Rosenberg Sees Friday’s Employment Numbers As Too Much of a Good Thing

Gluskin Sheff Chief Economist & Strategist David Rosenberg questions Friday’s employment number and points out to some “very lumpy increases in some very non-cyclical segments of the economy.”

A 1-IN-35 EVENT

“It’s remarkable nobody talks about this. The big surprise in the payroll data was the service sector component; it rose 58k. But we know from the ADP report that service sector employment fell 81k, which was fractionally worse than the 79k decline in October. Such a discrepancy has occurred less than 3% of the time in the past, and each time, the following month after the big gap, there was a convergence … with headline nonfarm payrolls swinging 100k lower on average, which would imply a 111k decline when December’s figure comes out.

Also take note that the +58k print in the service sector payroll was completely at odds with the 41.6 reading in the ISM non-manufacturing employment index in November — a figure that in the past was consistent with a -192k tally in service sector payrolls and never before aligned with a positive number. Go back to the 2001 recession, and the worst ISM non-manufacturing jobs subindex was 43.9 (right after 9/11) and here we published a figure that was more than two points shy of that!

So as we wonder how the headline number could only be -11k on Friday, there were some very lumpy increases in some very non-cyclical segments of the economy:

• Administration/waste management +87k
• Health/education +40k
• Government +7k

The rest of the economy shed 145 jobs and the declines were spread across
nearly 60% of the industrial base from retail, to transports, to manufacturing, to construction. For some reason, we didn’t see this dichotomy mentioned anywhere in the weekend press.”

Create Content With AI

Try TradingView For Free

Risk Our Money Not Yours | Get 50% Off Any Account