Making Sense of Today's January Jobs Report

REPLAY VIDEO
Your next video will start in
Pause

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments

  • VIDEO TEXT

Feb. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Payrolls in the U.S. rose less than projected in January as retailers cut back after the holidays and government hiring fell. The unemployment rate unexpectedly declined to 6.6 percent. Michael McKee analyzes the numbers on Bloomberg Television's "In The Loop." (Source: Bloomberg)

Are here.

I want to turn to mike mckee, we are talking about benchmark revisions.

We saw a chart that goes back through the year, talk to us about what this is.

This is a different kind of nonfarm payrolls number in terms of importance.

2 revisions, went to the establishment survey, which is companies.

They look at tax records.

They found that there were roughly 274,000 fewer jobs for the past year that ended last march then we have bought.

That gets factored in.

They made a mess of the logic, they used to count household workers as employed by people as opposed to companies.

Those people were moved into the labor force as company workers, that adds a lot.

You get a higher level of employment over the past year, but not because more people were employed.

Just accounting.

Other changes to the population estimate.

Last year, this was a huge deal.

The population estimate was raised significantly.

This year, not all that much.

Not going to affect the unemployment rate, the participation rate.

What do you think richard?

You thought 140,000. i was surprised at the construction number.

Even through the snow.

Strength in manufacturing.

The funny thing about construction, construction workers can do other things when it snows, like drive snowplows.

That counts and construction?

It counts as being on the payroll.

You only have to be on the payroll for one hour during the pay period, the week that includes the 12th of the month.

The week we had the extreme cold, we had a snowstorm the week after.

People could get to work for an hour and get counted.

Changes to the accounting, the cold, the expiration of unemployment benefits.

118,000, well below consensus estimates of 180,000. peter says the weather did not have as much of an effect in january.

Why?

A couple numbers.

The actual survey week was not bad for a january week, not as bad as other week in the month.

We had 6894,000 reporting that they got part-time work that would have been a full-time work.

The reason it was part-time was because of the weather, over one million in december.

694,000, not all that different from the prior january.

262,000 said they had a job but could not get to work because of the weather.

Lower than the december numbers.

Not all that consistent with prior january's, the weather is always a factor.

Retail was a soft spot, we heard from sam's club and j.c. penney, from macy's, all cutting jobs after disappointing december/ of course at jcpenney.

No one goes there.

Story in "the wall street journal" saying one in six men, prime working age to not go to jcpenney, are unemployed.

One out of six men aged 25 to 54. the amazing thing to me is that we continue to watch the rate drop.

Is that good for the administration?

People talk about the fact that people are dropping out of the labor force.

The rate is the headline number.

Unemployment is down, that can be the take away.

The fed looks at it.

They know it is distorted, but the average american is just reading the headlines.

A famous story about a reporter who did a piece on the president , got a call from the president's aide.

She said people only look at the pictures, they are not listening to what you say.

People are probably feeling it is a little better.

Let's go back to that, population control.

The problem you have with the unemployment rate, it is not directly comparable to december because of the benchmark revisions.

The revisions were so small that it really does not affect the fact that that is good news for a change.

This is not a story about people dropping out of the labor force.

The labor force rose and it is not because of the benchmark revisions.

It is because more people told the household survey they were employed and fewer said they were unemployed.

You have got a kind of makes you went to see in the household survey.

Not reflected in the establishment survey.

This is a mixed report, not as bad as it looks.

I assume no one thinks this will change the fed's approach to reducing bond purchases.

They get a couple more reports before the next time they meet, they don't have to -- thank you michael mckee.

Peter cook, down in d.c. and breaking those numbers for us.

For more jobs coverage, we will head to the white house and hear from the labor secretary thomas perez.

Coming up.

As brands get set to unveil ad campaigns at the olympics, statistics about whether it is worth the big bucks.

?

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.

Advertisement

BTV Channel Finder

Channel_finder_loader

ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change