Gauging Employment: Is the Professional Wisdom Wrong?
The two standard monthly measures of employment growth, one from a survey of payrolls and the other from a survey of households, often differ substantially, and the payroll measure is widely regarded as the more reliable. This paper questions that preference and concludes it is not supported by the data. Reviewing a number of nonsampling problems inherent in the two series, the paper argues that the biggest problem may be the payroll series’ need to account for the birth and death of business establishments. The paper then examines how well each employment measure tracks contemporaneous changes in output and unemployment. As a further test, it also compares simple aggregate employment functions using the two series. On balance, all these tests suggest that averaging the employment change from the two series provides the best estimate; further tests show that this average outperforms either series alone.
Volume (Year): 36 (2005)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 1775 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington DC 20036|
Phone: (202) 797-6000
Fax: (202) 797-6004
Web page: http://www.brookings.edu/economics.aspx
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Christopher A. Sims, 2002. "The Role of Models and Probabilities in the Monetary Policy Process," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 33(2), pages 1-62.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bin:bpeajo:v:36:y:2005:i:2005-2:p:285-321. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jennifer Ambrosino)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.