FORTUNE -- On Friday, the government will report how many people were employed (and unemployed) in January. Once again, the number could be a messy one. The reason: the weather.
December's report said companies added only 74,000 positions, which was much lower than what was expected. But many economists said that was due to weather, and to ignore it. The weather in January wasn't much better, certainly colder that average. Auto dealers and real estate agents have complained that frigid temperatures slowed activity. And construction certainly slackened more than normal. Still, the week, or two weeks, depending on which of the government's two jobs surveys you are talking about, in which the Labor Department counted the number of workers, had relatively little snow.
Even so, the fact that some companies put off hiring in December because of the weather may artificially boost January's job growth. So, one way or another, it's hard to say the number won't be affected somehow. A number of Wall Street's top economists have noted how weather will or will not play into January's tally. Clearly, it's a guess, on top of all the other
guesses forecasts they make to come to their predicted number.
January will mark the third month in a row that weather has clouded the jobs report. November was warmer than usual, potentially leading to more hires than normal, which also could have contributed to December's drop.
But wait, this is all kind of silly. First of all, the significance of the weather effect may be overstated. The jobs number that everyone quotes each month comes from the survey of employers. In that survey, all you have to do is work one day of the pay period in question in order to get counted as employed. And, according to the BLS, only about 22% of the workers in its survey are paid weekly. So weather would have to stop them from getting to work for two full weeks for it to really have an effect on the number. That's like a Hurricane Katrina or Sandy event, not a snow storm or a cold front. What's more, as Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics has pointed out, about 20,000 fewer accountants were employed in December than the month before. It's hard to blame that on the weather.
But let's ignore all of that, because everyone else seems to, and assume that weather affects the numbers. If that's the case, I have a proposal: Why doesn't the government adjust the jobs number based on the weather?
MORE: Did the Fed screw up?
The government already seasonally adjusts the jobs numbers. But those adjustments are really about seasonal industry trends and not necessarily weather. So the BLS adjusts for more retail and fewer construction jobs in November and December. And those adjustments are all put into place in advance of the actual month, before we know what the weather will bring. And they are heavily based on hiring patterns from the past few years. So get one year of especially wacky weather, which we're experiencing more and more often, and all the adjustments get thrown off.
What's more, the government is already collecting some data on how the weather affects employment, so why not use it? Here's how I would do it: Each month, the government asks individuals if they have a job but weren't able to get to work because of the weather. (Those people are counted as unemployed.) Last month, 273,000 people responded yes to that question. That was higher than usual. The five-year December average is 181,000. So the number of additional people who weren't able to get to work because of last month's unusual weather came to 92,000.
The problem is that each month the government conducts two employment surveys. The weather question comes from the survey that goes out to individuals. The widely quoted number of jobs added each month, which was 74,000 in December, comes from the payroll survey. Historically, the payroll survey number is, on average, about 7% lower than the household survey number. Factor that in, and the weather-adjusted payroll number should include an additional 87,000 workers in December. (Zandi says his models point to 50,000, so we are in the same ballpark.) Based on this line of thinking, the December jobs number should be 161,000.
But we're not done yet. You can't figure out how many jobs were added in December without knowing how many weather-adjusted jobs we had in November. And remember, the weather in November was quite lovely. And that, according to my math, means that 78,000 more people landed jobs than should have. So you have to take those jobs out. Bottom line: On a weather adjusted basis, the economy added 239,000 jobs in December.
Is that the right number for job growth in December? GDP rose 3.2% in the fourth quarter. So 239,000 feels more in line with that fact than 74,000. But who knows? What's clear is that not adjusting for the weather makes an already messy number even messier. One seasoned Wall Street economist said he and his colleagues should take November to March off. The winter jobs numbers have basically become useless, so taking a vacation might offer one solution. But then we would also have to adjust for all those out-of-work economists. And no one wants to do that.
Over the past decade, a percentage point jump in GDP has created about 115,000 extra jobs a month. These days it's about half that.
FORTUNE -- On Thursday, we received more evidence that the economy is broken.
The government said GDP rose 3.2% in the last three months of 2013 -- one of the fastest rates since the end of the recession, though slower than the third quarter's 4.1%. Still, that sounds MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Jan 30, 2014 3:17 PM ET
Friday's disappointing jobs report raises the question of whether the Federal Reserve moved too quickly to reduce its bond-buying stimulus efforts.Nin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Jan 10, 2014 11:45 AM ET
November's jobs report shows the U.S. created slightly more middle-wage jobs and a bit fewer lower-wage gigs. But we're certainly not out of the woods yet.Nin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Dec 6, 2013 1:18 PM ET
The labor market had a groundhog day.
FORTUNE -- Different report, same numbers.
Squint at January's job numbers and you might think you are looking at the stories from a month ago. Employers added 157,000. The initial report from December was 155,000. (It has since been revised up.) Unemployment rate: 7.9%. In December: 7.8%.
At the start 0f 2012, the unemployment rate was falling pretty rapidly. In the four month period from October MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Feb 1, 2013 11:39 AM ET
A lack of corporate raiders and an investor preference for safety could be a better answer to the cash puzzle.
Fortune -- About a year or so ago, corporate balance sheets, for some, became exhibit No. 1 of how President Obama was killing the recovery.
The argument was over cash. Ever since the financial crisis, corporations have hoarded an increasing amount. The pile reached $2.2 trillion at the end of last year, MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Jun 6, 2012 6:00 AM ET
Two years after the recession ended, U.S. workers still face a grim job market. And with tepid economic growth and an election year breeding uncertainty, companies are likely to have the upper hand for some time.
By Katherine Reynolds Lewis, contributor
FORTUNE -- It's a tough time to celebrate the American worker. This coming Monday marks the third consecutive Labor Day with an unemployment rate topping 9% and 14 million Americans looking for work. MORESep 2, 2011 5:00 AM ET
In a nutshell, it's because they don't have much choice.
The bright spot in a drab employment picture is that workers have been stretched so thin during the past couple years that companies are going to have to (gasp!) hire more.
You may be understandably suspicious. Corporate America has been raking in massive profits – they flooded in at a record $1.68 trillion annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2010 MOREColin Barr - May 6, 2011 6:32 AM ET
CEOs see some light at the end of the hiring tunnel, though they remain nervous about the economy over all.
Three in eight top managers expect to hire more workers by year-end, McKinsey said Friday in its latest quarterly survey of global executives. That's the highest level since the end of 2007, the consulting firm said.
The improved hiring outlook comes even as the 2,056 respondents show increasing ambivalence about the strength MOREColin Barr - Sep 17, 2010 12:46 PM ET
|Albertsons to merge with Safeway|
|GM raising Corvette prices|
|Everything must go: There's a flood of store closings|
|Boeing reports wing cracks on Dreamliners|
|Bitcoin matters. Ignore the media circus.|