{"id":151591,"date":"2025-08-16T22:33:16","date_gmt":"2025-08-16T22:33:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/151591\/"},"modified":"2025-08-16T22:33:16","modified_gmt":"2025-08-16T22:33:16","slug":"whats-behind-the-revisions-to-colorados-job-growth-numbers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/151591\/","title":{"rendered":"What\u2019s behind the revisions to Colorado\u2019s job growth numbers"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Like clockwork, midway through the state\u2019s monthly jobs report for July, there is the usual note: \u201cestimates were revised\u201d for the prior month.<\/p>\n

The explanation was, as always, also included. In June, there were fewer jobs than originally estimated due to \u201cadditional responses from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates,\u201d according to the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment\u2019s July employment report<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Sometimes the revision adds jobs. But lately, it\u2019s been a reduction. June\u2019s numbers were lower than first reported. The state had lost 2,700 jobs, not 1,500.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s not great news for the state, of course, but at least in July, employers added 3,700 nonfarm payroll jobs \u2014 a number that will likely get revised in the future as more employers share their July job counts.<\/p>\n

The seemingly mundane topic of revisions took a turn for the political earlier this month when President Donald Trump fired<\/a> Erika McEntarfer, the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. McEntarfer was nominated by President Joe Biden and received bipartisan approval<\/a> in an 86-8 vote last year.<\/p>\n

The agency released July\u2019s employment numbers<\/a>, but also revised preliminary numbers from May and June as more employers shared their updates a bit late. U.S. employers had actually added 33,000 jobs those two months, not 291,000 as first reported. Trump called the numbers \u201ca scam<\/a>.\u201d He\u2019s already picked someone new<\/a> to lead the BLS, who wants to change the whole system.<\/p>\n

The BLS upheaval left many Colorado economists shaking their heads in dismay.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe data is very important and I have absolutely no question about the integrity of the data or the people putting it together,\u201d said Bill Craighead, an economist and program director for the UCCS Economic Forum in Colorado Springs. \u201cIt\u2019s important to recognize that most of the data we look at is based on surveys. But these are high quality, consistent surveys done by the federal government (and) more than just somebody doing a web poll.\u201d<\/p>\n

Just don\u2019t read too carefully into any single month, he added. \u201cThese are preliminary and subject to revision.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWell This Sucks<\/a>,\u201d was the title of Denver labor economist Ryan Gedney latest newsletter a few days after McEntarfer\u2019s firing. He went on to explain the process of collecting data, why the big revisions weren\u2019t a surprise (at least for those who realize policy changes on tariffs, immigration and federal layoffs will impact jobs) and \u201ccertainly don\u2019t reflect any efforts to manipulate or distort.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yes, the job is a political appointment but the role of the BLS is apolitical, Gedney said. It measures \u201clabor market activity, working conditions, price changes, and productivity in the U.S. economy to support public and private decision making,\u201d he wrote. \u201cPut another way, if you were to ask the BLS if they see a glass as half full or half empty, they would reply with, \u2018we see an 8-ounce glass containing four ounces<\/a>.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Economists know and expect monthly reports to be preliminary, and will be updated not just once, but possibly multiple times and several months or even years in the future.<\/p>\n

But the initial high job-growth numbers in May and June didn\u2019t seem right, recalls Phyllis Resnick, executive director and lead economist at the Colorado Futures Center, which is part of Colorado State University.<\/p>\n

\u201cI was thinking, really? That\u2019s an awful lot of resilience in the economy in face of very erratic policy and a lot of policy uncertainty with the tariffs going on and off, the impact of the federal labor force and the effects of deportation,\u201d she said. \u201cThere were other indications that things were slowing so it was a little bit surprising that the numbers were still so robust.\u201d<\/p>\n

Getting fresh data each month about jobs, unemployment and consumer prices provides a glimpse into the current economy and where it might be headed and helps her do her job helping businesses better understand what\u2019s ahead, she said. More comprehensive data is available, but often months delayed and less helpful about what\u2019s happening today or might happen tomorrow.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019ve worked in the developing world for years and we\u2019re the envy of the world because we have such timely information,\u201d Resnick said. \u201cBut the trade-off is that you don\u2019t get all the information every month on a timely enough basis to have a hard and fast estimate. (The data) lets us keep our finger on the pulse of what\u2019s happening. But we also know that for two months subsequent to the data release, they are subject to revisions as more of those surveys trickle in.\u201d<\/p>\n

Where the job data comes from<\/p>\n

The BLS relies on surveys of consumers and employers to calculate how many people are working or not, and how many jobs are lost or created.<\/p>\n

On who\u2019s working, the Current Population Survey<\/a>, commonly called the household survey, asks questions to about 60,000 U.S. households each month. Are working-age adults aged 16 and older employed, unemployed but looking for a job, or have they stopped working (like retirees)? This will include counting contractors, gig workers and those still looking for work but no longer getting unemployment benefits. This is what\u2019s used to size up the area\u2019s labor force and the unemployment rate.<\/p>\n

To figure out how many jobs were added, the Current Employment Statistics<\/a> program, commonly called the business establishment survey, asks employers about their nonfarm jobs, worker hours and their earnings. Each month, CES surveys approximately 121,000 businesses and government agencies, which represents about 631,000 worksites.<\/p>\n

But the problem with any survey, especially a monthly one, isn\u2019t just getting responses quickly, but getting folks to respond, period. Response rates have been in decline. In 2015, CPS had a nearly 90% response rate. As of last month, it was down to 67%, according to this BLS chart<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the business survey, or CES, had a response rate of 61% in 2015 and had dropped to 42.6% in March, according to another BLS chart<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The BLS would prefer a higher response rate, but monthly surveys cost money and there was already limited staff before this year\u2019s rounds of federal layoffs.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s the similar challenge for the monthly inflation report. Colorado doesn\u2019t have its own. The BLS just focuses on Denver\u2019s rate, which is shared (below), every other month.<\/p>\n

When we asked the BLS in 2022 why it doesn\u2019t provide a statewide number, a BLS economist responded<\/a>, \u201cWe don\u2019t have the budget for it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Colorado survey sizes and why revisions are important <\/p>\n

In Colorado, survey sizes are much smaller. About 2,000 businesses covering 9,700 establishments are surveyed each month, while about 800 Colorado households are asked about their job status, said Tim Wonhof, director of the state\u2019s Labor Market Information at the labor department.<\/p>\n

The household survey response rate in Colorado has been around 69% this year, he said. A decade ago, it was closer to 90%.<\/p>\n

\"\"Timothy Wonhof, program manager and economist at the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment building on Oct. 29, 2024. (Tamara Chuang, The Colorado Sun)<\/p>\n

He doesn\u2019t know what the business response rates are for the state but, he said, \u201cOverall response rates for both surveys have been declining.\u201d<\/p>\n

When looking at small cities and rural towns especially, proceed with caution, Resnick said. Fewer households are surveyed, if any at all. Every county, though, still gets monthly job numbers, like an unemployment rate.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn some of those counties, they\u2019re going off just two or three calls. There\u2019s a lot of volatility in the numbers,\u201d Resnick said. \u201cBut this is the importance of using the same process month after month. At least you\u2019re not introducing more volatility by changing what you\u2019re doing.\u201d<\/p>\n

Late responses always happen. And the BLS does try to impute what the response could be based on the pattern of the employer\u2019s past. And when companies respond late, there could be a change in their hiring, so late responses are valuable, too, even if it causes revisions.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs Erica Groshen, former BLS commissioner, would say \u2018revisions are a feature, not a bug.\u2019 In the first month of collection, about 60-70% of firms have reported their data and that data, plus some imputation of non-responding firms, supports \u2018preliminary estimates.\u2019 By the third month, the collection rate is typically over 90%; those additional responses inform revisions (i.e. revisions require less imputation),\u201d Wonhoff said in an email.<\/p>\n

The BLS makes clear, he said, the monthly report is preliminary. Two revisions come within three months. Another big revision is once a year after more comprehensive data from the Quarterly Census of Employment & Wages is released.<\/p>\n

Employers have to respond to QCEW because that\u2019s what guides how much they pay into unemployment. But the data can be six months delayed, which really hurts forecasting especially if someone\u2019s trying to figure out whether new trade, immigration or other economic policies are hurting or helping before it\u2019s too late.<\/p>\n

Maybe the political attention will help Americans and politicians better understand monthly job data. The first release is always preliminary.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn economic data, there is always a trade-off between accuracy and timeliness. For those who place more value on the accuracy of the data, they are free to ignore the preliminary estimates and wait three months for the final values to get a more accurate picture,\u201d Wonhof said. \u201cThose running the CES program however, based on rigorous research, have decided that there is enough useful information in the preliminary figures to warrant releasing them on a timely basis.\u201d<\/p>\n

Take the reader poll<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\t\t\t<\/p>\n

You\u2019ve just read about why revisions are in the news. Does it matter? Take the What\u2019s Working reader poll and help us better report on what Coloradans care about when it comes to the economy. Thanks!<\/p>\n

\u2794 The poll >> <\/strong>bit.ly\/WWrevisions<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

July jobs report: 4.5% unemployment rate<\/p>\n

The state\u2019s job situation is looking up, at least based on the preliminary report out Friday.<\/p>\n

Colorado added 3,700 nonfarm payroll jobs, while the number of the unemployed workers dropped 4.9% to 148,100. The size of the labor force shrunk a bit, down to 3,280,300 folks who are employed or looking for work.<\/p>\n

That translates to the state\u2019s unemployment rate falling two-tenths of a percentage point from June to 4.5% in July, which leaves it still higher than the nation\u2019s rate of 4.2%.<\/p>\n

\"\"Bill Craighead, program director at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Economic Forum, gives an economic update of the region during the UCCS Economic Forum on Sept. 26, 2024. (Chuck Bigger, for UCCS Economic Forum)<\/p>\n

Craighead, with the UCCS Economic Forum, called the data \u201cencouraging \u2014 keeping in mind that it\u2019s preliminary and subject to revision.\u201d<\/p>\n

But, he added, \u201cIt\u2019s been unusual for Colorado\u2019s unemployment rate to be above the national rate, so it was nice to see it come down, though it was for mixed reasons \u2014 some employment gains but also a small decrease in labor force participation.\u201d<\/p>\n

Since Craighead works in Colorado Springs, he also shared what happened locally. The metro area added 900 jobs in July. But June numbers were revised down to 500, from the preliminary 1,600.<\/p>\n

\u201cOne way I deal with the statistical \u2018noise\u2019 is to look at the 3-month average increase, which is now 767 \u2014 that\u2019s pretty good,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

More: <\/strong><\/p>\n