Consensus for tomorrow’s Nonfarm Payroll is pretty rich: 250,000 new jobs. I think that number is high (more on this tomorrow), as well as Productivity data (more on that Monday).

As we await tomorrow morning’s data, let’s take a run at some of the Cleveland Fed’s monthly chartbook. They remain quite instructive:


click for larger charts

This is the worst jobs creation recovery since WWII ended



Various Unemployment Measures
(note that the full measure of U-6 is 8.75%)


How has Labor Participation Rate changed since 2000 ?



Who’s dropping out of the Job Market by age?   



Employment Ratio (Civilian Population)


Economic Research & Data


Category: Employment

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

14 Responses to “NFP Preview”

  1. calmo says:

    Great graphs, esp following the overview of the lofty job expectations that will be publicized tomorrow. The last one, employment/population ratio that looks downright encouraging (and therefore suspect), does it track/measure/guess/accomodate/ seasonally adjust/ for those 11 million alien workers? Does this seasoning salt the stats to an unpalatable degree (even for hard core non-statisticians like me)?

  2. muckdog says:

    250,000 new jobs when the GDP for last quarter came in at 1.1%? Somebody ‘s lyin’… I’d like to see 150K-ish. I don’t want Helicopter Ben to think he’s got to climb that mountain. I’d like him to take a pause.

  3. Trend Watcher says:

    great post. Great charts. and thanks for reminding us again of the terrific job the Cleveland Fed does with its monthly trend document.

  4. Barry,

    The Non Farms Payroll “spins” a cunning web of deceit.

    The real number is an average of 27,500 new jobs created per month from Jan 2001 through Oct 2005; and 64% of those jobs are government jobs.

    If you think I am kidding take a look at the math taken from the BLS statistics:

    Your Friendly Neighborhood Naybob Man

  5. calmo says:

    But Nattering, how do we know that you are not spinning an equally cunning (no it is way more cunning than that!) web of counter deceit? [Regardez both "friendly" and "neighbourhood"] {observez the link to his own site! the man is likely a child molester. Beware you innocent children: lurk but do not link}
    We hear you on the government job creation but Mark Thoma beat you to it.
    So, what’s else have you got?

  6. Don’t forget that 37% of the created jobs have been due to Birth / Death adjustment!

    See this for more details:

  7. Emmanuel says:

    Wow. As a searing indictment of the whole post-recession “recovery,” this post has no peer. Just one look and you can see the fakeness of it all.

  8. d says:

    I dropped out. Got tired of being full-time employed and the hubby got a better job with the benefits I was working for. Did some consulting work, but right now we get hit with AMT if I work, so what’s the point.

    AMT is a big factor in us 40-something womyn not working….

  9. Idaho_Spud says:

    Kinda makes you wonder where the heck we’d be without the 1% FF rate, tax cuts, federal deficit spending, and MEW, doesn’t it?

  10. Mover Mike says:

    Nonfarm Payroll Data is Out

    From Schaeffers
    The Labor Department released the nonfarm payrolls data earlier this morning. In January, 193,000 jobs were ad…

  11. makesenseofit says:

    The objective is to mislead the American people into believing everything is fine.. according to who??
    and when?? … data collected today is somewhat different than the way data was collected just 5 years ago … consequently the deception is there and understood by those who can reason and compare…

  12. anon says:

    Is that participation rate by age affected by demographics or something? Baby boomers pickup and kids go down.

  13. calmo says:

    Good question anony: is it just a bulge in the 55+ profile and a dip in the 16-24yr slice? This question infects the broader labor participation rate which some like to cite as evidence that the recovery is not as glorious as the 4.7% UE number attests.
    Let’s take the makesenseofit approach:
    With similar demographic profiles in other western countries, we could compare.
    What particular industries are getting the 55+ bulge, and what sectors are being shunned by the young slice?
    Anecdotally, I do find some surprisingly older employees in positions that I would call starters –places where I expect to see young people. I see lots (more I think) of younger people on the street, spare changing (–not too many 55yr +), but maybe an unprecedented number are in school. I don’t think so.
    The bar chart looks like disenchantment to me and perhaps a serious difference in opportunity costs for these 2 groups is the reason. [The geezer may have health care benefits from previous employment that allow him to work those jobs that don't offer it. He may have paid for his house that the younger person can not hope to even rent. And so (discouragingly) on.]

  14. edward fitzgerald says:

    I would like to see

    Where the tax ‘relief’ money was invested?
    What will be the net effect of the
    Bush tax cuts will if we go into a recession?
    How does a supply side service economy come out of a recession?