Why Friday's jobs report should be taken with a grain of salt

Friday's jobs report is likely to sway some voters – and therefore have an impact on this tight race. But Reich says it shouldn’t.

Bebeto Matthews/AP
Patricia Mazza, left, meets job seekers during a National Career Fairs' job fair, in New York Wednesday. A small shift one way or the other from September’s jobs report has no statistical significance, Reich writes, and therefore should have no political significance.

Three times today I’ve been asked on media outlets about the likely effect on the presidential election of Friday’s jobs report, depending on what the Bureau of Labor Statistics announces.

Unfortunately, the BLS report is likely to sway some voters — and therefore have an impact on this tight race. But it shouldn’t.

The report surely will be used by one of the candidates to make a sweeping case for himself and against his opponent. An unemployment rate above last month’s 7.8 percent, or a number of new jobs below September’s 114,000, will be wielded by Mitt Romney as evidence the economy is slowing – while a rate below last month’s, and a number above it, will be used by Team Obama as evidence the economy is moving in the right direction. 

In truth, no one should base their vote on tomorrow’s labor report is because a single month’s report isn’t a reliable gauge of which way the economy is heading. A report that the unemployment rate is 7.8 percent, for example, means only that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is 90 percent sure the real rate lies between 7.6 percent and 8.0 percent. By the same token, an announcement that the economy created 100,000 jobs in October means the BLS is 90 percent sure the number of new jobs is between 90,000 and 110,000. 

A small shift one way or the other from September’s readings may have huge political significance but has no statistical significance, and therefore should have no political significance. 

So much uncertainty attaches to a single report that the BLS is continuously revising its job numbers as more information comes in. At the start of September the BLS announced that August’s job growth had slowed to 96,000 new jobs — a finding that had a noticeably negative effect on the President’s campaign and at a critical juncture. But a month later, in its October release, the BLS revised the August number upward to 141,000.

Or look back on that awful year of 2008, when between July and August the Bureau was reporting relatively small declines of 20,000 to 60,000 jobs per month. We now know the true job numbers were falling off a cliff. BLS’s revised job numbers showed the economy was losing roughly 200,000 jobs a month, starting in April. 

My advice: Regard tomorrow’s BLS numbers with a good grain of salt. Month-to-month reports shouldn’t be taken nearly as seriously as they are. It’s the long-term trend that counts. And here the picture is encouraging regardless of what’s reported tomorrow.  Since the start of 2012, employers have averaged 146,000 new hires a month. It’s a slow rate of recovery, but a recovery nonetheless.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.