https://mishtalk.com/economics/was-the-real-jobs-revision-negative-818000-or-negative-915000/ Search * Twitter * RSS Feed [home] Mish Talk logo * Economics * Politics * Privacy Policy * Terms of Use * About * Community Guidelines * + Twitter + RSS Feed All Economics Politics Was the Real Jobs Revision Negative 818,000 or Negative 915,000? August 21, 2024 * 1:32 pm * 18 comments on Was the Real Jobs Revision Negative 818,000 or Negative 915,000? * Economics I calculated -915,000. Every headline said -818,000. I finally gave up and posted 818,000 but noted a discrepancy. I believe it's -915,000.[QCEW-Minus-Nonfarm-Payrolls-Year-Over-Year-2024-Q1-1] Using BLS QCEW data, I calculated a year-over-year decline of 915,000 jobs. I delayed my post this morning for hours trying to match 818,000. I gave up, reported 818,000 but also posted the above chart from my calculation. Moments ago, I received a note confirming my calculation. Note from Conrad Dequadros of Brean Capital There is more that goes into the prelim. benchmark revision estimate than just QCEW and we are still waiting for the BLS to update its page summarizing this estimate, but the QCEW is out and it shows not seasonally adjusted employment in the 12-months through March 2024 at 2.042 million versus NSA payrolls at 2.957 million (i.e., 915K lower) The above via email. I delayed my post figuring I missed a revision somewhere. I kept downloading QCEW data directly waiting for a change that never came. Here is my post this morning: BLS Revises Jobs Down by 818,000 the Most Ever, About 68,000 Per Month Do I get to say I told you so? My advance estimate a month ago was 779,000 lower. Bloomberg estimated 730,000. Apologies for being overly optimistic. I am struggling to match 818,000 this morning. Using unadjusted numbers, I calculate a discrepancy of 915,000. 68k downward revision per month on average. (My estimate is higher). My "most ever" headline may be incorrect. 2009 may have been higher, but I would like to see a consistent calculation of seasonal vs unadjusted numbers. For the record, I estimated -779,000 in advance vs -730,000 by Bloomberg. On July 26, 2024 I commented Expect the BLS to Revise Job Growth Down by 730,000 in 2023, More This Year Apologies for being overly optimistic. Mish's QCEW Spreadsheet [Mishs-QCEW-spreadsheet-2024-Q1] How Do We Get 818,000? I believe 818,000 was first reported by Bloomberg, then copied everywhere by everyone with few questioning the number. Five Possibilities 1. The BLS created a seasonally-adjusted number and gave it to Bloomberg without publishing it. 2. The BLS published 818,000 but where? 3. Bloomberg made an estimate of the seasonally-adjusted number and reported it, without specifying it is their adjustment. Everyone copied the without question. 4. Bloomberg or whoever was first in reporting 818,000 made a bad calculation using a mix of seasonally-adjusted and unadjusted numbers. 5. Something else, but what? The problem with #4 is that I cannot arrive at 818,000 no matter how I mix the numbers. Am I missing something? Option #1 is the most interesting. Who is it that would want to make this revision as small as possible? I am not saying that is the answer. I am open to all of the other options, including #5 "Something else, but what?". Regardless, I am now confident my calculation is correct. Nonfarm Payrolls Seasonal Adjustments Unadjusted numbers are generally worse in Q1 because of strong seasonal layoffs in January. So, I am not saying 818,000 is necessarily wrong, I just want to know how we got the number and why everyone copied it without question. Also if it is a seasonal adjustment someone should say so, Did the BLS go out of its way to report an out-of-the-ordinary unpublished seasonal adjustment? That may or may not be it. I just want to know how we got there. In my previous post, I stated "68k downward revision per month on average. (My estimate is higher)." My estimate is easy: 915,000 / 12 = -76,250 (on average, year-over-year), but that is unadjusted. I do not have a seasonally adjusted number but an adjusted number would definitely be higher (less negative). Regardless there are several important points of note. Five Important Points * The Fed is setting fiscal policy based off incredibly bad sets of numbers. * The market is reacting to incredibly bad sets of numbers. * The Congressional Budget Office is making calculations based off incredibly bad sets of numbers. * Personal income and Gross Domestic Income will be revised downward * The personal saving rate will be reduced from its already very depressed level of 3.5 percent. Those are the bottom-line implications no matter what number you believe. Don't tell me that +2,042,000 million jobs year-over-year (yellow highlight in above chart) is such a great number. 2024 Q2 and 2024 Q3 numbers will be increasingly poor. There have been negative revisions in nearly all economic reports. This is a very recessionary trend. It looks bad because it is bad. Improving the McKelvey Recession Indicator, No False Negative or Positive Signals Yesterday, I commented Improving the McKelvey Recession Indicator, No False Negative or Positive Signals Adding the job vacancy rate to the McKelvey (Claudia Sahm) recession signal eliminates false negatives and false positives, and provides a much faster signal than Sahm. Since 1953, every time the economy was in the current state, the economy was in recession. That does not make the odds 100 percent because everything is up to the NBER, the official arbiter of recessions. My recession post is on the complicated side, but please check it out. Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts. Type your email... [ ] Subscribe Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time. This post originated on MishTalk.Com Thanks for Tuning In! Mish [784be] Mike Shedlock Share this: * Facebook * X * Telegram * Email * Reddit * Pinterest * More * * LinkedIn * -BLS Revises Jobs Down by 818,000 the Most Ever, About 68,000 Per Month Ford Cancels Plans for Electric SUV, Expects a $1.9 Billion Loss- Recommended Articles * BLS Revises Jobs Down by 818,000 the Most Ever, About 68,000 Per Month Economics * Beneath the Headline Numbers, Not a Good Jobs Report Uncategorized * Housing Slowly Rolling Over: June Permits Down 6.1%, Starts Down 0.9% Economics Subscribe Notify of [new follow-up comments ] [ ] [>] guest Label [ ] [ ] Name* [ ] Email* [ ] [Post Comment] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] D[ ] guest Label [ ] [ ] Name* [ ] Email* [ ] [Post Comment] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] D[ ] 18 Comments Newest Oldest Most Voted Inline Feedbacks View all comments Thetenyear Thetenyear 2 hours ago Whether it's 818 or 915 misses the point. How do federal agencies get it so wrong? Payroll data is sent to the government by every company every pay period. They have the data yet they still rely on huge adjustments well after the fact. They need to blow up their models and start over again. 1 Reply Hide Show Casual Observer Casual Observer 1 hour ago Reply to Thetenyear One could make an argument that unemployment is overstated. There is lots of work going on in the cash economy that is not reported to any government agency. It is all tax free. Even real estate is a gigantic money laundering operation if you know how to do it and have the means. I expect states and federal government debt to only increase once more people get off the real system and just go underground. The banking system doesn't monitor anything below $10,000. 0 Reply Hide Show Flingel Bunt Flingel Bunt 2 hours ago This falls into the fallacious repetition category of 'brain washing.' Remember the 10-ft 'safe' distance during Covid? Repeated, and painted on floors, and people got angry if you were six inches short. Meanwhile: Wall Street had an early copy link to nytimes.com Last edited 2 hours ago by Flingel Bunt 0 Reply Hide Show Richard F Richard F 2 hours ago Forgive me pointing out the obvious but if job creation has been overstated then interest rates have been higher then needed to get the Job suppression Fed has engineered. Not such a bright thing to do going into an election. Credit card debt has also costed more then it should have. Guess who gets hurt most by this type of thing? it is not the wealthy donors but the working poor who have gotten shafted. Did they notice, these working poor that there was way too much bill left at end of month? Bet they did and they will be voting their wallets. 1 Reply Hide Show Kdiddy Kdiddy 2 hours ago Witnessing the extinction of truth. When even mild mannered government economist will blatantly lie in support of current administration where does one go for truth - forgot, there is the main stream media (see DNC propagandist). Do all liberal Dems support the win at any cost mindset? 6 Reply Hide Show Kdiddy Kdiddy 2 hours ago Reply to Kdiddy Forgot, greatest economy ever! 2 Reply Hide Show Midnight Midnight 2 hours ago Reply to Kdiddy Yes bc mean tweets scary 0 Reply Hide Show Flingel Bunt Flingel Bunt 2 hours ago Reply to Kdiddy Hive minds proliferate with other collective behavior. Divergent thinking drops to zero. 1 Reply Hide Show Bam_Man Bam_Man 2 hours ago "At this point what does it matter?" 0 Reply Hide Show AdamSmith AdamSmith 3 hours ago Over 12 months, the net is about 8000 more per month if the real number is 915 K. How come the real news isn't the fact that they lied to us and actually admitted it? How come the real news is they aren't lying about the data just like they did in the Soviet Union in the 1980s to pump an economy and diminish the wealth of the middle and lower class? no, I'm not into class warfare thanks. But we've certainly lost a lot more of our wealth down here than they have way up there. Central bankers. I would love to freeze them in giant blocks of ice and drop them off near the Mariana trench. The world would be a lot better place. THEY knew they were going to need a stock market pump before the election and they're going to get it in September. More money chasing fewer products = Duhhh Kammie just embraced FJB 2024 Econ plan. Hope whoever votes for her enjoys paying 25% tax on unrealized gains. 6 Reply Hide Show Flingel Bunt Flingel Bunt 2 hours ago Reply to AdamSmith Does not the 25% theft apply only after $100mil? 0 Reply Hide Show TexasTim65 TexasTim65 1 hour ago Reply to Flingel Bunt Its starts there but unless you believe in unicorns it will quickly be lowered to 10 million, then 1 million and so on. It's a trial balloon to see if the people will allow outright expropriation of private property. 1 Reply Hide Show Midnight Midnight 3 hours ago Kamala has pledged to fix this on day one. 3 Reply Hide Show Sentient Sentient 2 hours ago Reply to Midnight Price controls of joy Bread lines of joy The unemployment of joy 0 Reply Hide Show Midnight Midnight 2 hours ago Reply to Sentient Joy through abortions. 1 Reply Hide Show TexasTim65 TexasTim65 1 hour ago Reply to Midnight Yes by hiring 900K new government employees of course. 1 Reply Hide Show Mister MJ Mister MJ 3 hours ago As usual Mish, you nailed it and have been saying it all along that these BLS numbers are more BS than not. I have been agitating about this for over a decade, they just can't seem to give us good numbers and the markets react on faulty data. 1 Reply Hide Show Tom Bergerson Tom Bergerson 3 hours ago The REAL number is probably more like -2 million But that would have caused serious mayhem so they decided to cool it down a bit 3 Reply Hide Show Search [ ] Stay Informed Subscribe to MishTalk Type your email... [ ] Subscribe You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email. Search [ ] Mish Talk logo * RSS Feed * Mail Proudly powered by WordPress. Hosted by Pressable. * Privacy Policy * Terms of Use * Do not sell my information * Community Guidelines * About wpDiscuz [ ] Insert