Here's the wage and salary data from the Treasury for January. I have no idea how this translates into job count, which is what the market will focus on Friday, but clearly on an apple to apple basis the labor market has improved. There were only 20 days in Jan. 2004 versus 21 days in Jan. 2003, the numbers were 126,603 versus 129,062, If you add 5% to Jan. 2004 to even up the days you get 132,933 versus 129,062, which is a set up for a very impressive January job report. Or you can compare Dec. in which 2003 had the extra day (22) versus Dec, 2002 (21), and the number was 131,524 versus 127,870. Adjusted that's 131,524 versus 133,959. Combine the two months which in aggregate have the same days and you get 258,127 versus 256,932. So it looks like January strength trades December weakness. But any way you splice it, I'd say those betting on a weak follow-on labor report from Dec. will be disappointed.
Additionally those of you who actually subscribe to CI, may have noticed this comment in the 1/20 issue:
"As you saw in the table above, retail jobs actually contracted during the important holiday season. This deserves a two second comment. Due to the wonderful seasonal adjust process the Bureau of Labor stats employs to theoretically make these numbers more meaningful, it could very well be that retail job additions to the payroll count in January and possibly February will be quite positive. Without going into significant explanatory detail, since retail employees were not hired during the holidays, in turn they will not be around to fire in this and next month. Statistically, the BLS seasonally adjusts the data for normal retail attrition post the holidays. Attrition that won't be there this year. Be prepared for retail to perhaps be quite additive to January and February labor numbers based on this adjustment process. Just a word to the wise." |
