‘Bizarre,’ ‘Perplexing’ December Jobs Report Stumps Economists

No one expected such a small uptick in jobs. So, what happened?

Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Labor Department officials testify during a hearing before the Joint Economic Committee January 10, 2014 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.
National Journal
Catherine Hollander
See more stories about...
Catherine Hollander
Jan. 10, 2014, 7:45 a.m.

Eco­nom­ists de­ployed their ar­sen­al of syn­onyms for “weird” Fri­day in try­ing to de­scribe the Decem­ber jobs re­port, but the mes­sage was clear: What the heck happened?

Many ex­pec­ted payrolls to swell by around 200,000 jobs. So you could just feel the jaws drop­ping up and down Wall Street at 8:30 a.m. when the Bur­eau of Labor Stat­ist­ics re­por­ted a mea­ger gain of 74,000. Even the un­em­ploy­ment rate, which de­clined to a lower-than-ex­pec­ted 6.7 per­cent from 7 per­cent in Novem­ber, fell largely for the wrong reas­on — people leav­ing the work­force. “This is just one of the most un­usu­al re­ports, really, I’ve seen in quite a long time here,” said Douglas Hand­ler, chief U.S. eco­nom­ist at IHS Glob­al In­sight.

What happened? Why were the fore­casts so off the mark? Or will BLS change its num­bers when it re­vises them next month? We won’t really have a bet­ter sense un­til Feb. 7, when the agency re­leases its next em­ploy­ment re­port.

In the mean­time, eco­nom­ists have a few ideas:

  • Blame the weath­er. Some ex­cep­tion­ally bad weath­er last month might have dragged down con­struc­tion em­ploy­ment, which fell by 16,000 in Decem­ber, and brought over­all payroll num­bers down by between 50,000 and 75,000, Mor­gan Stan­ley eco­nom­ists es­tim­ate. BLS also cited “un­usu­ally cold weath­er” as a po­ten­tial cul­prit for a de­cline in con­tract­or em­ploy­ment. But the weath­er doesn’t ap­pear to ac­count for all of the weak­ness.
  • Things are not really get­ting bet­ter, faster for the labor mar­ket, and this is just evid­ence we were too op­tim­ist­ic in mak­ing our pre­dic­tions. The av­er­age job growth per month in 2013 (182,000) doesn’t look all that dif­fer­ent from 2012 (183,000) or 2011 (175,000). And labor force par­ti­cip­a­tion — a meas­ure of people who either have or are look­ing for jobs — con­tin­ued to de­cline last month, fall­ing by 0.2 per­cent­age points and off­set­ting an in­crease in Novem­ber. The weak­ness in the Decem­ber jobs re­port was pretty much across the board: There was not a lot of good news to be found, oth­er than the pos­sib­il­ity this was just a strange blip.
  • Things are really get­ting bet­ter for the labor mar­ket, and this is just noise. This the­ory says the num­bers are so out of line with Novem­ber’s gain of 241,000 jobs, and an over­all sol­id eco­nom­ic end to 2013, that it’s prob­ably just due to some strange sea­son­al-ad­just­ment factors (the way the gov­ern­ment smooths out its num­bers to ac­count for dif­fer­ent be­ha­vi­or in dif­fer­ent sea­sons) and weird weath­er. That com­bin­a­tion means this re­port really doesn’t say all that much: Stick to the three-month av­er­ages or longer for the real story. “There’s a les­son to be learned, I think, from the data that you don’t take the re­cov­ery for gran­ted, but I do think this is go­ing to be seen more as an ab­er­ra­tion than any­thing else,” said IHS’s Hand­ler.
What We're Following See More »
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
12 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×