144,000 Jobs Created in August (UE Rate Down at 5.4%)

CNBC | September 3, 2004

[RWR8189]

jobs were created in August. The unemployment rate edgged down at 5.4%

Upward revisions

Details to come...

[RWR8189]

My figures say we are still behind 913,000 in nonfarm employment.

[JohnnyZ]

Let me straighten things out for you, Dilworth Pansy:

Last month many hear were trashing the payroll survey as unreliable when numbers came in below expectations.

The payroll survery IS unreliable in that it does not report a full picture of employment, only a large segment.

They pointed to the household survey as the one to watch.

It's kind of volatile, but that would be nice, since we would've gotten the +600k number last month PLUS the UE drop this .... but the media fixates on the payroll survey so that's where the attention goes.

This month the payroll numbers are up and the report seems to carry more credence with Freepers.

Because it is the one the media focuses on and has been a yardstick by which they measure Bush.

Strangely, little is heard about the household survey which was relatively flat.

Helloooooooo, the household survey is the one showing unemployment dropping to 5.4%.

[Uncle Kermie]

How much were the June numbers revised upward?

[Uncle Kermie]

What were the June numbers previously (i.e. how much is the June number revised upward)?

[RWR8189]

I want to say June was 78k, but I'm not exactly sure.

[NC28203]

I agree that the payroll survey is unreliable. The fact that the revisions were so large is an indication that the preliminary releases are unreliable. I was just noting that general perception of its worthiness here on FR seems to vary with directly with the number of new payroll jobs posted.

If the media and the markets focus on the payroll number, then its fair enough to trumpet it when it is up. Just don't complain that the media is ignoring the household survey when the payroll numbers don't go your way, which is what happened last month.

>>>>Strangely, little is heard about the household survey which was relatively flat.

>>Helloooooooo, the household survey is the one showing unemployment dropping to 5.4%.

Yes, but the 21,000 job growth is being ignored, whereas last month's 600,000 job growth was all the rage.

[GallopingGhost]

To dang long to type everything out. I have it in a spreadsheet if you want to freepmail me.

[RWR8189]

This is where I get my number from.

National Employment, Hours and Earnings

Series Id:     CES0000000001 Seasonally Adjusted Super Sector:  Total nonfarm Industry:      Total nonfarm NAICS Code:    N/A Data Type:     ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
2001	132388	132492	132507	132236	132237	132087	131972	131831	131564	131203	130871	130659
2002	130494	130404	130447	130379	130381	130406	130295	130306	130259	130342	130305	130096
2003	130190	130031	129921	129901	129873	129859	129814	129789	129856	129944	130027	130035
2004	130194	130277	130630	130954	131162	131258	131331(p)	131475(p)

131,475,000-132,388,000= -913,000

[Uncle Kermie]

The real story is that 203,000 jobs were added. Here's how:

August: 144,000 new jobs
July: Upward revision of 41,000
June: Upward revision of 18,000

Total new jobs = 204,000

[JohnnyZ]

Just don't complain that the media is ignoring the household survey when the payroll numbers don't go your way, which is what happened last month.

It's a "hoist on your own petard" reaction. Even those who think the payroll survey is absolute crap are psyched when the MSM and Democrats have to eat it.

[AQGeiger]

You're forgetting one thing. Liberals don't need to have numbers that back up their claims. Only Republicans need that, and then, those numbers are disregarded anyway.

[twhitak]

You people are missing the point -- the Vice President got five deferments! Five!

That's right! And who is better equipped to lead the country, someone with FIVE deferments or someone who served TWO tours in Vietnam? What's that? Cheney doesn't lead the country? ...Oops!

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

[144,000 Jobs Created in August (UE Rate Down at 5.4%)]

Kerry: "There goes Bush again with the negative campaign. Always the negative campaign. And impugning my credentials to be Commander In Chief. By the way, did you know I served in Viet Nam?"

[AFPhys]

From: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls

These are the Total employment numbers. This includes not only the survey of businesses, but people like many I know who are self employed - engaging in the increasing number of jobs such as designing web pages, manning phones for web sites, or operating their own CNC milling machines and circuit board copper etching for local businesses who only want onesies and twosies of a product, not a manufacturing run.

---

Series Id:           LNS12000000 Seasonal Adjusted Series title:        (Seas) Employment Level Labor force status:  Employed Type of data:        Number in thousands Age:                 16 years and over
Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
1994	121966	122086	121930	122290	122864	122634	122706	123342	123687	124112	124516	124721
1995	124663	124928	124955	124945	124421	124522	124816	124852	125133	125388	125188	125088
1996	125125	125639	125862	125994	126244	126602	126947	127172	127536	127890	127771	127860
1997	128298	128298	128891	129143	129464	129412	129822	130010	130019	130179	130653	130679
1998	130726	130807	130814	131209	131325	131244	131329	131390	131986	131999	132280	132602
1999	133027	132856	132947	132955	133311	133378	133414	133591	133707	133993	134309	134523
2000	136561(1)	136599	136668	137264	136611	136923	136516	136701	136908	137124	137316	137632
2001	137790	137581	137738	137275	137063	136842	137091	136314	136869	136447	136234	136078
2002	135715	136362	136106	136096	136505	136353	136478	136811	137337	137079	136545	136459
2003	137447(1)	137318	137300	137578	137505	137673	137604	137693	137644	138095	138533	138479
2004	138566(1)	138301	138298	138576	138772	139031	139660	139681
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls in January 2000, January 2003 and January 2004.

Notice that this indicates that over four million people more are employed than were employed in 2001. Yes, the statistical fluctuations are greater month-to-month, but the aggregate/ average figures are reliable.
/

[AFPhys]

Oooops: I should have written "about two million more jobs", not "four million". Sorry.
/

[Truthsearcher]

Looking at the adult men UE rate of 5.0 and adult women UE rate of 4.7, we really have full employment. Economist consider 5.0 to be the natural rate of UE, I.E. full employment. Because certain number of people are in between jobs at any given moment.

[CedarDave]

ABC News just now:

Job growth disappointing, less than predicted. Only 144,000 jobs created; economists had predicted 150,000. Don't remember them mentioning that unemployment was down.

MSM bias shows again.

[johnb838]

Definitely good enough. I was in fear of another 5K increase or something. That would have killed the Big Mo, but 144K is fine. Particularly since the UE dropped. The UE is more important in my opinion. Clinton just sort of invented those job creation numbers when the UE wasn't where he needed it to be.

Kerry's goin' DOEN!

[NC28203]

>>>Notice that this indicates that over two million people more are employed than were employed in 2001.

You'll also note if you look at the unemployment level table that over two million people more are unemployed than were unemployed in 2001.

[Future Useless Eater]

hoo wee, what a great tagline.

a sign for the ages!