Showing posts with label bls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bls. Show all posts

Friday, January 07, 2011

ADP vs. BLS Who Do You Trust?: December 2010

Comparing the private nonfarm payroll estimate from ADP, a national staffing and business services firm, to the BLS results, you can see that while an unusual divergence had shaped up over 2010, ADP appears to be closing the gap as of late.

Initially, ADP had appeared to be indicating a significantly more weak "recovery" than the BLS private non-farm payroll results but with the latest results from ADP coming in so strong, it appears that the two series could eventually trend at a similar pace in the near future.

Looking at the chart (click for full-screen dynamic version) you can see that these two series are still quite a bit out of whack with ADP still indicating an increasing annual pace of private non-farm jobs of about half of the BLS rate.

Friday, December 03, 2010

ADP vs. BLS Who Do You Trust?: November 2010

Comparing the private nonfarm payroll estimate from ADP, a national staffing and business services firm, to the BLS results, you can see that an unusual divergence has shaped up over the last year.

These two series paint starkly different pictures of the supposed “recovery”.

While the ADP series indicated a similar decline and bottoming period to that seen in the BLS estimate, the trends for both series since early 2010 have been very different.

The ADP series indicates and extremely weak recovery, so much so that it hardly looks like a recovery at all.

So who is right, the administration/BLS with their “V”-shaped “recovery” or ADP’s assessment showing an anemic and faltering economy?

Looking at the chart (click for full-screen dynamic version) you can see that these two series have never been this far out of whack.

Friday, October 08, 2010

The Administration versus ADP, Who Do You Trust?

The administration has spoken with a singular voice on the state of the economy reassuring the public and suggesting that while our current economic hardships run deep, recovery is upon us and offering as its primary proof the nine month long expansion in private non-farm payrolls.

True enough, if you look at the trend in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) measure of private non-farm payrolls you get the sense of what the administration is publicizing, the decline in private jobs bottomed out at the end of 2009 and have been rising steadily ever since.

The gains since early 2010 have been steady and, while not strong enough to keep up with the inherent expansion in the civilian workforce, have brought the overall payrolls number back to showing annual gains with the latest reading rising 0.55% above the level seen last year.

For many though, these estimated results have appeared to be disconnected from the actual experience in the real economy where an improving job market hasn’t materialized.

Comparing the private nonfarm payroll estimate from ADP, a national staffing and business services firm, to the BLS we are able to get a better understanding of what many outside of the administration are suggesting.

These two series paint starkly different pictures of the supposed “recovery”.

While the ADP series indicated a similar decline and bottoming period to that seen in the BLS estimate, the trends for both series since early 2010 have been very different.

The ADP series indicates and extremely weak recovery, so much so that it hardly looks like a recovery at all.

Worse yet, between August and September (the latest release), the ADP data showed the first month-to-month decline since the “recovery” began and overall is still making annual declines at the rate of 0.33%.

So who is right, the administration/BLS with their “V”-shaped “recovery” or ADP’s assessment showing an anemic and faltering economy?

Looking at the chart (click for full-screen dynamic version) you can see that these two series have never been this far out of whack.

Friday, December 07, 2007

Envisioning Employment: Employment Situation November 2007

While today’s Employment Situation Report showed growth to total non-farm payrolls it also disclosed continued and even peaking below trend growth overall and substantial declines in sectors directly related to residential real estate.

The following chart combines both the “residential building” and “residential specialty trade contractors” into one payroll series and then plotting the data since 2002.

Notice that, in aggregate, these payrolls, having peaked in March 2006 and declined 6.45% or 221,900 jobs since then, appear to be headed lower.

Also note that independently, “residential building” has lost 5.75% of its payrolls or 59,100 jobs since it peaked during September 2006 and that “residential specialty trade contractors” have lost 7.65% of its payrolls or 185,900 jobs since it peaked during February 2006.

Next, let’s take a look a slightly broader set of industry sectors that have been directly impacted both by the housing boom and now the bust (click for larger chart).

Note that I carefully selected sectors that showed either an obvious expansion-to-contraction trend OR a flattening-to-contraction trend and that ALL sectors have both a historical and logical relationship to residential housing as well as recent industry press releases disclosing declining profits as a result of the housing bust.

As you can see, sectors that are now being directly impacted by the current housing decline are numerous and cut across many levels of the job market from construction and materials to manufacturing and finally to retail.

Combining these series into an aggregate of payrolls “directly impacted” by the housing boom and bust cycle and plotting it, along with the S&P/Case-Shiller Composite Home Price Index (click on chart below for larger version) since 1997 provides some pretty solid evidence that a relationship exists.

To expand the analysis a bit look at the following chart that shows percent change on year-over-year basis to BOTH the “directly impacted” payrolls sectors and ALL private non-farm payroll overlaid with the S&P/Case-Shiller Composite Home Price Index.

As you can see, the “directly impacted” payrolls are declining at an increasing rate and that overall private non-farm payrolls, while continuing to increase, are doing so at a declining rate.

To get a sense of the relative intensity of the pullback to the “directly impacted” payrolls by plotting both the percentage of overall private non-farm payrolls that the “directly impacted” aggregate represents as well as the contributions it is making to the rate of change of the underlying total private non-farm payrolls.

Notice that at its peak the “directly impacted” payrolls represented over 6.6% of Total Private Non-Farm Payrolls and now contracted to a degree similar to that seen during the entire course of the 2001-2003 contraction.

Plotting the ratio of overall and private non-farm payroll as well as the payroll of various business sectors to overall non-institutional population (above 16 years old and not in jail or “juvee”), the last eight years seem to pose more questions than answers.

The payroll-population ratio concept simply provides a mechanism for better isolating the changes to payroll rosters by calculating the percentage of population that is employed in a given sector at any given time.

In the following chart (click for larger version) you can see the ratio of overall non-farm payroll and private non-farm payroll to non-institutional population from 1948 overlaid with all U.S. recessions in that period.

As you can see, there is a fairly strong correlation to declining percent of population employed in non-farm and private non-farm endeavors and recession with particularly good peak-trough alignment for all recessions prior to 1990.

During the 2001 recession (and to a far lesser extent in 1990), although there where large declines to the ratio during the official recession period, the economy seemed to be able resume growth while the ratio continued to slide or stayed well below the peak of the prior expansion.

This is an interesting situation in that, although increases in population have been steady and could have replenished the literal number of jobs lost during the downdraft of 2000-2003, the latest expansion of payrolls has not been strong.

The following chart (click for larger version), on the other hand, the payroll ratio related to construction has remained above even the peak set in the 90s expansion but now seems to be coming down.

As you can see, although 3.25% of the population currently is employed in a construction occupation, there is a chance that this percentage could drop below the trend resulting in 2,327,150 lost construction jobs for every 1% drop in ratio.

Of course these lost jobs could shift to some other part of the labor force but the point is, the current ratio appears poised to drop and with it will inevitably go many construction jobs.

The following is a list of other individual sectors and I’ll leave it up to you to interpret the results but by all means, comment with opinions.

I’ll try to offer some better analysis in a layer post.