As bad as the government's jobs readings numbers have been during
the Great Recession, we'll soon find out the real situation likely was
worse.
Job
losses during the recession may have been underestimated by close to a
million jobs. So instead of employers cutting just over 7 million jobs
from their payrolls since the economic downturn began in December 2007,
it's expected that the Labor Department's new estimate will be a loss
of 8 million jobs.
"It's an enormous understatement of the
severity of the crisis," said Heidi Shierholz, labor economist with the
Economic Policy Institute, a union-supported think tank. "It confirms
that things were actually worse on the ground than what the reports
suggested."
The new reading will come when the economists at the
department's Bureau of Labor Statistics release their annual revision
of U.S. payrolls from April 2008 through March of 2009 Friday, using
data that wasn't available as the monthly readings were being estimated
and reported.
Typically the revision results in only a slight
change in the previous estimate -- about 0.1% to 0.2% of the total
number of jobs. But there was nothing typical about the twelve month
stretch that ended last March.
That
period included the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the seizing up of
financial markets and the U.S. economy toppling close to the brink of
another depression.
The government's current readings show that
4.8 million jobs were lost in those twelve months, more than twice the
jobs lost during any comparable April-March period going back to 1939,
when the numbers first started to be compiled.
But the department
has already given a preliminary look at this Friday's revision, and it
says it believes it will show 824,000 fewer workers on payrolls than
the current estimates. That would be the biggest downward revision in
the 30 years for which comparisons of those adjustments is possible.
"There's
certainly a disconnect between economists like myself who say the
recession ended in May or June and the person on the street who says
the recession hasn't ended," said John Canally, economist LPL
Financial. "This report is only going to widen that gap."
Canally
said the big revision is one reason that it's difficult to estimate
what Friday's report will show about the labor market in January, or
how investors will react to the report.
Economists surveyed by
Briefing.com are forecasting a net gain of 13,000 jobs in January,
following a loss of 85,000 jobs in December. The unemployment rate is
expected to remain at 10%.
Economists say it shouldn't be a
surprise that there is such a big revision this time, given the
severity of the economic downturn.
"Most of the time it's
reasonably accurate. But when there are very sharp changes in the
economy, they tend to miss and it becomes a big problem," said Dean
Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
The
problem is that BLS models appear to have grossly overestimated the
number of new businesses that opened during the recession.
The
payroll number is created through a monthly survey of employers, but
that survey misses employers who start a business during the course of
the year, as well as those who have gone out of business.
So
every month BLS uses what is known as a birth-death adjustment to
estimate the number of jobs created or lost from that turnover in
business.
During the April 2008-March 2009 period, that
adjustment added jobs to the overall payroll number in 11 of the 12
months, resulting in a net gain of 717,000 jobs.
"When the
numbers were coming out, the idea that we had a significant number of
businesses being created didn't make sense," said Baker.
There is
a concern that this problem didn't end in March of 2009. In fact, the
adjustment added even more jobs -- 990,000 -- in the nine months
reported since then.
So another big revision in the payroll
numbers could be looming a year from now. That means this Friday's
report should give pause to anyone who is depending on the official
numbers to signal real improvement in the economy.
"The numbers
might be showing some pick-up in hiring, but I haven't seen much
evidence of it," said Mark Vitner, senior economist with Wells Fargo
Securities.