WSJ.com is available in the following editions and languages:
Thank you for registering.
We sent an email to:
Please click on the link inside the email to complete your registration
Please register to gain free access to WSJ tools.
An account already exists for the email address entered.
Forgot your username or password?
This service is temporary unavailable due to system maintenance. Please try again later.
The username entered is already associated with another account. Please enter a different username
The email address you have entered is already in use.Please re-enter the email address.
From time to time, we will send you e-mail announcements on new features and special offers from The Wall Street Journal Online.
Create a profile for me in the Journal Community
Why Register?
Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions
As a registered user of The Wall Street Journal Online, you will be able to:
Setup and manage your portfolio
Personalize your own news page
Receive and manage newsletters
Receive and manage newsletters
Keep me logged in. Forgot your password?
You can connect your Facebook profile with WSJ.com to share articles, comments, and other activity with your friends.
Digg
By one measure the labor market is much stronger than the gain of 192,000 nonfarm jobs in February suggests.
To gauge employment, the Labor Department uses two separate surveys. The jobs figures come from establishment payrolls, while the unemployment rate comes from a survey of U.S. households.
But the Labor Department also releases jobs figures from the household survey that it has adjusted (by subtracting farm workers and so on) to reflect the same sort of jobs the establishment survey covers. By this count, the economy added 342,000 jobs last month, after adding 153,000 in January and 498,000 in December.
In fact, the household gauge shows that the economy didn't erase quite as many jobs in the recession as the establishment survey did, and that there's been a significantly stronger rebound in employment. But why?
Both of the Labor Department surveys have downsides. The sample size for the household data is much smaller than the establishment figures, for example. But the establishment figures can't always keep up with shifts in the makeup of U.S. businesses. So economists generally think the establishment figures are better, but sometimes argue that the household ones are better at picking up turning points in the labor market.
There could be other reasons for the mismatch, a 2009 paper by economists Katharine Abraham and John Haltiwanger at the University of Maryland, Kristin Sandusky at the Census Bureau and James Spletzer at the Labor Department suggests.
Analyzing a data set that allowed them to match people in the household survey with people on employee payrolls from 1996 to 2003, the economists found “substantial discrepancies” between the two.
Some 6.4% of people who showed up as holding jobs on employee records were recorded as unemployed in the household survey. Many of them were 65 and older — which suggests they were people who considered themselves retirees even as they continued to draw some sort of paycheck. An even larger 17.6% of people who counted as employed in the household survey didn't show up on employee records. Many of them had demographic characteristics, such as low education levels, that suggested they were working off the books.
The economists also found that from 2001 to 2003 — the period that covers the brief recession and the jobless recovery that followed it — the number of people on employer records who counted in the household survey as unemployed declined. But the number of people who didn't show up on employer rolls but who were counted in the household survey as employed rose. That's a pattern that might be repeating itself, with fewer senior citizens taking jobs here and there to round out their retirement income, and more people getting paid under the table.
Yahoo! Buzz
MySpace
Digg
del.icio.us
NewsVine
StumbleUpon
Mixx
Error message
the household survey showed a gain of 300k part time jobs – so teh economy did not add anyfull time jobs and if one adds the fake 100k jobs from the birth death model, full time jobs declined, which jives with wages and hours worked flat. one could also note the jobless rate of college grads ticked higher from the laughable 4.2% to 4.3%. the reduction in the unemployment rate was from teenagers with a high school degree. great reporting guys – why not read teh whole report rather than repeating what some economists says??
lies, damn lies, & statistics…the labor force participation rate is lower than any time since the early 80s, before reagan busted the unions & forced the women out of their homes & into wage slavery…im getting so cynical that when i see someone reporting the unemployment numbers as factual, i think theyre just a shill for the administration…
The RSS feed for Real Time Economics seems to have failed. Could this be fixed? The RSS feed is a key way to access this blog.
Thank you for your time!
The chart accompanying this piece may be missing an axis for adjusted household employment. Either that or the definition included in the article is unclear.
Abraham was the head of BLS during the time period mentioned. The discrepency between the two surveys has really been a difficult challenge, but the key fact is that they are both moving in the same, positive direction right now. There could be some business birth/death issues that may lead to an eventual upward revision of the payroll survey.
Real Time Economics offers exclusive news, analysis and commentary on the economy, Federal Reserve policy and economics. The Wall Street Journal’s Phil Izzo and Sudeep Reddy are the lead writers, with contributions from other Journal reporters and editors. Send news items, comments and questions to realtimeeconomics@wsj.com.
Read more Economics coverage.
Read Full Article »