Friday, February 3, 2012

No Rick Santelli and Zero Hedge, One Million People Did Not Drop Out of the Labor Force Last Month



So today following an otherwise pretty darn good jobs report, we get the usual perma-pessimists at Zero Hedge and Rick Santelli over at CNBC (I will folllow up with the video link when they put it up) proclaiming that the report showed a drop of over 1 million people from the labor force in one month. Of course, as ususal, both Santelli and Zero Hedge have a real reading comprehension problem and completely missed that this million+ people isn't some new January phenomenon, but a result of the BLS using the 2010 census data to have more accurate data. In other words, the changes in the Household Survey to the various measures had taken place over the years prior to 2010, but for simplicity's sake, the BLS incorporates these changes into one month (which they clearly point out). The relevant text from the report is below (bold is mine):

"Effective with data for January 2012, updated population estimates which reflect the results of Census2010 have been used in the household survey. Population estimates for the household survey are developed by the U.S. Census Bureau. Each year, the Census Bureau updates the estimates to reflect new information and assumptions about the growth of the population during the decade. The change in population reflected in the new estimates results from the introduction of the Census 2010 count as the new population base, adjustments for net international migration, updated vital statistics and other information, and some methodological changes in the estimation process. The vast majority of the population change, however, is due to the change in base population from Census 2000 to Census 2010.

In accordance with usual practice, BLS will not revise the official household survey estimates for December 2011 and earlier months. To show the impact of the population adjustment, however, differences in selected December 2011 labor force series based on the old and new population estimates are shown in table B.

The adjustment increased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population in December by 1,510,000, the civilian labor force by 258,000, employment by 216,000, unemployment by 42,000, and persons not in the labor force by 1,252,000. Although the total unemployment rate was unaffected, the labor force participation rate and the employment-population ratio were each reduced by 0.3 percentage point. This was because the population increase was primarily among persons 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, persons 16 to 24 years of age. Both these age groups have lower levels of labor force participation than the general population."

So Rick/Zero Hedge, unless you would like to argue that the population of the United States also grew by 1.5 million in one month (since that is from the exact same report/revision you quoted), I think both of you should retract your extremely misleading statements about those not in the labor force increasing by over a million in January and simply admit that you are either too stupid or too focused on selling a particular world view to read the data correctly.

At the very least, a reputable financial news organization like CNBC needs to set the record straight on data like this as while Mr. Santelli is entitled to his own opinion, he is not entitled to his own facts, and the fact is 1 million people did not drop out of the labor force in January 2012.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

so why would CNBC be interested in straight facts , not noticed this before

Anonymous said...

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2012/02/us-jobs-report-airbrushing-history.html

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately you are wrong Bond Dad.

Mike D. Jr. in PA said...

Bond Dad, your facts are just your opinion, and my facts are my opinion we can't really know the right answer so we will have to agree to disagree.

Oh wait, sorry that's a defense for a different topic.

johngerard said...

Bottom line is participation rate,what is the rate based on that? How many people are not "looking for work" and are no longer counted?
Must be a lot of secretly well to do's out there,IMHO.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 11:15

Where is your evidence that a million people dropped out of the labor force

Anonymous said...

You quote Jon Stewart. I don't need to look any further. Your writing will have only coincidental coincidence with the truth.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 12:02
Does Silver Oz also quote Jon Stewart?
I think you mean Hale Stewart quotes Jon Stewart-could it be they are related?

Anonymous said...

Love it hale, keep up the good work...nice to see the lemmings come out from their horse blinders for a decent economic blog... You guys just have to leave the Permabear baggage (garbage)at the door - losers make excuses - last time I checked economic analysis was never about winning and losing.

Anonymous said...

Tax revenues still dropping- remember that wishes don't pay taxes.

Jabb said...

Hold on, the labor participation rate has changed month-to-month by that much (both ways) many times before that would have had nothing to do with the Census.

Look at the data near mid-2009, or even more recently mid-2011 (nearly 1 million REMOVED from NILF, if I'm reading my charts correctly). Big swings like that can happen.

It's even worse if you look at y-o-y - the last time we had a big NILF jump like that was basically the whole year of 2009, where the US was in the middle of a full-out Depression.

The most worrisome thing is Labor Participation Rate - that's the lowest it's been in a long, long time, and as the Anon above me pointed out - people not working don't pay taxes.

SilverOz said...

@ Jabb - You are right. We should just ignore the revisions and what the BLS said and just go by the raw January numbers. Of course then this means that we created 847,000 jobs in January!!! And that the labor force grew by 508,000!!! And that the number of unemployed shrank by 339,000. It's all from the same survey and so must all be equally accurate. Sounds to me like the best jobs report we have had in years.

Jabb said...

Ok, I got a better explanation now...

Use the NSA (non-seasonally adjusted) counts. These are actual counts (of actual people), and don't get any of the census (or BDA/SA) shenanigans on it.

If you want to take care of the "seasonal adjustment" part, do a year-over-year comparison.

(Hint: The numbers aren't good)

Displacedema.blogspot.com said...

As interested watchers of the NFP report - for whatever reason - I think that we can all agree that there must be a better system. When this many knowledgeable, smart, and interested people can have this much disagreement over the numbers and what they truly represent, then the underlying process leaves itself open to question. It seems to me that when you make a major adjustment to the NILF, there has to be some attempt at revising the prior numbers. BLS states that this has never been their policy - well maybe they need to rethink that policy. Some attempt would be helpful. Without these attempts at revising prior numbers, it renders comparability basically useless.

Great Blog. Thanks for taking the time to think it through.

Dennis said...

So, why are they using old census data to determine jobs now?
Convenient when you don't care about accuracy.

Anonymous said...

Interesting article. Unfortunately, ideology apparently precludes Bondad from coming to the correct conclusion. Since we accept the total Employment number, the revision to the baseline population all hitting in one month means only that the previous BLS Labor Force Participation Rates as reported were all TOO HIGH. The current situation is exactly as dismal as the BLS report shows, the Employment numbers have been stagnant (increasing at a lower rate than the population has been increasing), and the BLS has been "using" the Labor Force Participation Rate as a means to drag down the Unemployment Rate, since they think Americans are too stupid to look beyond a headline in the MSM.