Nonfarm Payroll and Unemployment Rate Predictions

Nonfarm payroll and unemployment data will be released today at 7:30am CDT.

After two abysmal months of job creation at 78k and 32k respectively, I can't be very optimistic about this number.

I had already predicated my projection as to this number on whether or not bush pounced on job creation and the strong recovery tonight in his speech, he did not, and he saw these number at 3pm CDT today.

My prediction now is that we created 90,000 jobs in August and the unemployment rate held steady at 5.5%.

What do you think?

the real number, as we all know, is closer to 10%.

the 5.5% reported is U3 unemployment, and that has always been considered the "official" unemployment rate.

The U6 unemployment rate in July was 9.5%, and not too far off from the historical norm. For example, in July 1996 the U6 rate was 9.7%.

At the height of the Clinton boom years the U6 rate only got below 7% a few months.

Any links for where I might educate myself?

And I believe there is a short description of U1-U6 on this page:
http://bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab12.htm

Unemployment calculation was changed in the early 80's. I don't remember how exactly how, had something to do with the way they counted the military. So "always been" isn't right.

But U3 has always been used as the official unemployment statistic.

The poster made the claim that U3 (widely reported number) was illegitimate or in some way a conspiracy, whereas U6 is the "real" number, but this has never been the case.

I'm saying maybe 100K to 125K, but it's still nowhere near where it needs to be. UE stays the same.

We need to keep hammering away at the net jobs lost and not let them try to keep shining a light on a couple of months. That's one thing I've notice they are so good at.

For example, RNC Host Committee Chair Sheeky quoted hotel occupancy is up 13% over last year. In reality, that is awful performance. What's telling though, is he doesn't state what last year's occupancy was. It could have been 40%!!! With the 'economy booming' and the thousands of delegates, politicians, press, protestors, etc. in town for the convention, nothing short of 90-95% occupancy should have been happening.

until they silently revise the first fake numbers with the real numbers at a later date on a friday night? This is SOP for the RW controlled government.
:dem:

---

Read about the Right-Wing "Master Plan": http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-contents.html

Have you read "War is a Racket"?: http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

Read George Orwell's classic "1984" free online here: http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984

And it is only revised on the date that payrolls are announced.

There is a benchmark revision, every year, in March IIRC.

That would definitely put the nail through bush's coffin and erase and bump he got from his convention.

that would be the ticket.... i would be singing and dancing all the way to the morning pink slip!

"Because we acted, our economy is growing again and creating jobs and nothing will hold us back." Bu$h tonight.

Something bellow 150.000 and UR at 5.5%

Remember Bush already had the numbers before his speech. If numbers were good he would mention in his speech that "we create jobs" or something like that.

Unless I missed it somehow I didn't hear him talk about new jobs being created.

Intel lowered forecast. The entire tech sector will tank. If things are getting better, why are GM, Ford, Intel and others cutting production?

nt

QUOTE:
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: AUGUST 2004

Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 144,000 in August, and the unemployment
rate was little changed at 5.4 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the
U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Over the month, job growth occurred
in several service-providing industries.

Unemployment (Household Survey Data)

Both the number of unemployed persons, 8.0 million, and the unemployment
rate, 5.4 percent, were little changed from July to August. The jobless rate
is down from its recent high of 6.3 percent in June 2003; most of this decline
occurred in the second half of last year. In August, the unemployment rates
for the major worker groups--adult men (5.0 percent), adult women (4.7 percent),
teenagers (17.0 percent), whites (4.7 percent), blacks (10.4 percent), and
Hispanics or Latinos (6.9 percent)--showed little change over the month. The
unemployment rate for Asians was 3.6 percent in August, not seasonally adjusted.
(See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

Total employment held at 139.7 million in August, and the employment-pop-
ulation ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and over with jobs--
was essentially unchanged at 62.4 percent. The civilian labor force was about
unchanged over the month at 147.7 million. After rising in July, the labor
force participation rate edged down to its June level of 66.0 percent. (See
table A-1.)
SNIP.........

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Being a statistician and quantum chemistry, everything is probabilities to me. I would surmise, from the trends, between 75k and 90k. That's the 95% confidence interval based upon CUSUM analysis of the last 12 months.
The Professor

First time in nearly 3 months.

Under in the UE rate too.

My values are based on the EHI, not on the Labor data. I think the latter number is always a little high, vs. reality. It's usually adjusted after the EHI values are known, but those usually come out late in the 2nd week or early 3rd week of each month.

I'll stay with my prediction, which is strikingly similar to yours.
The Professor