Question about Friday Payrolls and Census Jobs

[Tender Branson]

The new employment report for July will be out on Friday.

Economists predict about 100.000 private sector jobs were created in July, but they also believe that overall 90.000 jobs were lost, because the Census Bureau fired 190.000 workers in July.

http://www.marketwatch.com/column/economic-preview

So here`s my question:

Take a look at this table from the Census Bureau. It shows that at the end of June, 150.000 people were paid by the Census Bureau, compared with 164.000 at the end of July.

http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/jobs/temp-workers.html

If the Census Bureau actually increased their payrolls, why do "experts" assume 200.000 Census jobs were cut in July ?

[CARLHAYDEN]

The new employment report for July will be out on Friday.

Economists predict about 100.000 private sector jobs were created in July, but they also believe that overall 90.000 jobs were lost, because the Census Bureau fired 190.000 workers in July.

http://www.marketwatch.com/column/economic-preview

So here`s my question:

Take a look at this table from the Census Bureau. It shows that at the end of June, 150.000 people were paid by the Census Bureau, compared with 164.000 at the end of July.

http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/jobs/temp-workers.html

If the Census Bureau actually increased their payrolls, why do "experts" assume 200.000 Census jobs were cut in July ?

Yours is a very good question.

First, for a number of reasons, government numbers often appear to be (and often are), contradictory.

Second, many of the so-called 'experts' have been repeatedly 'burned' over the past few months with excessively optimistic projections on employment.  Now many of them are trying to hedge their projections.  Remember all those articles with the word 'unexpectely'?

Third, absent the BLS kicking more people out of the 'labor force,' an increase of 100,000 jobs would be insufficent to keep the unemployment rate from rising.

Finally, something you did not mention, but which is frequently misinterpreted is that government job losses are likely to be more than census job losses because many states and local governments are shedding payrolls.

[Cubby]

So here`s my question:

Take a look at this table from the Census Bureau. It shows that at the end of June, 150.000 people were paid by the Census Bureau, compared with 164.000 at the end of July.

http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/jobs/temp-workers.html

If the Census Bureau actually increased their payrolls, why do "experts" assume 200.000 Census jobs were cut in July ?

The employment figures aren't listed on that chart for the last week of July. Maybe lots of people were laid off that week? Unlikely but possible. They'd still count as laid off for the month even though they worked most of it. I'd imagine things would be wrapping up now at the regional and local Census offices, we're halfway between Census Day (4/1) and the release of the first data sometime in mid-late December.

[Verily]

It's also possible that the June numbers, unadjusted, didn't count Census workers laid off right at the end of June, and so they're being counted with this month until adjustments are made.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, they've done it again.

The 'unemployment rate' (U-3) remains stable because the bureau of labor statistics has kicked enough people out of the civilian labor force to offset the job losses.

Here's a comparison between  the data for July of 2009 and July of 2010 (unadjusted in millions):

          Civilian noninstitutional poulation     Civilian labor force     Employed

2010          237.890                                       155.270                   140.134
2009          235.870                                       156.255                   141.055

Change          2.020                                        - 0.985                      - 0.921

[phk]

-131k w/ Census losses included.