New U.S. govt data shows huge churning of jobs

Biz.Yahoo/Reuters ^ | September 30, 2003

[Starwind]

New U.S. govt data shows huge churning of jobs
Tuesday September 30, 3:11 pm ET

WASHINGTON, Sept 30 (Reuters) - A new U.S. data series released on Tuesday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows a "tremendous churn" of jobs every quarter as workplaces open and close and contract and expand over the business cycle.

The Report on Employment Business Dynamics, to be released quarterly with an eight-month time lag, fills in details of the closely watched U.S. employment situation, including a breakdown of jobs lost and gained each quarter since 1992.

The first installment of the series, which provided private-sector data through the fourth quarter of 2002, showed 7.746 million jobs were gained in the final three months of last year, while 7.816 million were lost -- for a net loss of 70,000 jobs.

In other words, 7.2 percent of all jobs in December 2002 did not exist three months earlier, while 7.3 percent of jobs in September 2002 had disappeared by the end of the year -- a significant churn that cannot be seen by looking at the Labor Department's monthly payrolls report.

"These gross job gains and job losses statistics demonstrated that a sizable number of jobs appear and disappear in the relatively short time frame of one quarter," the BLS said in the report.

Of the jobs gained in the quarter, 1.632 million were created by the birth of a new business or work site. Of those lost, 1.627 million were at establishments which died. Jobs gained and lost by the opening or closing of establishments -- even on a seasonal or temporary basis -- represent less than a quarter of overall jobs lost or gained, according to the report.

The new breakdown is compiled from the bureau's Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, which surveys about 6.4 million private-sector employer reports submitted to state unemployment insurance programs. It does not include government employees or private households.

The next release is set for November, and will include data from the first quarter of 2003. Eventually, the BLS said it hopes to provide a breakdown of job losses and gains by sector and wage level.

[arete]

It sounds like it'll make it difficult for some -- and perhaps a lot of -- workers ever to draw a retirement check from an employer.

Less stability, less confidence and less hope in the future. Not a good sign for the economy as people will be less willing to borrow and spend. It could be signaling a major shift in attitudes.

Richard W.

[Tauzero]

" I'd rather count office buildings for lease or note how much tobacco is left in thrown away cigarettes"

When I was in the U.K. a couple of years ago, I half-smoked a ciggie then stomped it out. This homeless guy went all bug-eyed, came up to me and exlaimed "That's half a fag! You've got to promise never to do that again!"

[meenie]

This has been going on for years. Companies have no responsibility for health care for employees until they reach six months of employment. The same to be said for unemployment benefits as temporary workers. We have all these laws to benefit (?) the worker but the companies have learned to circumvent a lot of their labor costs by going temporary. Family leave is also circumvented by temporary workers. Our own rules and regulations are killing our economy more than imports. We have far more restrictions and regulations than the USSR ever had in its hey-day;.

[Tauzero]

"Mah foo peen caht maan pro mayg monn tok."

We don't serve your kind here, Klingon.

[LS]

I think I said something to this effect over the past year.

[Congressman Billybob]

These reports on job-changing should be laid down beside the quarterly reports on employment/unemployment. This is because the employment statistics are based on businesses known to exist and the time of the reports, whereas the changing jobs survey should locate people who are now employed in NEW businesses.

We should not ignore this additional factor of actual employment because no less than the Wall Street Journal and Barron's among others have noted that small businesses are more responsible for total employment growth than all of the top 500 businesses in the nation.

Especially at a time when the economy is just beginning to grow out of a recession, the job cutbacks in large corporations are well known and well documented; whereas, the job growth in small or new businesses is largely below the radar.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Democrats Dancing to Tunes of Glory?," discussion thread on FR. Article also on ChronWatch.

[Lazamataz]

When I was in the U.K. a couple of years ago, I half-smoked a ciggie then stomped it out. This homeless guy went all bug-eyed, came up to me and exlaimed "That's half a fag! You've got to promise never to do that again!"

In the same situation, my response was to mutter "YOU'RE half-a-fag" then sucker-punch him.

[Lazamataz]

You make an interesting case!

[JNB]

I can not take the WSJ seriously anymore, to me they are just the NYT with a Neo-Conservative rather than Liberal slant. The Financial Times and the economist magazine have far better economic reporting. The brutal truth is unemployment as defined has been changed in the last 15 or so years , and in reality, unemployment in the US is around 10%.

[harpseal]

It was my understanding and I could be wrong that the unemployment numbers were gathered by means of a survey of households thus the new jobs generated by small business woul immediately be reflected in such a statistically valid survey.

Further, when one starts hiring teh first employee after oneself one has to start reporting to the government. Thus since the government has the reports and since as a small business one has already started reporting numbers for tax purposes all those stats are gathered by the Federal government within at least a month. Please give a little further explanation of just what inference you think should be taken from tehse numbers and some explanation of the mechanism whereby they are below the radar screen.

[waterstraat]

Jobs are not being lost, they are being transferred to asia, where communist slave labor is cheap. As long as a chinse commie is able to do the job cheaper than an american, the job will not come back. As long as "free traders" prefer to have chinese commies work for them instead of americans, the jobs will not come back. Job loss in america is a great victory for communist sympathizers and friends of communists, and a defeat for conservatives.