Bureau of Labor Statistics - THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: JANUARY 2001: Total employment was essentially unchanged at 136.0 million, seasonally adjusted, in January.
Bureau of Labor Statistics - THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: January 2004 (see table): Total employment = 138.566 million
Maybe I'm dense but this seems like a NET gain of about two and a half million jobs in three years on Bush's watch, even using the BLS formula. What am I missing here? Sure theres been a fluctuation up and down, but the net is that there are more jobs now that there were three years ago.
Your comment in post #3
Maybe I'm dense but this seems like a NET gain of about two and a half million jobs in three years on Bush's watch, even using the BLS formula. What am I missing here?
There are two surveys you have conflated in your question.
Your article quote is from the establishment survey showing a loss of 3M jobs, but your comment and numbers on post#3 are the household survey numbers which shows a gain.
That difference is the point of the article - two surveys with dissilmilar results. The answer (which has been known for some time - Mauldin either recently found out, or is only now getting around to writing about it) is in how the household survey counts "employed".
The household survey does not care if one is employed but not paid, ie a self-employed person is counted as "employed" whether they're unbillable or billable as long as they are working (looking for customers, or just cleaning the office) even if they're not earning money. Many people will say they're self-employed even though they may not actually be working or billable - hence the househld survey tends to "over report" as 'employed' laid off people who claim to be self-employed.
The establishment survey OTOH, is drawn from regular large businesses, wherein an employee is typically paid full-time. If they're not earning money, they establishment will, sooner or later, lay them off. Hence the establishment survey tends to report as 'employed' only those people who in fact have actual jobs.
So over time, the establishment survey tends to report full time paid people, whereas the household survey reports as employed anyone who says they're employed.
Bearing out the validity of the establishment survey reporting a loss of 3M jobs (and/or replacement with low paying jobs), is that tax receipts have in fact been falling.
Part of the problem is the household survey is not intended to measure 'employment'. It was intended to measure 'unemployment' (since, logically, the unemployed tend to be found at home, not in establishments). The establishment data is quite precise whereas the household data tends to get confused. People will say they're self-employed (even though they've not billed a dime in months nor looked for customers, all they've done is post some handbills around town or bought an ad in the yellow pages. OTOH, there are people who say they're unemployed because they haven't actually found any customers to work for (and be paid), even though they are in fact doing all the things self-employed people do.
But the BLS and us folk would like to see a closer reconciliation, so the BLS has started a new quarterly report Business Employment Dynamics (BDM) with the charter to reconcile these differences.