Posted on 01/07/2016 8:41:46 AM PST by SeekAndFind
If this comes close to the Bureau of Labor Statistics report on Friday, it will signal a decent if unspectacular start to the New Year. ADP estimates that employers added 257,000 private-sector jobs last month, an increase of 40,000 jobs over its estimate for November, and the best result for all of 2015:
Private sector employment increased by 257,000 jobs from November to December according to the December ADP National Employment Report®. Broadly distributed to the public each month, free of charge, the ADP National Employment Report is produced by ADP® in collaboration with Moody’s Analytics. The report, which is derived from ADP’s actual payroll data, measures the change in total nonfarm private employment each month on a seasonally-adjusted basis.
The news isn’t all good. In fact, it shows that 2015 closed out at a lower rate of job creation than 2014, at least on the ADP scale:
“2015 had a strong close with December showing the largest job gains of the year,” said Ahu Yildirmaz, VP and head of the ADP Research Institute. “Overall, the average monthly employment growth was just under 200,000 for the year in contrast to almost 240,000 jobs per month in 2014. Weakness in the energy and manufacturing sectors was mostly responsible for the drop off.”
Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, said, “Strong job growth shows no signs of abating. The only industry shedding jobs is energy. If this pace of job growth is sustained, which seems likely, the economy will be back to full employment by mid-year. This is a significant achievement, given that the last time the economy was at full employment was nearly a decade ago.”
Neither of these levels suggest blockbuster growth. The US economy needs to generate around 150,000 jobs a month to keep up with population growth at current workforce-participation rates. Coming in “just under 200,000 a month” isn’t enough growth to make significant dents in the ranks of sidelined workers from the Great Recession, and seeing the growth level subside over the last year doesn’t produce much confidence that December’s outlier result will sustain in 2016.
Investors Business Daily’s editors noted last week that 2015 data showed that the Obama recovery was still the worst in the post-war period (via Newsalert):
Last week, the Joint Economic Committee of Congress issued a new report on the Obama recovery that’s loaded with even more bleak news.
On almost every measure examined, the 2009-15 recovery since the recession ended in June of 2009 has been the meekest in more than 50 years.
Start with the broadest measure: growth in output. The chart with this editorial compares the Obama growth pace with that of the average recovery coming out of the last eight recessions, and with the Reagan recovery, and over the same number of months (77).
Democrats used to disparage the Reagan expansion as nothing special. Yet the growth rate over the first 25 quarters under Reagan was 34%, vs. 14.3% under Obama.
How much does this matter? If we had grown at an average pace, GDP in 2015 would have been about $1.8 trillion higher. Under the Reagan recovery, growth would have been $2.7 trillion higher. …
But even on a per capita basis, real GDP has grown only 9% vs. 18.8% for the average recovery. That is the lowest of any post-1960 recovery. The growth decline in this key gauge of living standards is alarming.
IBD’s editorial board specifically looked at the jobs data, and found it even worse:
Yes, official unemployment of just over 5% today is very low.
But that’s because 94 million people in America over the age of 16 aren’t in the labor force. Labor force participation rates have fallen sharply for working age Americans. If job growth had been the same as in the average recovery, we would have 5.9 million more Americans working.
Amazingly, if we had had a Reagan-paced job recovery, we would today have at least 12 million more Americans working. That’s more people than in the labor force of Michigan and Indiana combined.
Reuters notes that the news from ADP didn’t get markets excited today:
The data had only a modest impact on U.S. financial markets, which had been jolted overnight by news that North Korea had claimed to have tested a miniaturized hydrogen bomb and by worries about the state of the Chinese economy, the world’s second largest. U.S. equity index futures remained under pressure, suggesting stock prices would open lower, and prices for U.S. Treasuries were solidly higher, although slightly off from the day’s highs.
Consider this a meh, for the most part. If the BLS comes in considerably lower, it might heighten scrutiny on the Fed for raising interest rates for the first time in nearly a decade, but even that would probably be mitigated by the long-term criticism of their zero-interest policy that preceded it.
More “fun with funny numbers,” which will be revised down later on.
Yup. 2 months from now, the headline will be “Unexpected! drop in December 15 ADP on revised more accurate numbers.”
Temp retail and fulfillment. We need farm, logging, mining, drilling and manufacturing jobs, and people able to do them.
Not just merchant occupations.
House of cards is coming down but these liars will distort and distract.
You realize that the government has nothing to do with this report, right? Your conspiracy has to be that the payroll company ADP is in bed with the White House and lying for them. Think about that for a second and assess its plausibility.
You realize that the government has nothing to do with this report, right? Your conspiracy has to be that the payroll company ADP is in bed with the White House and lying for them. Think about that for a second and assess its plausibility.
It is my understanding that the ADP figures are far more accurate than BLS data, initially. They are based upon a far greater sample of ACTUAL persons added to the ADP payroll processing system. However, December Hires reflect a spike every year as retailers add employees to handle the Christmas Rush...
Isn’t 250,000 the amount needed to offset the average of people exiting the workforce?
Funny how that is never mentioned...
I think history bears you out, ADP figures are generally more accurate. That’s part of the reason they are trotted out by the MSM only when they are positive for the regime.
The Christmas spike is a well known factor which makes the December ADP’s the most unrepresentative figures. Second would be summer employment where summer jobs are captured.
Oldplayer
Yes and yes.
There is no myth there to bust!
ADP? Don't make me laugh.
I am a corporate payroll and HRIS manager with nearly 30 years of experience in PR, HR and Benefits and ADP has gotten so bad in the last two years with respect to client services and plain incompetence; not even being able to handle simple payroll requests like adding a Non-Qualified Deferred Comp plan or HSA's or Wellness credits, getting our W-2' right, and our ACA forms implementation for which we have paid a lot of money for along with this year's benefits open enrollment has all been a complete nightmare.
And also ADP is offshoring a lot of their customer services to India and the Philippines so that when you call for assistance (assuming you even get through to a live person after an hour or more wait on hold or don't get hung up on once you do) it is obvious you've reached a call center where the person you are talking to is not only not a native English speaker but are not trained, do not understand their own software or anything about US payroll or their own time clocks or time tracking systems or their HR functions (the clue is they speak very slowly, obviously reading from a script, they try to repeat your question back to you and often get it completely wrong and you have to repeat the question several more times and then they put you on hold for another 30 minutes to an hour while they message someone else for an answer that is 8/10 times is incorrect, again, if you are lucky enough to not have your call disconnected and have to start all over again).
If the people at ADP performing the employment estimates are anything like the folks I deal with on nearly a daily basis, I don't take much stock in anything they come out with.
The Christmas spike is a well known factor which makes the December ADP's the most unrepresentative figures. Second would be summer employment where summer jobs are captured.
I agree completely. The December figures are skewed by seasonal, often part time and temporary labor mostly in the retail sectors. The same with the summer jobs in agriculture and construction and landscaping, again many of which are part-time and temporary which spike during the summer months.
That statistic is meaningless without saying how many jobs were eliminated or never created due to confiscatory taxation on business, regulations, lawsuits and bankruptcies.
MD Expat in PA wrote: ADP? Don’t make me laugh.
Oldplayer replies: I should have said “less inaccurate.” LOL
Oldplayer
How many more 20-somethings retired this month?
Big lies!
Stockman: Only 11,000 Jobs Last Month, Not 292,000
NewsMax ^ | 01/09/2016 | David Stockman
Posted on 1/11/2016, 4:06:12 PM by GilGil
So what happened to the non-seasonally adjusted (NSA) job count in December at similar points late in the course of prior cycles? Well, in December 1999 about 140,000 jobs were added and in December 2007 there was a NSA gain of 212,000. This time we got the magnificent sum of 11,000, and by the way, last year was only 6,000.
The real news flash in the December “jobs†report, therefore, is that even by the lights of the BLS’ rickety, archaic and virtually worthless establishment survey, the domestic economy is dead in the water. We are not on the verge of “escape velocity,†as our foolish monetary politburo keeps insisting; the US economy is actually knocking on the door of recession.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3382446/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.