Rich Ulrich <email@example.com> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:43:38 +0000 (UTC), root <NoEMail@home.org> > wrote: > >>Two recent employment reports have differed so widely as >>to suggest to me that either something grossly improbable >>has happened or that a serious error has been made. >> >>Last Thursday the company ADP, which provides data processing >>services for over 500,000 companies, published a report >>that non-farm employment rose by 157,000 jobs in the month >>of June. The ADP report was based upon a survey of 340,000 >>companies. That report can be seen here: >>www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/FINAL_Release_June11.pdf > > - I found the report at the same URL except that PDF was pdf. > Apparently case sensitive on their server, and changed? > > After a "page error", I stripped off the name down to .com/, > and found the intro to the report, which offered the link as > http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/pdf/FINAL_Report_June_11.pdf > which otherwise looks the same. >
I am using the Chrome browser and either .pdf or .PDF got me to the page. Thanks for going to the effort.
> >> >>The very next day The Bureau Of Labor Statistics published >>their report that during June the non-farm employment >>rose by 18,000 jobs. The BLS report was based upon a >>survey of 140,000 companies. This report can be seen here: >>www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm >> >>The historical agreement over the last 10 years of these >>two employment estimates can be seen in a graph covering >>the period of 2005-2010 here: >>www.adpemploymentreport.com/ner/charting.aspx >> >>Stock markets around the world were buffeted by the >>two reports, first up on the ADP report and down after >>the BLS report. >> >>I have tried to make simple models of how ADP and the >>BLS might have generated these numbers. These models >>result in a ratio distribution whose parameters are >>not available, but assuming that the two estimates >>should be highly correlated and that the width of >>either distribution is much smaller than the median, >>I find the discrepancy to be too great to explain by >>sampling. It seems to me that some serious error has >>been made. >> >>I invite comments by interested parties in this group. > > > ADP comments that their own report does not directly > reflect their own clients, but is weighted to match the BLS > report. So they are trying to be the same. > > Chart 2 (page 3, in the corrected citation above) shows > the match between the two sets of reports. ADP seems to > reflect its larger base of companies (or differences in > methodology?) by having a curve that usually is less jagged. > > I had trouble figuring out the scaling at first, because the > totals I could project seemed wrong. After looking at the > other reports, includind BLS, I figured out that this is, > indeed "private, non-farm" jobs, where the job-total is about > 107 million. So a 0.1% change is a 100,000 change in jobs. > > Looking at the monthly deviations, instead of the overall > agreement, I count at least 2 deviations per year that look > like over 0.1%, for this 10-year chart -- 100,000 jobs or more. >
Strangely, when I first looked at the ADP report I didn't see what are now represented as Charts 2-4, but instead a large chart showing data from 2005-2010. What I see now doesn't have a Chart 1.
You are absolutely correct that the current Chart 2 shows that deviations greater than 0.1% are somewhat common. It looks like Jan of this year the BLS report was 0.2% higher than ADP.
> So, I end up comforted that the BLS estimate has a good > chance of being wrong this time. But it looks to me like variation > within the typical range. > > *** > > By the way, I was lately wondering, What is the new-hire > rate for a month? (Does an increase of 100,000 mean that > 1 million started and 900,000 quit?) Or are there too many > off/on jobs, like construction, to make this easy to count? >
I think it means a net of 100,000 and any way that can come about. Thanks for your effort on resolving my problems with the two reports.