Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jadrian Wooten's avatar

I listened to the Inside Economics podcast last week to prepare for this job report, and a lot of what you have above echoes what they were discussing. The only real difference is that they were expecting much lower numbers than what we saw.

Lary Doe's avatar

The devil is in this single note at the bottom of the release - "the January response rate of 64.3 percent was below average."

Add in the change in methodology to the Birth-Death Rate Modeling and the variances are going to be ugly when the revisions hit in April. Seasonality always leaves January and July as ugly numbers that can be explained away by post-holiday realignment and summer shifts in employment (education since teachers are typically contract work that affects July/August numbers).

Health care is showing immigration in hiring data. Native born population filling in gaps?

*Really a political win, cheer the headlines and ignore the revisions.

5 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?