Every month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases a summary of how many people in the US are working and how many aren’t. You’d think that this would involve something as simple as asking people to “Check ‘Yes’ if you receive a paycheck and ‘No’ if you don’t.”
Ends up that it’s not that straightforward, and the BLS recently had errors in the reports for March, April and May because some people who were counted as employed should have probably been considered unemployed. (The BLS estimates this to have been about 4.9 million people in May.)
One agency or another has been tracking unemployment for the last 104 years, so what’s the problem?
The confusion starts with the categories. When the BLS comes knocking in-person or by phone to take its mini household survey, you’re supposed to say you’re employed if you were paid and worked at least one hour that week.
If you didn’t work but looked for work in the past four weeks, or if you were temporarily laid off, you’re supposed to say you’re unemployed.
As for everyone else, they’re neither here nor there because they aren’t considered part of the labor force.
Then there’s a subsequent question which is considered to be behind the recent errors: people who had been temporarily laid off or furloughed put “other,” to explain why they weren’t working. This answer resulted in them being placed in the “employed” category, when they should have been considered unemployed.
But wait, there’s more: not all jobs are counted. Job reports tell us, in theory, how many people are working and if they’re working in “farm” and “non-farm” jobs. In reality, the report doesn’t account for a variety of employees, including some people who work for the government (appropriately, this includes CIA employees), private household workers and non-profit employees.
Why you should care: the Fed. Despite the missing jobs and mix-ups about who’s employed and who isn’t, the data helps the Federal Reserve get a read on the economy’s health which has an impact on its monetary policy.
Plus, the report includes something called “continuing claims,” which has at least two uses. As described by Goldman Sachs researcher and chief US economist David Mericle, “continuing claims measure the stock of people receiving benefits, rather than just the inflow, so it does a better job of capturing both layoffs and hiring.”
Another reason these claims are worth watching is their relationship to the GDP. “When continuing claims stabilize, when they reach their maximum and just kind of fall sideways, that’s probably when GDP has stopped falling,” he said.
This article is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for individualized professional advice. This article was prepared by and approved by Marcus by Goldman Sachs, but does not reflect the institutional opinions of Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. or any of their affiliates, subsidiaries or division. Goldman Sachs Bank USA is not providing any financial, economic, legal, accounting, tax or other recommendation in this article. Information and opinions expressed in this article are as of the date of this material only and subject to change without notice. Information contained in this article does not constitute the provision of investment advice by Goldman Sachs Bank USA or any its affiliates. Neither Goldman Sachs Bank USA nor any of its affiliates makes any representations or warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the statements or any information contained in this document and any liability therefore is expressly disclaimed.
Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of money invested. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Neither asset diversification or investment in a continuous or periodic investment plan guarantees a profit or protects against a loss.