Tag: Revising establishment employment estimates

Where Did 911,000 Jobs Go?

Image generated by ChatGPT

Today (September 9), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) issued revised estimates of the increase in employment, as measured by the establishment survey, over the period from April 2024 through March 2025. The BLS had initially estimated that during that period net employment had increased by a total of 1,758,000 or an average of 147,000 jobs per month. The revision lowered this estimate by more than half to a total of 839,000 jobs or an average of only 70,000 net new jobs created per month. The difference between those two monthly averages means that the U.S. economy had generated a total of 919,000 fewer jobs during that period.  The revision was larger than the downward revision of 800,000 jobs forecast by economists at Wells Fargo, Comerica Bank, and Pantheon Macroeconomics.

Why does the BLS have to revise its employment estimates? As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.1) the initial estimates that the BLS issues each month in its “Employment Situation” reports are based on a sample of 121,000 businesses and government agencies representing 631,000 worksites or “establishments.” The monthly data also rely on estimates of the number of employees at establishments that opened or closed during the month and on employment changes at establishments that failed to respond to the survey. In August or September of each year, the BLS issues revised employment estimates based on data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), which relies on state unemployment insurance tax records. The unemployment tax records are much more comprehensive than the original sample of establishments because nearly all employers are included. 

In today’s report, the BLS cited two likely sources of error in their preliminary estimates:

“First, businesses reported less employment to the QCEW than they reported to the CES survey (response error). Second, businesses who were selected for the CES survey but did not respond reported less employment to the QCEW than those businesses who did respond to the CES survey (nonresponse error).”

The preliminary benchmark estimates the BLS released today will be revised again and the final estimates for these months will be released in February 2026. The difference between the preliminary and final benchmark estimates can be substantial. For example, last year, the BLS’s initially preliminary benchmark estimate indicated that the net employment increase from April 2023 to March 2024 had been overestimated by 818,000 jobs. In February 2025, the final benchmark estimate reduced this number to 598,000 jobs.

Although this year’s revision is particularly large in absolute terms—the largest since at least 2001—it still represents only about 0.56 percent of the more than 159.5 million people employed in the U.S. economy. Still the size of this revision is likely to increase political criticism of the BLS.

How will this revision affect the decision by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) at its next meeting on September 16-17 to cut or maintain its target for the federal funds rate? The members of the committee were probably not surprised by the downward revision in the employment estimates, although they may have anticipated that the revision would be smaller. In six of the past seven years, the BLS has revised its estimates of payroll employment downward in its annual preliminary benchmark revision.

As we noted in this recent post, even before the BLS revised its employment estimates downward, recent monthly net employment increases were well below the increases during the first half of the year. There was already a high likelihood that the FOMC intended to cut its target for the federal funds rate at its meeting on September 16–17. The substantial downward revision in the employment data makes a cut at the September meeting nearly a certainty and increases the likelihood that the FOMC will implement a second cut in its target for the federal funds rate at the committee’s meeting on October 28–29.

Weaker Than Expected Jobs Report Likely Due to the Effects of Hurricanes and Strikes

Image generated by GTP-4o.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases the “Employment Situation” report (often called the “jobs report”) monthly.  Economists and policymakers follow this report closely because it provides important insight into the current state of the U.S. economy. The October jobs report was released this morning, November 1 As sometimes happens, the data in the report were distorted by unusual events last month, primarily the effects of hurricanes and strikes. The BLS reported the results of its surveys without attempting to correct for these events. With respect to hurricanes, the BLS noted:

“No changes were made to either the establishment or household survey estimation procedures for the October data. It is likely that payroll employment estimates in some industries were affected by the hurricanes; however, it is not possible to quantify the net effect on the over-the-month change in national employment, hours, or earnings estimates because the establishment survey is not designed to isolate effects from extreme weather events. There was no discernible effect on the national unemployment rate from the household survey.”

Economists who participated in various surveys had forecast that payroll employment would increase by 117,500, with the unemployment rate—which is calculated from data in the household survey—being unchanged at 4.1 percent. The forecast of the unemployment rate was accurate, as the BLS reported a 4.1 percent unemployment rate in October. But the BLS reported that payroll employment had increased by only 12,000. In addition, the BLS revised downward its estimates of the employment increases in August and September by a total of 112,000. (The BLS notes that: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.”) The following figure, taken from the BLS report, shows the net changes in employment for each month during the past two years.

What had initially seemed to be particularly strong growth in employment in September, possibly indicating a significant increase in the demand for labor, has been partially reversed by the data revision.

As the following figure shows, the net change in jobs from the household survey moves much more erratically than does the net change in jobs from the establishment survey. The net change in jobs as measured by the household survey for October was a decline of 368,000 jobs after an increase of 430,000 jobs in September. So, the story told by the two surveys was similar: significant weakening in the job market. But we need to keep in mind the important qualification that the job market in some areas of the country had been disrupted by unusual events during the month.

Other data in the jobs report told a more optimistic story of conditions in job market. The following figure shows the employment-population ratio for prime age workers—those aged 25 to 54. Although it declined from 80.9 percent to 80.6 percent, it remained high relative to levels seen since 2001.

The establishment survey also includes data on average hourly earnings (AHE). As we noted in this post yesterday, many economists and policymakers believe the employment cost index (ECI) is a better measure of wage pressures in the economy than is the AHE. The AHE does have the important advantage that it is available monthly, whereas the ECI is only available quarterly. The following figure shows the percentage change in the AHE from the same month in the previous year. AHE increased 4.0 percent in October, up from a 3.9 percent increase in September.

The following figure shows wage inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month wage inflation, whereas this figure shows 1-month wage inflation.) One-month wage inflation is much more volatile than 12-month wage inflation—note the very large swings in 1-month wage inflation in April and May 2020 during the business closures caused by the Covid pandemic.

The October 1-month rate of wage inflation was 4.5 percent, an increase from the 3.8 percent rate in September. Whether measured as a 12-month increase or as a 1-month increase, AHE is increasing more rapidly than is consistent with the Fed achieving its 2 percent target rate of price inflation.

The Federal Reserve’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) has its next meeting on November 6-7. What effect will this jobs report likely have on the committee’s actions at that meeting? One indication of expectations of future rate cuts comes from investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) As shown in the following figure, today these investors assign a probability of 99.8 percent to the FOMC cutting its target for the federal funds rate by 0.25 percentage point (25 basis points) at its next meeting. Investors see effectively no chance of the committee leaving its target range unchanged at the current 4.75 percent to 5.00 percent or of the committee cutting its target rate by 50 basis point cut.

Investors don’t appear to believe that the acceleration in wage growth indicated by today’s jobs report will cause the FOMC to pause its rate cutting. Nor do they appear to believe that the unexpectedly small increase in payroll employment will cause the committee to cut its target for the federal funds rate by 50 basis points.

Mixed Jobs Report Sets the Stage for the FOMC to Cut Fed Funds Target

Image generated by GTP-4o.

The “Employment Situation” report (often referred to as the “jobs report”), which is released monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), is always closely followed by economists and policymakers because it provides important insight in the current state of the U.S. economy. This month’s report is considered particularly important because last month’s report indicated that the labor market might be weaker than most economists had believed. As we discussed in a recent blog post, late last month Fed Chair Jerome Powell signaled that the Fed’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) was likely to cut its target for the federal funds rate at its next meeting on September 17-18.

Economists and investment analysts had speculated that following August’s unexpectedly weak jobs report, another weak report might lead the FOMC to cut its federal funds target by 0.50 percentage rate rather than by the more typical 0.25 percent point. The jobs report the BLS released this morning (September 6) was mixed, showing a somewhat lower than expected increase in employment as measured by the establishment survey, but higher wage growth.

The jobs report has two estimates of the change in employment during the month: one estimate from the establishment survey, often referred to as the payroll survey, and one from the household survey. As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.1), many economists and policymakers at the Federal Reserve believe that employment data from the establishment survey provides a more accurate indicator of the state of the labor market than do either the employment data or the unemployment data from the household survey. (The groups included in the employment estimates from the two surveys are somewhat different, as we discuss in this post.)

According to the establishment survey, there was a net increase of 142,000 jobs during August. This increase was below the increase of 161,000 that economists had forecast in a survey by the Wall Street Journal. The following figure, taken from the BLS report, shows the monthly net changes in employment for each month during the past two years. The BLS revised lower its estimates of the net increase in jobs during June and July by a total of 86,000. (The BLS notes that: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.”)

The BLS’s estimate of average monthly job growth during the last three months is now 116,000, a significant decline from an average of 211,000 per month during the previous three months and 251,000 per month during 2023.

As the following figure shows, the net change in jobs from the household survey moves much more erratically than does the net change in jobs in the establishment survey. The net change in jobs as measured by the household survey increased from 67,000 in July to 168,000 in August. So, in this case the direction of change in the two surveys was the same—an increase in the net number of jobs created in August compared with July.

As the following figure shows, the unemployment rate, which is also reported in the household survey, decreased from 4.3 percent to 4.2 percent—breaking what had been a five month string of unemployment rate increases.

The establishment survey also includes data on average hourly earnings (AHE). As we note in this post, many economists and policymakers believe the employment cost index (ECI) is a better measure of wage pressures in the economy than is the AHE. The AHE does have the important advantage that it is available monthly, whereas the ECI is only available quarterly. The following figure shows the percentage change in the AHE from the same month in the previous year. AHE increased 3.8 percent in August, up from a 3.6 percent increase in July.

The following figure shows wage inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month wage inflation, whereas this figure shows 1-month wage inflation.) One-month wage inflation is much more volatile than 12-month inflation—note the very large swings in 1-month wage inflation in April and May 2020 during the business closures caused by the Covid pandemic.

The 1-month rate of wage inflation of 4.9 percent in August is a significant increase from the 2.8 percent rate in July, although it’s unclear whether the increase represented renewed upward wage pressure in the labor market or reflected the greater volatility in wage inflation when calculated this way.

What effect is this jobs report likely to have on the FOMC’s actions at its September meeting? One indication comes from investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) As shown in the following figure, today these investors assign a probability of 73.0 percent to the FOMC cutting its target for the federal funds rate by 0.25 percentage point at its next meeting and a probability of only 27.0 percent that the cut will be 0.50 percentage point. In contrast, after the last jobs report was interpreted to indicate a dramatic slowing of the economy, investors assigned a probability of 79.5 percent to a 0.50 cut in the federal funds rate target.

It seems most likely following today’s mixed job report that the FOMC will cut its target for the federal funds rate by 0.25 percent point from the current target range of 5.25 percent to 5.50 percent to a range of 5.00 percent to 5.25 percent. The report doesn’t indicate the significant weakening in the labor market that was probably needed to push the committee to cutting its target by 0.50 percent point.

What Are “Principal Federal Economic Indicators?”

Image generated by GTP-4o “illustrating the concept of federal economic statistics.”

Government economic statistics help guide the actions of policymakers, firms, households, workers, and investors. As a recent report from the American Statistical Association expressed it:

“Official statistics from the federal government are a critically important source of needed information in the United States for policymakers and the public, providing information that meets the highest professional standards of relevance, accuracy, timeliness, credibility, and objectivity.”

Government agencies consider some of these statistics to be of particular importance. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated 36 data series as being principal federal economic indicators (PFEIs). Many of these are key macroeconomic data series, such as the consumer price index (CPI), gross domestic product (GDP), and unemployment. Others, such as housing vacancies and natural gas storage, are less familiar although important in assessing conditions in specific sectors of the economy.

Since 1985, the preparation and release of PFEIs has been governed by OMB Statistical Policy Directive No. 3. Among other things, Directive No. 3 is intended to ‘‘preserve the distinction between the policy-neutral release of data by statistical agencies and their interpretation by policy officials.’’ Although some politicians and commentators claim otherwise, federal government statistical agencies, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), are largely staffed by career government employees whose sole objective is to gather and release the most accurate data possible with the funds that Congress allocates to them.

Directive No. 3 also requires the statistical agencies to act so as to ‘‘prevent early access to information that may affect financial and commodity markets.’’ Unfortunately, several times recently the BLS has been subject to criticism for releasing data early or releasing data to financial firms before the official public release of the data. For instance, on August 21, 2o24 the BLS was scheduled to release at 10:00 a.m. its annual benchmark revision of employment estimates from the establishment survey. (We discuss this release in this blog post.) Because of technical problems, the public release was delayed until 10:30. During that half hour, analysts at some financial firms called the BLS and were given the data over the phone. Doing so was contraty to Directive No. 3 because the employment data are a PFEI, which obliges the BLS to take special care that the data aren’t made available to anyone before their public release.

The New York Times filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the BLS in order to investigate the cause of several instances of the agency releasing data early. In an article summarizing the information the paper received as a result of its FOIA request, the reporters concluded that “the information [the BLS] has provided [about the reasons for the early data releases] has at times proved inaccurate or incomplete.” The BLS has pledged to take steps to ensure that in the future it will comply fully with Directive No. 3.

In a report discussing the difficulties federal agencies statistical have in meeting their obligations responsibilities, the American Statistical Association singled out two problems: the declining reponse rate to surveys—particularly notable with respect to the establishment employment survey—and tight budget constraints, which are hampering the ability of some agencies to hire the staff and to obtain the other resources necessary to collect and report data in an accurate and timely manner.

Where Did 818,000 Jobs Go?

Image of “people attending a job fair” generated by GTP-4o

On Wednesday, August 21, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) issued revised estimates of the increase in employment, as measured by the establishment survey, over the period from April 2023 through March 2024. The BLS had initially estimated that on average during that period net employment had increased by 242,000 jobs per month. The revision lowered this estimate by 28 percent to an average of only 174,000 net new jobs created per month. The difference between those two monthly averages means that the U.S. economy had generated a total of 818,000 fewer jobs during that period.

Why does the BLS have to revise its employment estimates? As we discuss in Macroeonomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.1) the initial estimates that the BLS issues each month in its “Employment Situation” reports are based on a sample of 300,000 establishments. The monthly data also rely on estimates of the number of employees at establishments that opened or closed during the month and on employment changes at establishments that failed to respond to the survey. In August of each year, the BLS issues revised employment estimates based on state unemployment insurance tax records, which are much more comprehensive than the original sample of establishments because nearly all employers are included.

Although this year’s revision is particularly large in absolute terms—the largest since 2009—it still represents only about 0.5 percent of the more than 158 million people employed in the U.S. economy. How will this revision affect the decision by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) at its next meeting on September 17-18 to cut or maintain its target for the federal funds rate? The members of the committee were probably not surprised by the downward revision in the employment estimates, although they may have anticipated that the revision would be smaller. In five of the past six years, the BLS has revised its estimates of payroll employment downward in its annual benchmark revision.

In his press conference following the June 12 FOMC meeting, Fed Chair Jerome Powell observed that “you have payroll jobs still coming in strong, even though, you know, there’s an argument that they may be a bit overstated.” (Note that FOMC members don’t receive the data in BLS reports until the reports are publicly released.) As we noted in this recent post, even before the BLS revised its employment estimates downward, recent monthly increases were below the level likely needed to keep up with population growth—so-called breakeven employment growth. There was already a high likelihood that the FOMC intended to cut its target for the federal funds rate at its September meeting. The substantial downward revision in the employment data makes a cut nearly a certainty.

Chair Powell is scheduled to give a speech on Friday morning at the Kansas City Fed’s annual monetary policy symposium held in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. During that speech, he’s likely to give his reaction to the revised employment data—and the state of the labor market more generally.