Tag Archives: birth/death model

BLS B.S.: 93% Of New Jobs Since 2008 Were Birth/Death Model Estimates

A research report from Morningside Hill Capital sourced from Zerohedge shows that 93% of the jobs “created” since 2008 were Birth/Death model estimates.  While some portion of those jobs were no doubt legitimately created, the issue is over-estimation of jobs created by new businesses net of jobs lost from failed businesses.  As it turns out, most of the job growth that has been reported by the Government since 2008 – and which in turn fueled some massive stock rallies – never existed.

Ronald Reagan’s administration was the “culprit” behind the creation of the Birth/Death model because apparently Reagan was complaining that the BLS was undercounting the jobs he “created” (from the link above, pg 11).

The source of estimation error derived from the methodology used by the Census Bureau is highly flawed because it extrapolates B/D growth estimates based on historical experience.  When the economic activity in the current period is below the historical rate of economic activity (real economic activity, not inflation-generated growth or growth fashioned from data manipulation), the slow-down in new business formation that occurs in reality is not picked up by the B/D model.

BLS Admits High Error Potential – If you bother to sift through the section of the BLS website that describes the Birth/Death model methodology – something which Wall Street analysts and financial news reporters have never bothered to do – the BLS admits the high potential for error.  From the BLS website:

The primary limitation stems from the fact that the model is, of necessity, based on historical data. If there is a substantial departure from historical patterns of employment changes in net business births and deaths, as occurred from 2008 into 2009 during the 2009 benchmark, the model’s contribution to error reduction can erode. As with any model that is based on historical data, turning points that do not resemble historical patterns are difficult to incorporate in real time. Because there is no current monthly information available on business births, and because only incomplete sample data is available on business deaths, estimation of this component will always be potentially more problematic than estimation of change from continuing businesses.

Perhaps the biggest source of error comes from the Census Bureau’s estimate of jobs from workers not covered by UI tax reports (employers required to pay out unemployment insurance). These are part-time workers (primarily independent contractors). As the BLS admits:

There are some types of employees that are exempt from UI tax law, but are still within scope for the CES estimates. Examples of the types of employees that are exempt are students paid by their school as part of a work study program; interns of hospitals paid by the hospital for which they work; employees paid by State and local government and elected officials; independent or contract insurance agents; employees of non-profits and religious organizations (this is the largest group of employees not covered); and railroad employees covered under a different system of UI administered by the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB). This employment needs to be accounted for in order to set the benchmark level for CES employment.

Over time some sources from which CES draws input data have become unreliable.

Thus, even the BLS admits that the B/D model is B.S. Furthermore, in all probability, the “Death” component of the B/D model likely has outweighed the “Birth” component of the B/D guesstimates, as new business formation is at a 40-yr low based on two studies, one from the Census Bureau and one from Gallup.  Per Gallup, the rate of firms closing began to exceed the number of new businesses in 2008.  Thus, by the BLS’ and Census Bureau’s own admission, the B/D model has grossly over-stated the number of net jobs created since 2008.  In fact, in all probability, the number of jobs from business “births” and “deaths” has declined.

It is likely that the U.S. economy has lost jobs since 2008.  This would explain why the Labor Force Participation Rate has declined to a level not experienced since the late 1970’s when household’s were primarily composed of one income providers.   The concept that the number of jobs since 2008 has, in reality, declined is reinforced by the fact that 94.98 million of the 254.77 million civilian non-institutional population – over 37% of the 15-yr old to 64-yr old population – is no longer considered to be part of the Labor Force.

Non-Farm Payroll: Economy Is Collapsing

The Government’s “non-farm payroll” report – aka “the employment situation” – reported an alleged 160k jobs added to the economy in April.  I am loathe to even discuss this fairy-tale report out of disdain for ascribing any legitimacy to a complete work of fiction.  It is mind-blowing to me that economic “experts” like Mark Zandi jump on the financial market propaganda networks and attempt to conduct a serious discussion about the numbers (I remember when Zandi was a mediocre analyst for Moody’s – he was hack then and he’s a bigger hack now).

Having swept aside those reservations I want to point out that, of the 160k jobs Untitledallegedly added to the economy in April, the Government whipped up 233k jobs from its “birth/death model” statistical plug metric  (click image to enlarge).  Without this fictitious numerical addition to the overall report, the economy in April lost jobs (the 233k number is pre-seasonal adjustments so it’s not mathematically correct to subtract 233k from the 160k, but it is correct to infer that the pre-birth/death number was negative).

The birth/death model is the Government’s estimate of the number of new businesses that were created in April net of the number of businesses that closed.   There’s not really words available that can describe the absurdity of the B/D model.  I’ll let the reader scan through the numbers in the graphic above to decide whether or not – in the context of every other economic report released in April – if the economy produced enough new businesses to affect the amount of hiring reflected in the Government’s report.

Ironically, Goldman Sachs has raised its forecast for the U.S. non farm payrolls (NFP) on Thursday,  expecting the employment report to crush expectations with a number closer to 250,000.  This is despite the fact that Goldman itself has slashed its payroll this year, cutting its fixed income division employment by 10%.  It’s just amazing how fraudulent the entire U.S. system has become.  It would be interesting to see the motivation behind Goldman’s highly misleading research reports, specifically the bank’s jobs forecast and its interminable forecast of sub-$1000 gold.

Please recall that when gasoline prices were falling the story-line pitched by Wall Street was that it would create a big bounce in consumer spending. This big bounce never materialized per retail and restaurant sales reports over the last several months. But also notice that Wall Street and the financial media market promoters are dead silent on the effect that higher gasoline prices will have on the consumer.

The non-farm payroll report with the birth/death model job additions stripped away  – i.e. significant job losses in April – is likely the accurate reflection of the level of economic activity in this country.   This assessment is reinforced and confirmed by the number of recent bankruptcies in the retail and energy sectors.   The 16% plunge in rail traffic during April reported by the Association of American Railroads further confirms this assessment – LINK.  Rail carload traffic reflects the level of business activity at the manufacturing and wholesale distribution level of our economy.   If activity in that sector is collapsing, it means that retail demand in every sector of the economy is collapsing.  Housing is next…