NFP is . . . -524,000, Unemployment 7.2%
Today’s big NFP is as close to consensus as we have seen in recent years: within 1k of the estimates:
Peter Boockvar writes:
December Payrolls fell by 524k, about in line with estimates and well below the whisper of 600k-700k. But, the prior 2 mo’s were revised lower by 154k. The unemployment rate also rose to 7.2%, .2% higher than expected and is at the highest level since Jan ‘93. This was due to an 806k drop in Household Employment with a 173k drop in the Civilian Labor Force. The Augmented Unemployment rate, which includes those that want a job but have stopped looking, rose to 10.4% from 9.9%. Avg weekly hours fell to 33.3, a touch less than expected to its lowest level dating back to at least ‘64 and is a precursor to more job losses. Construction jobs fell by 101k, mfr’g lost 149k, retail was down by 67k, temp help fell by 81k and leisure/hospitality fell by 22k. Education/health and the always hiring gov’t both added jobs. The Diffusion Index, which measures those industries hiring vs those firing, fell to 25.4 from 27.2, the lowest since the stat began in ‘91.
via Jake at Econompic
January 9th, 2009 at 8:35 am
“Free market” ADP wiffs again.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:37 am
-524. Wonder what the revision will be.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Birth Death adjustment for small businesses was +72k.
This model added 904,000 for the year. How can they put this crap out with a straight face?
Reality is that small businesses are getting slaughtered. They have probably shed 1 million jobs. The true picture is much worse than the government is reporting.
January 9th, 2009 at 8:54 am
The biggest fucking joke that the gov tells us?
January 9th, 2009 at 9:00 am
. . . arcane, based on questionable methodology, politically motivated, and unreliable as a reflection of our economic position.
Other than that, it makes for good conversation.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:18 am
The revision is the “news” (not that we don’t expect them to significantly revise down their monthly figures every_single_month). 150,000 additional jobs lost in October and November. The final revised number for December will be north of 600k, no doubt.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:45 am
So much for those adjustments by ADP to become a more accurate forecasting report. Barry, the post the other day about this was, well, timely.
January 9th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Doesn’t everyone also think that this gets revised up anyway?
January 9th, 2009 at 9:54 am
If the birth-death adjustment is removed from the BLS data, how close did ADP get?
January 9th, 2009 at 10:04 am
We got a call while on the beach a couple of days ago that my wife’s company (retail) laid of another ~10% of its workforce after two recent previous rounds of layoffs. Thankfully she was spared this time but I fear the end is nigh. The carnage is just beginning. Playing out pretty much how I thought it would.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Barry – your next book should be entitled “Part-time Nation”.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:39 am
A song for “official” unemployment rate
Dear Mr. Fantasy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_nwbTeIN4Y&feature=related
January 9th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Broomberg headline: “2008 Losses The Most Since 1945″
Barack Obama statement: “Job Losses The Most Since Second World War”
Ian Shepherson, chief US economist at High Frequency Economics: “Overall, a terrible report… the most since 1945…”
Really???
Such hyperboles are misleading.
In 1945 labor force was 53.9 million, therefore (o.524/53.9)*=0.97%
In 2008 labor force is 154 million; therefore 0.97% of 154 million is 1.5 million
524K jobs loss in 1945 is equivalent to 1.5 million jobs loss in 2008
The most since 1945? Really? No, it is NOT.
The election is over. Why the media continues writing these BS hyperboles?
I guess there is a problem with education in this country because most in the media, president-elect, and some economists (Ian Shepherson) are math illiterates.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Dear Mister Fantasy play us a tune
Something to make us all happy
Do anything take us out of this gloom
Sing a song, play guitar
Make it snappy
January 9th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Looks like for now the range S&P range is 890-940 until it isn’t. Another great call Andy T!
January 9th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Not to absolve media crisis mongers, I believe that the overall percentage decline in workforce is at a post-war high. That would be meaningful, but unremarkable, given the environment.
Too bad the Ghost-of-the WSJ has taken the path of CNBC: pander to the lowest common denominator.
What this country needs now is calm, rational and well-reasoned discourse of the kind found here.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:24 am
@DP:
Indeed. There is a real battle going on out there at 890 in the S&P. My gut says we meander higher rest of the day. I’m not going to short it till we really break down. Crude Oil testing the 61.8% of it’s entire rally from the lows….The Yen (fear currency) has bounced back to its 61.8% retrace as well….So all of these markets are at critical short term levels.
A snap back rally in all assets and pullback in the Yen would not surprise me, especially with the weekend coming…
January 9th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Andy, look at the 30 minute candles of $wlsh. $bkx may join in as well…
January 9th, 2009 at 11:40 am
In Supply Side economics, do job cuts pay for themselves like tax cuts do?
January 9th, 2009 at 11:55 am
AT –
I love analyzing your calls – always good stuff.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
BR – Your on CNN but you probably know.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/09/markets/thebuzz/index.htm?iref=werecommend
January 9th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Folks, these numbers are all garbage.
You might want to read these two articles to see the TRUE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS
http://keepamericaatwork.com/?p=733
http://keepamericaatwork.com/?p=728
Regards,
Virgil
http://www.KeepAmericaAtWork.com
January 9th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
“The most since 1945? Really? No, it is NOT”
Misleading? Thomas – I certainly would be interested to know in which year since World War II the number of job losses was greater than this one. Otherwise, I don’t see what’s so misleading about stating a fact.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Does the y-o-y losses in manufacturing, goods-producing and construction indicate that the GDP still has a long way to go on the downside?
January 9th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Heard from a buddy at Oracle. Layoffs to sales reps happening today. He’s safe for now but many people packing up boxes all around him and departing. The fun in tech is just beginning.
January 9th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Ethel-to-Tilly,
The headlines are misleading because the scale of job losses today is nowhere near the severity of job losses we had in 1945. (in terms of percent of workforce)
Most people (average Joe and elderly) who reads such misleading headlines think that the current jobs situation is “worst” than what we had in 1945 when unemployment was above 20%
January 9th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
@ AT
“A snap back rally in all assets and pullback in the Yen would not surprise me, especially with the weekend coming…”
First, with the close dead on 890, I join in the general kudos and apprecation for your (seeming) prescient calls.
Second, I’m looking forward to any postings you might make over the weekend after you have mulled upon the waves.
Next week, at any move back above 930, I am over-and-out of my longs.
January 9th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
The fact is, the number of jobs lost being the worst since 1945 IS a true fact.
I haven’t yet seen anyone or amybody using that to say that that automatically means that the current job situation is the worst since WWII – and the articles themselves don’t make that claim – so why the need continually spinning and that reporting on the “fact” without the additional spin is ipso facto “misleading”?
Maybe I’m being over-sensitive here and am making assumptions since I don’t know you guys that well, but it seems awfully like knee-jerk oh-my-god-we-can’t-let-bush-look-bad spin. We’ve had enough of that for the past 8 years. Why can’t we just let the facts speak for themselves instead of making sure that they have to be massaged so that people will draw the proper conclusions or meaning from them. Saying the “fact” is not misleading.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Weren’t the loss of jobs after WWII the result of the end of jobs created by the war effort? Soldiers went home and American’s stopped building ships, jeeps, bombs, etc. If so, the comparison of now and then seems misplaced.
January 10th, 2009 at 1:44 am
Right on, Ethel-to-Tilly.
January 10th, 2009 at 1:44 am
Maybe though we should report in percentages, rather than absolute numbers.
January 10th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Ethel-to-Tilly: “it seems awfully like knee-jerk oh-my-god-we-can’t-let-bush-look-bad spin”
No, this is lets-blame-bush-for-everything spin.
Now I see where you are coming from. As president-elect and other opinionated liberals who write these misleading headlines, you are more interested in scoring political points than in reporting the news objectively.
I bet that most people who read these misleading headlines yesterday are now have an incorrect perception that the current recession job losses are “the most since WWII”, but this is not true.
The truth is that so far it is the SIXTH worst since WW II. We lost more jobs (percentage decline in nonfarm employment, using absolute numbers [as the liberal media and opinionated Ethel-to-Tilly is doing] without considering the size of workforce is like comparing apples to oranges) during 1948 (4.3% of workforce), 1953 (3.3% of workforce), 1957 (3.6% of workforce), 1960 (2.2% of workforce) and 1981 (2.3% of workforce).
In order for the job losses to be the most since 1945, we would have to lose more than 4.3% of the current labor force, more than 6.6 million.
I rest my case.
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/img/4employment_depth_month_large.jpg