Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Some interesting analysis of the January numbers
Date:	2/5/2024 12:13:06 PM

Here is some useful context beyond the reality that later the number will be adjusted downward...probably by a lot.  As with most economic news the devil is in the details and not the headlines.  And assuming the breakdown in private sector vs govt jobs is accurate this is still better than all of 2023.

Barone an economist with Forbes wrote, "The workweek, itself, contracted to 34.1 hours from 34.3 in December and 34.4 in November. This is the lowest number since March 2020 (the pandemic) and, before that, November 2008 (Great Recession)."

"Rosenberg Research calculated that, despite the job gains, total hours worked actually contracted." In fact, the Household Survey — "the one the media ignores," as Barone put it — "showed up with a -31K headline jobs number, and a fall of -63K in full-time jobs." Worse, the labor participation rate remains down. Americans are working more part-time jobs because there are fewer full-time jobs to go around — a sizable fraction of last month's jobs went to people taking on a second or third job.

So how do we have a contraction with the household survey and booming numbers from BLS?

The BLS also publishes the data behind their Birth/Death assumptions. January is always a big drop, but this was smaller than last year (-144k in Jan 2023 vs. -121k in Jan 2024). Birth/death specifically refers to assumptions made about new business being formed.

"Birth/Death assumptions" means just that. The BLS assumes that so many jobs were created or destroyed and (kind of) fixes the imaginary numbers when the real data come in. Now you know why jobs always seem to get revised downward.  "many believe the Household survey is a more accurate measure of employment when compared to the headline number."

Explains why they are almost always adjusted downward, BLS consistently is wrong with their Birth/Death assumptions and almost always in one direction.  Why is that?