U.S. payrolls increased 139,000 in May, more than expected; unemployment at 4.2%

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Fri Jun 6, 2025, 11:59 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: CNBC

Published Fri, Jun 6 2025 8:30 AM EDT | Updated 2 Hours Ago


Hiring decreased just slightly in May even as consumers and companies braced against tariffs and a potentially slowing economy, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday.

Nonfarm payrolls rose 139,000 for the month, above the muted Dow Jones estimate for 125,000 and a bit below the downwardly revised 147,000 that the U.S. economy added in April.



he unemployment rate held steady at 4.2%. A more encompassing measure that includes discouraged workers and the underemployed also was unchanged, holding at 7.8%.

Worker pay grew more than expected, with average hourly earnings up 0.4% during the month and 3.9% from a year ago, compared with respective forecasts for 0.3% and 3.7%.

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/06/jobs-report-may-2025.html

---

From the source -

Link to tweet

BLS-Labor Statistics
@BLS_gov
·
Follow
Payroll employment increases by 139,000 in May; unemployment rate unchanged at 4.2% https://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
#JobsReport #BLSdata
8:32 AM · Jun 6, 2025

TGIF and thank you to the DU economy analysts for the "deep dives".


Article updated.

Previous

Previous articles -

Published Fri, Jun 6 2025 8:30 AM EDT | Updated 3 Min Ago


Hiring decreased just slightly in May even as consumers and companies braced against tariffs and a potentially slowing economy, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday.

Nonfarm payrolls rose 139,000 for the month, above the muted Dow Jones estimate for 125,000 and the downwardly revised 147,000 that the U.S. economy added in April.



The unemployment rate held steady at 4.2%.

Worker pay grew more than expected, with average hourly earnings up 0.4% during the month and 3.9% from a year ago, compared to respective forecasts for 0.3% and 3.7%.

Published Fri, Jun 6 2025 8:30 AM EDT | Updated 1 Min Ago


Hiring decreased just slightly in May even as consumers and companies braced against tariffs and a potentially slowing economy, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday.

Nonfarm payrolls rose 139,000 for the month, above the muted Dow Jones estimate for 125,000 and the downwardly revised 147,000 that the U.S. economy added in April.

The unemployment rate held steady at 4.2%.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

Original article -

Published Fri, Jun 6 2025 8:30 AM EDT


Nonfarm payrolls were expected to increase 125,000 in June while the unemployment rate stayed at 4.2%, according to Dow Jones consensus estimates.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

[mdbl]

1. Does anyone believe any government stats right now?

I certainly don't. Agency autonomy is now non-existent and at the whim of der furher.

[pdxflyboy]

2. You are absolutely correct, mdbl.

n/t

[RoadRunner]

5. I'll never believe anything these wankers say

We’re on our own now. Sad.

[Wiz Imp]

7. Understandable, but these numbers are definitely legitimate.

[Wiz Imp]

6. These numbers? Yes. I worked on this program for 30+ years. I know people who still work on the program

Those people would resign before falsifying numbers. It hasn't happened. YET. It could still happen at some point and that is a significant concern from lifelong BLS employees, but so far the data is legit.

[yardwork]

11. Good to know.

[travelingthrulife]

14. So we are relying on the good will of people who are most definitely not afraid of losing their job?

[Wiz Imp]

18. I guarantee you the people I know will resign before falsifying numbers.

For people of integrity, losing their personal integrity is far worse than possibly losing their paycheck.

Lifetime public servants at BLS will NOT manipulate the data for Trump. Guaranteed. If this administration wants to change the data, they will need to do it on their own and that information will become public knowledge.

[DallasNE]

41. I Would Agree, But With A Word Of Caution

The DODGE cuts have resulted in a smaller sample size. The methodology is the same and that is what makes it legit but the smaller sample will make for a larger margin of error and possibly larger revisions in prior months' reporting.

[Wiz Imp]

42. Good Point. And those smaller sample sizes or lower response rates will certainly impact some BLS surveys.

The CPI data has already been impacted.

However, the Current Employment Statistics (CES) Survey which produces the jobs numbers, has not had their sample reduced. Response rates have dropped very slightly this year compared to 2024.

Date CES Response Rate
Jan-24 42.6
Feb-24 43.4
Mar-24 43.5
Apr-24 43.0
May-24 43.1
Jun-24 43.0
Jul-24 43.0
Aug-24 43.1
Sep-24 43.0
Oct-24 42.6
Nov-24 43.0
Dec-24 43.0
Jan-25 42.2
Feb-25 42.4
Mar-25 42.6
Apr-25 N/A

The Current Population Survey (CPS) which produces the unemployment rates has had some recent changes: See Here: https://www.bls.gov/cps/methods/sample_redesign_2025.htm

Phased introduction of redesigned CPS sample began with the release of April 2025 estimates on May 2, 2025
In accordance with usual practice, the sample for the Current Population Survey (CPS) has been redesigned based on information from the 2020 Census. The introduction of the new CPS sample began in April 2025 and will be completed in July 2026.

The 2025 sample redesign is expected to have a negligible effect on published estimates.

https://www.bls.gov/cps/notices/2025/2025-sample-redesign.htm

CPS response rates have been falling for years:



https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU09300000&years_option=all_years

[ultralite001]

13. I call bullsh*t as well...

Can’t believe any numbers touted by this administration…

[Xipe Totec]

17. I for one have total confidence in our Dear Leader's Ministry of Truth. nt

[everyonematters]

3. It may be more than expected, but that is not a good number. Anything under 150k is bad.

[Hugin]

9. Yep....

Around 150K is treading water.

[Rebl2]

27. True

If this was the Biden administration, they would be considered poor numbers. I think what needs to be looked at is each states number of unemployed, how many businesses have closed or had layoffs. I think in our state if a large business lays off more than three or four hundred people, it has to be reported to the state. Maybe that’s true in all states, I don’t know. I know there are some small businesses that have said if these tariffs continue they will have to close.

[progree]

8. JFC people, this is a +44,000 report, that is, with the 95,000 downward revisions of the previous 2 months, there are.

only 139k - 95k = 44k more jobs than were reported in the April report (released 5/2/25).

THE DOWNWARD REVISIONS MATTER
THE DOWNWARD REVISIONS MATTER
THE DOWNWARD REVISIONS MATTER

https://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for March was revised down by 65,000, from +185,000 to +120,000, and the change for April was revised down by 30,000, from +177,000 to +147,000. With these revisions, employment in March and April combined is 95,000 lower than previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.)

ETA Just to show I'm not kidding or double-counting or any of that:

# Last months total nonfarm payroll employment: 159,517k
# This month's total nonfarm payroll employment: 159,561k   (a 44k increase)

Sources (just to show I'm not jiving you or making a linkless assertion of opinion as fact):
# Last month's: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_05022025.htm   (Table B-1)
# This month's: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_06062025.htm   (Table B-1)
  or https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm

[Johnny2X2X]

10. This is a bad report

The media would have skewered Joe Biden for a jobs report this bad. Joe's economy was adding 200K jobs month after month and the media would still criticize it. 139,000 is not good, and the revisions downwards for the previous 2 months is worrisome.

[Igel]

44. You did actually look at the graph. n/t

[WSHazel]

12. This is the right way to look at it

Weak jobs report. The economy is slowing significantly.

[BumRushDaShow]

21. That's probably the closest that it's gotten to ADP's numbers

(and we know ADP just does private sector and not "all" so a wild coincidence)

[progree]

24. Private non-farm employment: ADP: +37,000, BLS: +140,000

Just so you know I didn't scrape that number off of Tik Tok:

# Nonfarm PRIVATE Employment (Establishment Survey, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
Monthly changes: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth
^-Good for comparison to the ADP report that typically comes out a few days earlier

Yes, I was thinking the same thing when I saw my +44k number for BLS after subtracting the downward revisions. Maybe the ADP isn't such a joke after all. But I saw a graph yesterday comparing ADP and BLS month by month over the last 3 years, and are getting farther and farther apart, though I think they indicated that the long run multi-year cumulative was close.

[BumRushDaShow]

25. I remembered it from the OP Wednesday

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143471352

And CNBC had busted out a breaking on it but mahatmakanejeeves had already made the thread from the ADP source.

[Wiz Imp]

15. One must always read to the end of the release to get the complete accurate picture of the new month's report.

Here is the last paragraph of the release.

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for March was revised down by 65,000, from
+185,000 to +120,000, and the change for April was revised down by 30,000, from +177,000 to
+147,000. With these revisions, employment in March and April combined is 95,000 lower than
previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from
businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the
recalculation of seasonal factors.)

So the prior 2 months estimates were reduced by a combined 95,000. Meaning the actual increase in jobs for May over the previously reported April level was just 44,000.

This is a TERRIBLE report.


Note the average monthly job gain under 4 years (48 months) of Biden was 294,000. The average monthly gain under 4 months of Trump is 127,000.

Also note this report has still yet to reflect the massive layoffs of Federal employees. Since January, this report shows Federal Government employment down by just 59,000. I don't believe this is a dishonest number from BLS, but rather a byproduct of the way that OPM reports the data to the survey. Eventually those layoffs will show up and reflect a significant loss in Government Employment.

[OrlandoDem2]

16. That is less job growth than April. The economy is slowing.

I keep telling people that they need to financially prepare for a recession and much of the data indicates that.

[dalton99a]

19. Kick

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

20. BFD!!

[mathematic]

22. Another solid report. America has more going for it than the whims of Donald Trump

People expecting an employment apocalypse should adjust their expectations. The most likely outcome was always "slow growth".

A big concern was that negative expectations about the economy would kick off a downward spiral of economic decline leading to a recession. Reducing the China tariffs and TACO has led to people thinking that tariffs will be bad, but manageable, and that the economy will stay strong. May's jobs numbers, including revisions that show that job growth has been steady and not declining the last 3 months, support this outlook.

At the end of the day, employment is high, unemployment is low, and wages are growing. It's crazy to think that people would wish otherwise.

[progree]

23. LINKS to some BLS Data Series Numbers and Graphs. Coming soon: The labor force dropped by 625k, Employed down by 695k

SEASONALLY ADJUSTED - pretty much all the numbers you see reported in the media or BLS summary are the seasonally adjusted ones -- that certainly is true of the headline numbers -- nonfarm payroll jobs, unemployment rate -- as well as many others like the labor force participation rate. (I'm tired of seeing comments like the payroll jobs number is high this time because we're getting into the holiday hiring season, or low because we're done with the holiday season, or it's slow in August etc. Seasonal adjustments adjust for these seasonal cycles - that's why they are called seasonal adjustments)

BLS news release summary: https://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The headline payroll job numbers (139,000 in May come from the Establishment Survey
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
Monthly changes (in thousands): https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
YEAR: JAN FEB MAR etc.
2022: 225 869 471 305 241 461 696 237 227 400 297 126
2023: 444 306 85 216 227 257 148 157 158 186 141 269
2024: 119 222 246 118 193 87 88 71 240 44 261 323
2025: 111 102 120 147 139
The last 2 months (Apr and May) are preliminary, subject to revisions
Last 12 months: 144k/month average

# Employed in thousands (down 696,000 in May) come from the separate Household Survey, http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000
Monthly changes (in thousands): http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000?output_view=net_1mth
If one adjusts the date range from 2021 to 2025, the graph is much more meaningful because it leaves out the huge swings of 2020 that greatly enlarges the Y axis and makes what follows look like tiny almost undiscernible squiggles around the zero axis
YEAR: JAN FEB MAR etc.
2022 1016 483 608 --315 487 --284 164 477 75 --126 --177 752
2023 958 178 417 162 --178 183 204 292 --33 --231 675 --762
2024 66 --177 412 70 --331 --9 64 206 377 --346 --273 478
2025 2234 --588 201 461 --696
Last 12 months: 176k/month average
January and February of each year are affected by changes in population controls.
A very volatile data series from month to month. I used a double minus to make the negative ones stand out a little better
This Household Survey also produces the unemployment rate and labor force participation rate among many other stats

A very volatile data series from month to month. I used a double minus to make the negative ones stand out a little better
This Household Survey also produces the unemployment rate and labor force participation rate among many other stats

###############################################################
###############################################################

LINKS to some BLS Data Series Numbers and Graphs

Table A - Summary of Household Survey (produces unemployment rate, labor force participation rate) - https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm

Table B - Summary of Establishment Survey (produces the headline payroll jobs number and the average earnings) - https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm

Every one of these data series comes with a table and graph:

# Nonfarm Employment (Establishment Survey, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
Monthly changes (in thousands): https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CEU0000000001

# Employed in thousands from the separate Household Survey, http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000
Monthly changes (in thousands): http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000?output_view=net_1mth
NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU02000000

# Nonfarm PRIVATE Employment (Establishment Survey, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001
Monthly changes: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth
^-Good for comparison to the ADP report that typically comes out a few days earlier
NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CEU0500000001

Earnings of Production and Non-Supervisor Workers (PANSW)
. . . # INFLATION ADJUSTED Hourly Earnings of PANSW http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000032
. . . # INFLATION ADJUSTED Weekly Earnings of PANSW http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000031
----- Nominal means NOT inflation adjusted. Just plain ordinary greenbacks ----
. . . # Nominal Hourly Earnings of PANSW- http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000008
. . . # Nominal Weekly Earnings of PANSW - http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000030

# Labor Force http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000?output_view=net_1mth

The labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed. To count as unemployed, one must have actively sought work in the past 4 weeks (just looking at want ads and job postings doesn't count)

# ETPR (Employment-To-Population Ratio) aka Employment Rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

# LFPR (Labor Force Participation rate) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Unemployed, Unemployment Rate
# Unemployed http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13000000
# Unemployment rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
# Black unemployment rate (%), https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006
# Hispanic or Latino unemployment rate (%), https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000009
# White unemployment rate (%), https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000003
# U-6 unemployment rate http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709
# Long term unemployed 27 weeks or longer as a percent of total unemployed http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13025703
------------ end unemployed, unemployment rates --------

# NILF -- Not in Labor Force http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15000000

# NILF-WJ -- Not in Labor Force, Wants Job http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15026639

# Part-Time Workers who want Full-Time Jobs (Table A-8's Part-Time For Economic Reasons) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12032194

# Part-Time Workers (Table A-9) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12600000

# Full-Time Workers (Table A-9) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12500000

# Multiple Job holders (Table A-9) - http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12026619

# Multiple Jobholders as a Percent of Employed (Table A-9) https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12026620

# Civilian non-institutional population
Seasonally adjusted (they seem to have gotten rid of this) https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS10000000
NOT seasonally adjusted: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU00000000
. . In Table A-1 https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm they show the same numbers for seasonally adjusted and non-seasonally adjusted

LFPR - Labor Force Participation Rate for some age groups
The LFPR is the Employed + jobless people who have looked for work in the last 4 weeks (and say they want a job and are able to take one if offered. Looking for work involves more than just looking at job listings). All divided by the civilian non-institutional population age 16+ (in the case of the regular LFPR, or divided by the civilian non-institutional population of whatever age, gender, race etc. for the various sub-demographic measures. For example. the LFPR of age 25-54 females is the number of those employed or actively seeking work divided by the civilian non-institutional population of age 25-54 females.)

SA means Seasonally adjusted. NSA means Not Seasonally Adjusted
16+: SA: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 NSA: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU01300000
25-34: SA: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300089 NSA: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU01300089
25-54 ("Prime Age" ): SA: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300060 NSA: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU01300060
. . . . . . Prime Age Men: SA: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300061
. . . . . . . . . . . .From Jan 1960 to Jan 2025, Prime Age Men LFPR went from 97.1% to 89.4%. That means that the percent not in the labor force went from 2.9% to 10.6%, a 3.7 fold increase in this proportion.
. . . . . . Prime Age Women: SA: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300062
55-64: -------------------- NSA: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU01300095
55+: SA: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11324230 NSA: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU01324230
65+: SA: ---------------- NSA: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU01300097

LFPR - Labor Force Particpation Rate (prime age 25-54) by gender
All: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300060
Men: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300061
Women: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300062

More LFPR links including by race: https://www.democraticunderground.com/111695870

ETPR - Employment to Population Ratio for some age groups
SA means Seasonally adjusted. NSA means Not Seasonally Adjusted
16+: SA: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000 NSA: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU02300000
25-34: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300089 NSA: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU02300089
25-54 ("Prime Age" ): SA: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300060 NSA: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU02300060
55-64: SA: ---------------- NSA: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU02300095
55+: SA: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12324230 NSA: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU02324230
65+: SA: ---------------- NSA: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU02300097

Data series finder (employment/unemployment related): https://www.bls.gov/data/#employment

The entire report: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Inflation rate (CPI)
. . . Monthly report: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
. . . Regular CPI: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUSR0000SA0?output_view=pct_1mth
. . . Core CPI: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUSR0000SA0L1E?output_view=pct_1mth
. . . Energy: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUSR0000SA0E?output_view=pct_1mth
. . . Food: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUSR0000SAF1?output_view=pct_1mth
. . . Food at home (groceries): https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUSR0000SAF11?output_view=pct_1mth
. . . Calculator at: https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
. . . One Screen Data Search for CPI components: https://data.bls.gov/PDQWeb/cu

Grocery prices (food at home) inflation compared to overall inflation rate
. . . . . https://www.in2013dollars.com/Food-at-home/price-inflation
. . . From 1947 to 2021 and from 2000 to 2021, food at home inflation very slightly lagged the overall inflation rate
. . . . . https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142735789


Archives of previous reports - The monthly payroll employment reports from the BLS are archived at Archived News Releases (https://www.bls.gov/bls/news-release/ ). In the list up at the top, under Major Economic Indicators, select Employment Situation ( https://www.bls.gov/bls/news-release/empsit.htm ). That opens up links to reports going back to 1994.

[progree]

26. Household Survey: Employed dropped by 696k, Labor force dropped by 625k, LFPR from 62.6% to 62.4%

Not In Labor Force: +813k
Employment to Population Ratio: 60.0% to 59.7%
Most of this is from the BLS news summary's tables.
https://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
I get most of my numbers from the full release https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
See also #23 for links to the data series.

=========================================
Prime Age Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR, Age 25-54)
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300060
Jan, Feb, March, April, May: 83.5 83.5 83.3 83.6 83.4
so the big 0.2 drop in May was preceded by a big 0.3 increase in April, and we're down just 0.1 from the level of Jan and Feb.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

28. My view, combing ADP and this report: resilience is fraying at the edges

The labour market has been relatively resilient but it is a combination of less hiring and more stay-put on the part of employees.

The back-looking downward revisions are more believable (more data, more consideration) than the current numbers (quicker but less data). ADP showed a bit of a tick down, but still resilient.

Consider the background when looking forward. Are there many drivers for job growth? Maybe some deregulation, but that is unlikely to affect jobs until 2026. Maybe a rate cut by the Fed, but that is looking more distant, though I expect now there will be several in 2026.

Are there many drivers for job loss? Tariff taxes, tariff uncertainty, legislation uncertainty, increasing deficits, top-heavy stock market overweighted to "magnificent 7" high tech stocks, looming government "deferred resignations" kicking in come September, tourism declines kicking in this summer, supply shortages possible (rare earth magnets), ....

Where did jobs grow and decline in the report? Healthcare and "hospitality" grew. It seems there are lots of restaurants opening. That's before the summer tourism season which is not looking healthy.

Where did jobs decline? Manufacturing down 8,000 and a couple other key sectors down.

Fraying at the edges, with little positive forward-looking.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

37. I neglected the stimulus effect of "tax cuts" in the BBB, which are oversold, not needed, and costly

The BBB will extend some existing tax reductions set to expire and bring in new ones for billionaires. The extension is not stimulative though it avoids contractionary pressure if they were to expire.

The gift to the billionaires will be a little stimulative but will be more inflationary for asset prices like for real estate, art and maybe gold / bitcoin. It won't be invested all in new production. It comes at a high fiscal cost (increasing deficits and borrowing costs) and high social cost (taking health care away from millions as only one example). In any case, those billionaire giveaways won't have an effect for some time yet but the costs are more immediate.

[progree]

29. Investors are already looking to July's jobs report -- or even August's - Hamza Shaban, Yahoo Finance

(The original version was published before today's jobs report release, and had the title on the Yahoo Finance page, "Why investors are already skipping ahead to July's jobs report". That means the June jobs report to be released Thursday July 3 is expected by this author to be a nothing-burger too)

(The survey week for both BLS reports reported today (Establishment Survey and Household Survey) is usually the week that contains the 12th of the month. If that's true for today's May report, that would mean the numbers reported today came from surveys done May 12-16).

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/investors-are-already-looking-to-julys-jobs-report--or-even-augusts-100033662.html

Friday's jobs numbers provided the latest glimpse of how a high-tariff regime and the uncertainty surrounding trade policies will influence unemployment figures. But like several other key indicators that look backward in time to help us steer through the present, it's their future datasets that will reveal a fuller picture.

For the labor market, those numbers may not arrive until July or August — a time by which many investors hope a new tariff regime will already be established.

A curious hallmark of this stutter-step trade policy shift, with its dealmaking and delays, is that the effects of a "Liberation Day" initiated this spring won't be meaningfully felt until deep into summer or perhaps longer, no matter how Friday's data stacks up.

"While we think it is still too soon for the jobs report to capture the adverse impact of trade policy — that impact will show up in the employment reports for July and August — the overall cooling trend suggests that employment and wage growth will be insufficient to completely absorb that impact," RSM chief economist Joe Brusuelas wrote in a note on Thursday.

. . . as my colleague Josh Schafer reported, data points on hiring and manufacturing this week have shown signs of slowing as tariffs make their mark.

. . .

[progree]

30. Oopsie. The graph in the OP says, "2025 May 177k"

I wonder where they got that from. 177k is the old April number that was reported a month ago. (May's headline increase was 139k)

The graph looks right as far as the length of the bars. It's just that annotation that is wrong.

The last 3 months are:
120k, 147k, 139k
with an average of 135k/month
(that's before they revise today's number downward in next month's report)

[BumRushDaShow]

35. They did finally fix that and I updated the OP!

(they probably had the old chart as a template and normally use that to plug in new numbers but forgot to plug in the latest)

[Owens]

31. Is the report that Trump stopped from being released

so he could revise it?

[progree]

32. No, this jobs report was released on the normal first Friday schedule. The one you may be thinking of is a farm trade

report
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1116100615

Trump officials delayed farm trade report over deficit forecast, Politico, 6/4/25

. . . Administration officials blocked publication of written analysis that normally accompanies the report because they disliked what it said about the deficit. ... because it predicts an increase in the nation’s trade deficit in farm goods later this year, according to two people familiar with the matter.

. . . The published report, released Monday but dated May 29, includes numbers that are unchanged from how they would’ve read in the unredacted report, said the people, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal decision-making. ...

Very disturbing. The article goes on about how the people that use this report rely on the analysis that was previously included.

[benpollard]

33. He'll probably revise it with a Sharpie.

[Bengus81]

34. Gawd....the effects of these tariffs (when all are implemented unless TACO) will be months and months from now

Right now seasonal hiring is in full swing.

[progree]

36. The jobs numbers are seasonally adjusted /nt

[Bengus81]

38. True and with a best guess,same as in late fall with Christmas hiring.

If TACO finally puts all these tariffs in effect the economy will tank but again,not overnight or even in three months.

[progree]

39. You're right about a big seasonal upsurge this time of the year. +726k

NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CEU0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
+726k

SEASONALLY ADJUSTED: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
+139k (the headline number)

So the seasonal adjustment process for May watered down the actual 726k job surge down to 139k jobs --

in essence saying that 587k jobs increased from April to May due to regular seasonal changes
and 139k were above and beyond seasonal change. (587 + 139 = 726)

They report the part of the job increase (139k) that can't be explained by ordinary seasonal patterns.

[DallasNE]

40. A Word Of Caution

With the DOGE job slashing the sample size is now smaller. That means there is a larger margin of error, so this number will likely have more volatility than previously. Also, the long time magic number to keep up with population growth is 150,000 jobs. Because that number is so often beaten, I think that number needs an upward adjustment - perhaps 175,000.

Also, in times like this more focus needs to be placed on the Challenger, Gray & Christmas report on job cut announcements. Not everybody announces job cuts and actual job cuts may vary from the announcement, so it can be volatile. Still, it provides a useful trend line.

[Wiz Imp]

43. NOT TRUE.

https://www.bls.gov/sae/additional-resources/current-employment-statistics-sample-by-state.htm

Current Employment Statistics sample by State
Each month the Current Employment Statistics (CES) program surveys about 121,000 businesses and government agencies nationwide, representing approximately 631,000 individual worksites, in order to provide detailed industry data on employment, hours, and earnings for the nation as a whole, all States, and most major metropolitan areas. The table below presents the number of businesses and worksites that are surveyed each month by State. For more details on the CES sample, please visit https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cestn.htm#section1.

CES sample collection is not impacted by staffing levels - it's practically entirely automated.

See post #42 for recent CES survey response rates.

The CPI sample has been reduced but NOT the CES sample.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/05/economy/cpi-data-bls-reductions
DOGE layoffs may have compromised the accuracy of government data

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/us-inflation-data-collection-hurt-171657513.html
US Labor Department reducing CPI collection sample amid hiring freeze

https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2025-06-04/inflation-data-threatened-by-government-hiring-freeze-as-tariffs-loom
Inflation Data Threatened by Government Hiring Freeze as Tariffs Loom
The Labor Department has cut back on the inflation data it collects because of the Trump administration’s government hiring freeze, raising concerns among economists about the quality of the inflation figures just as they are being closely watched for the impact of tariffs