Here are a few things I never understood about reporting the monthly US job numbers, so someone please enlighten me: 1. 2 decades into the 21st century and they still can't figure it out exactly, so a month later they have to correct it by as much as 20%? So a number that sounds good can be quite bad a month later after the revision. 2. OK, reporting is not quick and correct, I get it. But if so, then why don't they report it a week later (second Friday of the month), when hopefully they can get it correctly? What is the point of reporting it (most likely) incorrectly all the time? Let's give it a week or so extra time and let's get the correct number...
Many consider it just a snapshot and in no way a full comprehensive study. And yes even then it does get adjusted, sometimes twice. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/jobs-report-growth-unemployment/
Actually each jobs report is adjusted twice. Once after a month, then again after 2 months. Because the source for the numbers come from different sources (businesses, governments, households), I don't think that one week would be sufficient time between adjustments. A really good article that dissects the job numbers reports in a readable manner: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/jobs-report-growth-unemployment/
There are a lot of moving parts obviously in how many jobs are created, filled, etc. It's impossible to get a real time number that's accurate. It's like polling. The BLS surveys a sampling of businesses in each state, by industry. They rely on the businesses themselves to report number of employees paid for a particular pay period (which is also a moving part) plus payroll dollars for the same period. I know because I've done the reporting myself for our company. These can be approximations occasionally depending on the companies payroll reports and how they're broken down because the BLS only wants certain states for each business. I'm sure they cross reference that data with actual payroll tax filings, and of course there are companies that report late occasionally, etc.
From the link in post #3: "Jobs numbers are calculated from a nationwide survey of about 150,000 businesses and government agencies. The other high-profile number that’s announced at the same time, the unemployment rate — referred to as “U-3” — comes from a different survey of about 60,000 households — and isn’t subject to monthly revisions." "So when the next jobs report comes out on Aug. 3, there are a couple of things to keep in mind. That unemployment rate in the headlines? It doesn’t really take into account your cousin or anyone else who has quit job-hunting for a while or is working less than they want to. And that job growth number? Take it with +/- 120,000 grains of salt."
All government statistics should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Over time, the way stats are gathered also changes, as do the criteria. Probably the most important part of the jobs numbers is digging into where the jobs are, and how they were calculated. Remember in the Obama days, when a full time employee was fired, and two part time workers hired to replace, that was counted as job growth.
It ain't. Because the same thing happened during Dubya's time.... and the same thing is happening today.
I'm just saying that most of the job growth came from that. That's why the growth itself is meaningless. You have to dig into the numbers. A lot of low paid retail jobs added is not a good thing. A lot of manufacturing jobs added is a good thing.