Monday, June 29, 2026

“I acknowledge this suggests that multiple job gains are insufficient to explain a significant portion of the job gains based on agency surveys”


that is the reader Steven Kopits admits he repeatedly asserted [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] The increase in multiple workers is an important factor explaining the difference between household and institutional employment sequences.

One can also spend 10 seconds building this graph (from this postal) realized the folly of making the original assertion once (let alone twice).

figure 1: The difference in net job creation for the nonfarm wages series minus the civilian employment series since 2022M03 (dark blue), the gain in multiple jobs since 2022M03, assuming workers went from one to two jobs (green ), increasing from one to three jobs (sky blue) ), both in 000, seasonally adjusted. The multiplexing series are BLS series LNU02026625, LNU02026631. Source: BLS from FRED and authors’ calculations.

In order for multiple workers to account for the full variance, each worker who had a job in 2022M03 must take on an additional 13 jobs by 2022M11. This seems unlikely. Just saying ‘.

From March 2022 to June 2022, the non-seasonally adjusted NFP is 581,000 higher than the (seasonally adjusted) Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) total, as shown in Figure 2 postal.



Source link

Related articles

Recession Watch: I agree with ZeroHedge

from Zero Hedge Given the long lag between recession...

Immigration, recovery and inflation | Economic Explorer

inside The Fed recently conducted a review of...

What is the household's debt situation?

CNN published an article today titled "What happened...

Confidence, news and sentiment in May

While the (ultimate) sentiment measured by the U-M...
spot_imgspot_img