Looks like it will take another month or two to confirm the emerging trend.
Green line below is the “official” # from BLS and includes Gov’t jobs.
Blue line is ADP and includes only private sector jobs.
They seem to tracKkeach other pretty well.
In fact it is probably fair to say that … each month, after the BLS gets done adjusting its numbers, says “Geee ADP was right all along. Good thing we adjusted.”
AI states
“The August jobs report was significantly revised downwards in November to show a net loss of 4,000 jobs, a sharp decrease from the initial report of a 22,000 job gain. This revision, along with a downward adjustment to July’s numbers, indicated that employment in July and August was overstated by 33,000 jobs in total, contributing to signs of a slowing labor market.”
expect a similar downward revision when they revise the september figures.
Allan
I don’t concur with allan unless I have to but . . .
rule of thumb: after the BLS adjusts its new (adjusted numbers) will look a lot like the numbers ADP had all along.
This was not always the case.
It dates to when ADP updated its methodology and BLS did not.
People who don’t realize this and say ADP is “wrong” are often using using out-dated information.
119K gain with 97K of them private sector vs 30K loss is the “same”
nope
so I’ll put you down for the 1st to predict a 150K downward revision to BLS data for September
Not sure about your 150k number.
But this calendar year alone the BLS has adjusted monthly Non-Farm (incl gov’t) payrolls down by more than 100k THREE TIMES
That is a lot of times.
In fact someone got fired over it (you heard that, right?)
The general rule of thumb that I stated (rergadless of what imaginary words you want to put in my mouth) applies as a general rule of thumb. (Just like I stated)
(definition avialble on request.)
Which one do you believe?
it’s sure to be reduced sharply. Spikes that great don’t hold. Going to be generous and say it ends up +50k post-revision.
spike? 119K is on the low side, just better that expected
Do you really want deflation?
i want target inflation just like the feds do.
promotes stability.
Allan
That would not be an optimal policy,
but it would be better than what we have now.
What we have now:
. . . . say the inflation target is 2%, but then surrender every time the wind blows or a raindrop falls and let inflation run at 3 -plus percent.
. . . . say the inflation target is 2%, but not if it means home prices remain steady, or that worthless junk banks are allowed to fail.
. . . . say the inflation target is 2%, but eliminate reserve requirements, replacing them with secretive and ever-changing “stress tests,” keeping the free market totally in the dark.
Infaltion targeting is the altest fashion statement. As interventionist policies go it’s not a bad one. It is certainly better than out current policy (empty talk about an infaltion target.)
