puts the rally into a slightly different perspective, which is not nearly so dramatic, about a 38.2% retracement which is a decent bounce.



Again the same chart of the SP 500, this time deflated by gold. The rally is stripped of the monetary inflation supplied by the Fed, and appears to more accurately reflect the 'jobless recovery.'

Warren Pollock: Game Change for Zombie Banks

Gasparino on "The Sellout"

RealClearMarkets has an interesting interview with Charlie Gasparino regarding his new book "The Sellout." There seems to be a consensus forming that something has gone seriously wrong with the US republic, and that the Obama administration is failing to address it, failing badly.

One has to wonder what it will take to give Washington a wakeup call. It seems that, when confronted by white collar crime, people lose all the perspective which they have when it comes to fighting crime and injustice. "It won't work, it can't be done, they will just come back and do it again."

Well, duh. If you make it worth their while, administer wristslap justice at worst, and let all the top dogs openly flout the law, of course they will be back. What the US needs is the reincarnation of Melvin Purvis with a minor in finance. I would put Eliot Spitzer in charge of the SEC with the right resources and let him rip through Wall Street like the wrath of God, and make the bankers howl.

But that probably won't happen, because there is too much dirt, too many scandals on both sides of the aisle for this crew to administer its oath to uphold the Constitution.

Here is an excerpt from the interview:

"I don't know when it's going to happen, but if history is any guide, it has to happen again--the "it" being another financial crash. Of course, it won't happen tomorrow or next week, or maybe not even two years from now. But when the memory of 2008 wears off, and mark my words it will wear off, excessive risk taking will be back in a form that evades all these alleged regulatory controls that have been established. Regulation can never cure the disease of excessive risk.

The only thing that can cure it is tough love--allowing firms to fail. That doesn't mean I wanted the Fed and the Treasury to walk away last year. That would have meant Armageddon. But they should have walked away before that, when the systemic risk was smaller and the damage would have been limited. 1998 would have been a great place to start. Let Long Term Capital Management fail; let Lehman, and as I show in my book, possibly Merrill to fail, because the trades were the most vulnerable to LTCM's bad bond market bets.

Instead, by arranging a bailout, and by using free money to juice up the markets, policy makers emboldened Wall Street to take even more risk. That's what they did then, and that's what I fear is happening all over again...

Now I'm not in the Goldman is the center of all evil camp. But I know a lot of really smart people who believe that Goldman's bankers and traders virtually control the federal government in order to advance their own notorious agenda.

In fact, as I show in The Sellout, there were far worse players whose risk taking led to last year's meltdown, starting with Merrill Lynch and Citigroup. They were equally powerful from a policy making standpoint.

Remember, after Robert Rubin fought to end Glass-Steagall's separation of investment and commercial banking, he didn't go back to his old firm, Goldman Sachs, he went to work for the firm that benefited the most from the law's demise, Citigroup.

But Goldman in many ways crystallizes all that is wrong with the financial bailout, started by the Bush Administration, but carried on and expanded by Obama's. Goldman has been declared a bank, not much different than the old Bailey Building and Loan, and yet they don't take deposits or offer checking accounts. So what do they do? They trade, and they are trading as a federally protected bank, meaning they get to borrow at cheaper rates and they are Too Big To Fail."

Read the full interview here.