U.S. payrolls increased by 147,000 in June, more than expected

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: CNBC

Published Thu, Jul 3 2025 8:30 AM EDT Updated 1 Min Ago


Job growth proved better than expected in June, boosted by government hiring, as the labor market showed surprising resilience and likely took a July interest rate cut off the table.

Nonfarm payrolls increased a seasonally adjusted 147,000 for the month, higher than the estimate for 110,000 and just above the upwardly revised 144,000 in May, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Thursday. April’s tally also saw a small upward revision, now at 158,000 following an 11,000 increase.



The unemployment rate fell to 4.1%, the lowest since February and against a forecast for a slight increase to 4.3%. A more encompassing rate that includes discouraged workers and those holding part-time positions for economic reasons edged down to 7.7%, the lowest since January.

Though the jobless rates fell, it was due largely to a decrease in those working or looking for jobs. The labor force participation rate dropped to 62.3%, its lowest level since late 2022, owing to an increase of 329,000 of those not counted in the labor force. The household survey, which is used to calculate the unemployment rate, showed a smaller employment gain of just 93,000. The ranks of those who had not looked for a job in the past four weeks swelled by 234,000 to 1.8 million.

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/03/jobs-report-june-2025.html

---

From the source -

Link to tweet

BLS-Labor Statistics
@BLS_gov
Payroll employment increases by 147,000 in June; unemployment rate changes little at 4.1% https://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
#JobsReport #BLSdata
8:32 AM · Jul 3, 2025

Good morning DU - stay tuned for our economic analysts for the deep dive into the data and although it's not Friday, it is Thursday!


Article updated.

Previous articles -

Published Thu, Jul 3 2025 8:30 AM EDT Updated 1 Min Ago


Job growth proved better than expected in June, as the labor market showed surprising resilience in the wake of President Donald Trump's calls for interest rate cuts.

Nonfarm payrolls increased a seasonally adjusted 147,000 for the month, higher than the estimate for 110,000 and just above the upwardly revised 144,000 in May, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Thursday. April's tally also saw a small upward revision, now at 158,000 following an 11,000 increase.

The unemployment rate fell to 4.1%, the lowest since February and against a forecast for a slight increase to 4.3%. A more encompassing rate that includes discouraged workers and those holding part-time positions for economic reasons edged down to 7.7%.

Though the jobless rates fell, it was due largely to a decrease in those working or looking for jobs. The labor force participation rate fell to 62.3%, its lowest level since late 2022 as the labor force, owing to an increase of 329,000 of those not counted in the labor force. The household survey, which is used to calculate the unemployment rate, showed a smaller gain of just 93,000.

Published Thu, Jul 3 2025 8:30 AM EDT Updated 2 Min Ago


Job growth proved better than expected in June, as the labor market showed surprising resilience in the wake of President Donald Trump's calls for interest rate cuts.

Nonfarm payrolls increased a seasonally adjusted 147,000 for the month, higher than the estimate for 110,000, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Thursday.

The unemployment rate fell to 4.1%, against a forecast for a slight increase to 4.3%.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

Original article -

Published Thu, Jul 3 2025 8:30 AM EDT


Nonfarm payrolls were expected to increase 110,000 in June, according to the Dow Jones consensus estimate. The unemployment rate was forecast to rise to 4.3%.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

[Doodley]

1. Is the economic data being manipulated?

[BumRushDaShow]

4. Due to all the court halts

I don't think some of the numbers that were at least "announced" have happened yet or have been reflected yet.

E.g., there were a pile of feds that were given that idiot and illegal "fork in the road" mess that allowed them to "remain on the job but on administrative leave" until September. So they are not "gone" off the books yet (unless they retired or resigned). There were also RIFs that are on hold and/or that happened but were rescinded and people were called back.

But you do have private industry - particularly the tech sector - announcing all kinds of layoffs as they prepare for AI, and that has only recently started happening. You also have some small businesses starting to buckle under the weight of the tariffs - particularly those that relied heavily on Chinese imports.

[mdbl]

14. Those numbers don't reflect what I see where I live

Maybe they are only polling a few cities? Who knows and who would actually trust anything this weird bizarre fascist government says.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. I, for one, do not believe this governmeont report.

[rurallib]

9. I share your disbelief - it used to be adjusted months later

but I suspect that will just disappear.

[SCantiGOP]

37. How come no Democrats are questioning the numbers?

I’ve heard no discussion (other than in this thread) that the BLM stats have changed.
Someone at the national level would be calling it out.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

3. For reference, last month

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

[BumRushDaShow]

7. I know that progree had been tracking the LPR for awhile

and with the latest CNBC update added, that figure apparently dropped to the lowest since 2022 (in the middle of the pandemic).

[Hugin]

5. No worries...

It’ll be quietly “seasonally adjusted” right after Fox Business News reports it. They don’t want to be caught with dead air again like yesterday with their one viewer watching.

It’s like Trump never plays golf today, only yesterday.

[mathematic]

27. The numbers reported are always seasonally adjusted. You don't need to use scare quotes.

Every month is subject to standard revision for 2 additional months. This is common in economic data statistics.

This month prior revisions were positive, not negative, so expect to hear about it on Fox news.

You should also apply that skepticism to politically aligned editorial judgement to the economic news you get here on DU. You have people in this discussion that insist that 147k job growth and lowered unemployment to 4.1% are somehow bad news. You absolutely do not get "economic good news" updates here on DU when a republican is president.

[Hugin]

32. Using so-called scare quotes is my right and privilege.

Looking at the chart included in the OP, since the Trump Imposition 2.0 has been on the scene job growth has basically been flat at best even with adjustments.

Which is common in any Republican administration.

So, criticism is justified.

[speak easy]

6. Kiss your rats cut goodbye, Krasnov

[Ritabert]

8. This doesn't jibe with the loss of 33,000 private sector jobs

...reported yesterday. Sounds phony or manipulated.

[thesquanderer]

11. This article from yesterday (before this info was released) may provides some perspective...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/be-very-skeptical-of-adp-report-showing-economy-lost-jobs-for-the-first-time-in-years-d92d20bf

Of course there's also the variable that the government has to keep re-hiring back the people it fired.

[Ritabert]

17. Thanks but I still find the BLS finding questionable

What employer is going to feel confidence enough to hire with this chaos going on.

[Hotler]

23. From CBS, 'Layoffs reach highest level since 2020, new data shows.'

(snip) Layoffs across the U.S. this year have climbed to their highest level since the pandemic slammed the economy in 2020, new labor data shows.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/layoffs-doge-tariffs-cbs-news-explains/

[Ritabert]

60. That I believe.

[samnsara]

30. i know! I saw that as well.....

[PSPS]

38. Yesterday's report was based on ADP figures, which aren't reliable.

ADP is a private payroll-processing company and its figures reflect only their own customers' numbers.

[Ritabert]

61. I believe them over BLS.

Trump's desperate to make everything look rosy.

[travelingthrulife]

12. lol. ok then.

[travelingthrulife]

15. Seems kind of odd given that private jobs were -33,000.

I suppose on the off chance this is real news, then great.

[mathematic]

21. Private jobs were +74k, not -33k.

Yes, of course this is good news. Everybody expected April's chaos would have larger effects than it had.

[uncle ray]

16. so you are saying America is Great Again?

[groundloop]

18. Many people simply don't believe ANYTHING coming from the tRump administration

tRump can't speak three sentences without telling a lie, so why should we believe these numbers.

A report recently came out showing a decline in private sector jobs. That, coupled with all the federal job cuts forced by DOGE and tRump just doesn't add up to job growth.

[sinkingfeeling]

19. You actually believe this crap? And you joined DU just to post how great you think the regime is doing?

[Javaman]

28. Sure we can

The orange asshole and doge fire a shit load of people in the government. Then suddenly they realize that they fucked up and hire back a huge amount of people that are actually necessary to run the government in certain areas that they orange idiot and his room full of dopes need.

Then combine that with the fact that several judges ruled that many of the firings were illegal and say that these people need to be hired back

And that gooses numbers that the orange asshole can brag about

More over if this piece of shit budget bill goes through, you will see a massive crash in the health care sector. Anything associated with Medicare will crater. And because of this, if there is a positive jobs report next quarter, then we can confirm without a doubt that the numbers are complete and utter bullshit

[marble falls]

29. What do you credit this fantastic news to? Tariffs?

[pnwmom]

64. Why should we trust that this data wasn't manipulated, in light of everything else we know? nt

[IronLionZion]

20. Welcome to DU

[marble falls]

26. What do you credit for that excellent news?

[littlemissmartypants]

62. Welcome to DU. It's nice to see you.

It looks like you may be an optimist like me. I'm glad you're here.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

67. Welcome to DU

[Historic NY]

22. Looks like they cooked the private payroll figure

There had been some speculation ahead of the report that a weak number was possible, with private payrolls service ADP on Wednesday reporting a loss of 33,000. However, the BLS report showed a gain of 74,000 in that category.

[PSPS]

39. ADP's private-payroll customers are concentrated in small-business sector

Large employers do their own payroll. Smaller companies will farm it out to places like ADP, hence the disparity. ADP figures are not accurate in regards to the overall analysis of the workforce.

[BumRushDaShow]

31. "When I suggested that the booming economy should have been a major campaign."

It WAS. But the problem is that the "Citizen's United dark money" made sure that this fact would be drowned out with "Inflation, inflation, inflation" and "Price of Eggs" - which although slowly dropping, are STILL twice what they were 2 years ago.

Every stop was pulled out in the Harris/Walz campaign but the populace that did vote was more psychologically swayed by toxic masculinity, removal of immigrants, and white supremacist fantasies of getting rid of of any trace of POC contributions to this nation's history.

[BumRushDaShow]

36. Here in SE PA, we were IINUNDATED with ads

in every format. On broadcast TV, cable, radio, streaming channels (apps), billboards, and even airplane banners near our stadiums before and during a game. I got a million land line calls, cell calls, texts, emails, and snail mail - PLUS door-to-door canvassers knocking on my door (despite my Harris/Walz lawn sign).

I have posted about this including screenshots of what was even being shown on the streams of news sites like CNN and ABC on their webpages.







And it continues to be a MISTAKE for DUers to dismiss social media. This is where there is unfortunately a disconnect based on the demographic age of this site.

[BumRushDaShow]

43. So you were watching EVERY media format 24/7 in order to determine that?

Did you listen to any AM or FM music or talk stations?

Did you not also see a billion Bob Casey ads?

The campaign focused the MOST $$$ on the swing states like PA. They visited those states multiple times and Walz was even over on your side of the state a couple times.

These fuckers who voted for 45 didn't give a SHIT about "the economy". You can read or even watch the interviews with them. You see them RIGHT NOW, as they watch ICE drag their farm workers out of the fields and load them onto planes to remove from the country, yet are still raving about how they will "still stand by" 45 and he'll "make it right" and demand that people "give him more time".

They are psychotic.

Birds of a feather, flock together and they joined the cult flock and will make everyone pay the price.

[BumRushDaShow]

53. These people CHOSE to respond to cultural/wedge issues

THAT is our mistake to NOT deal with the psychology and psychopathy that was effectively being used for that to happen.

The old LBJ quote that Bill Moyers relayed to the public is playing out right now. I have posted this before -

Opinion

Bill D. Moyers

WHAT A REAL PRESIDENT WAS LIKE

November 12, 1988



WHILE Lyndon Baines Johnson was a man of time and place, he felt the bitter paradox of both. I was a young man on his staff in 1960 when he gave me a vivid account of that southern schizophrenia he understood and feared. We were in Tennessee. During the motorcade, he spotted some ugly racial epithets scrawled on signs.

Late that night in the hotel, when the local dignitaries had finished the last bottles of bourbon and branch water and departed, he started talking about those signs. "I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it," he said. "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

Some years later when Johnson was president, there was a press conference in the East Room. A reporter unexpectedly asked the president how he could explain his sudden passion for civil rights when he had never shown much enthusiasm for the cause. The question hung in the air. I could almost hear his silent cursing of a press secretary who had not anticipated this one.

But then he relaxed, and from an instinct no assistant could brief -- one seasoned in the double life from which he was delivered and hoped to deliver others -- he said in effect: Most of us don't have a second chance to correct the mistakes of our youth. I do and I am. That evening, sitting in the White House, discussing the question with friends and staff, he gestured broadly and said,

"Eisenhower used to tell me that this place was a prison. I never felt freer." For weeks in 1964, the president carried in his pocket the summary of a Census Bureau report showing that the lifetime earnings of an average black college graduate were lower than that of a white man with an eighth-grade education. And when The New York Times in November 1964 reported racial segregation to be increasing instead of disappearing, he took his felt-tip pen and scribbled across it "shame, shame, shame," and sent it to Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader in the Senate. I have a hard time explaining to our two sons and daughter -- now in their twenties -- that when they were little, America was still deeply segregated.

(snip)

These people have always wanted to be "above someone else" and when given a way to get there via denigrating others, then they will take that path and run with it - even if they cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Their heads exploded when Barack Obama was elected as the first BLACK MALE President, and the rest of their bodies exploded when Joe Biden picked a BLACK/ASIAN WOMAN to be Vice President. It was to much.

THAT is why they have been unrelenting in going after Biden who they consider a "ni**er" lover for being an integral part of the election of BOTH Obama and Harris, and THAT is why they are willing to FEEL ECONOMIC PAIN in order to have the POWER (through 45) to IMPOSE PAIN on someone else.

Now until someone deals with this issue - which will never be resolved but might be able to be worked around - then this insanity will continue.

[BumRushDaShow]

59. I think the complete over-saturation of political ads

that MOST people tend to tune out, resulted in people just not motivated.

They are used to hearing "hyperbole" every 4 years and how the "world is about to come to an end" and then when the election is over, to them, "nothing changes".

This is literally the realm of what Tip O'Neill would always say about "politics" (and it is something that we need to adopt more of, quick, fast, and in a hurry) -

I.e., we are not a monolith and we need to focus "locally" (even more granular than the "50 state strategy" ).

I have posted before that this is like the story/parable of "Peter and the Wolf" where the little boy Peter would continually claim that a wolf had come into the village and was going to go after the sheep. And each time, the townspeople found there was no wolf. So that one day when a wolf DID come to town and here comes Peter trying to warn everyone, he was ignored and the wolf feasted.



What happened during the 2024 election wasn't just a one election cycle phenomena. It has been in the works for years.

I have also posted this from 13 years ago (2012) from a Grover Norquist speech -

It was during a slightly different era but the strategy was the SAME.

And hope you enjoy the holiday and upcoming weekend as well.

[progree]

45. Pre-November, a lot of people didn't see the economy as being so great, and it wasn't

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143390474#post22

[progree]

25. LINKS to some BLS Data Series Numbers and Graphs -

And yes, the monthly increases are net gains. The reported nonfarm payroll jobs increases are jobs created and job openings filled minus jobs lost: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143221098#post24

AND 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 (+147,000 in June 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: 111 102 120 158 144 147
The last 2 months (May and June) are preliminary, subject to revisions
Last 12 months: 151k/month average

# Employed in thousands (up 93,000 in June) 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 --588 201 436 --696 93
Last 12 months: 184k/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

REVISIONS of the prior 2 months: up 16,000, from the BLS news release:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for April was revised up by 11,000, from
+147,000 to +158,000, and the change for May was revised up by 5,000, from +139,000 to
+144,000. With these revisions, employment in April and May combined is 16,000 higher 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 compared to the report that came out one month ago we have 147,000 + 16,000 = +163,000 net new payroll jobs reported.

The June 6 report's total nonfarm payroll employment: 159,561k
. . . https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_06062025.htm -- Table B-1
This (July 3 report's) total nonfarm payroll employment: 159,724k -- a 163k increase
. . . This month's: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_07032025.htm or https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm or https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001

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

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.

[Cheezoholic]

42. Thank you! The actual jobs numbers can be very confusing, thanx again n/t

[progree]

46. And thank you, I appreciate that. It's all quite quite confusing, and baffling /nt

[Cheezoholic]

66. Yes, the one that gets me (and I believe was mentioned in the OP) is the people that fall off the Unemployment rolls

Its like they just toss that number in the trash as people no longer seeking employment so they don't count. I may not be looking in the right place but that number has to change yet where do you see a reflection of that change at? If it's cumulative say over a full year where are they reflected in the actual reports (or of course vice versa). It just seems like they suddenly don't get counted because they are no longer actively involved (for whatever reason, time etc) with the Unemployment program. Its probably there but the way they always word it sounds like Cosmologist coming up with Dark Matter to make their equations work lol.

[Fiendish Thingy]

34. Something smells fishy

Just yesterday it was reported that there was a LOSS of 33,000 jobs, now they’re saying it was a higher than expected gain of 124,000 jobs?

Somebody is lying.

[Hugin]

35. The break-even for job growth in the US is around 150,000...

So, even with any padding, 124.000 is a net loss.

I’ll wait for the reports from people who love money more than they love Trump or Republicans. They aren’t fooling around.

[PSPS]

41. Yesterday's report was from ADP, which reflects only a small slice of the workforce.

ADP is a private payroll-processing firm that some small companies use, so their figures never reflect the overall workforce.

[progree]

50. Yup, the ADP numbers cover only about 20% of the nation's private workforce.

the ADP numbers cover only about 20% of the nation's private workforce.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20191008a.htm

the ADP National Employment Report and ADP Small Business Report are derived from ADP payroll data representing 460,000 U.S. clients and nearly 26 million workers
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/september-2021-adp-national-employment-121500533.html
the above link is no longer good, but archive.org has it:
https://web.archive.org/web/20211207005815/https://finance.yahoo.com/news/september-2021-adp-national-employment-121500533.html

How they extrapolate from 20% to the remaining 80%, I have no idea.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

44. If we're going to talk about the ADP Employment Report, we should go to their site to see how they measure things.

ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Shed 33,000 Jobs in June; Annual Pay was Up 4.4%

ROSELAND, N.J. – July 2, 2025 – Private sector employment shed 33,000 jobs in June and annual pay
was up 4.4 percent year-over-year, according to the June ADP National Employment Report® produced
by ADP Research in collaboration with the Stanford Digital Economy Lab (“Stanford Lab”). The ADP
National Employment Report is an independent measure and high-frequency view of the private-sector
labor market based on actual, anonymized payroll data of more than 25 million U.S. employees.

The jobs report and pay insights use ADP’s fine-grained anonymized and aggregated payroll data to
provide a representative picture of the private-sector labor market. The report details the current month’s
total private employment change, and weekly job data from the previous month. Because the underlying
ADP payroll databases are continuously updated, the report provides a high-frequency, near real-time
measure of U.S. employment. This measure reflects the number of employees on ADP client payrolls
(Payroll Employment) to provide a richer understanding of the labor market. As of January 2025, ADP’s
Pay Insights measure captures nearly 14.8 million individual pay change observations each month, up
from nearly 10 million when it launched.

“Though layoffs continue to be rare, a hesitancy to hire and a reluctance to replace departing workers led
to job losses last month,” said Dr. Nela Richardson, chief economist, ADP. “Still, the slowdown in hiring
has yet to disrupt pay growth.”

{snip}

[JanMichael]

47. I remember 200k as being the minimum new jobs

Anything under 200k or even 250k was seen as a losing month.

150k is good now?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

48. Maddow Blog-New U.S. job numbers show 2025 is off to a discouragingly sluggish start

Over the first six months of the year, American job growth has slowed to a 15-year low. It's worth asking why.

So far this year, the U.S. economy has added 782,000 jobs — the worst total since 2010.

The question for the White House is simple: “Why has American job growth slowed in 2025 to a 15-year low?” www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo...

— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2025-07-03T12:57:16.102Z

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/new-us-jobs-report-shows-2025-discouragingly-sluggish-start-rcna216691

Expectations heading into this week showed projections of about 110,000 new jobs having been added in the United States in June. As it turns out, according to the new report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the totals exceeded those expectations. CNBC News reported:

Job growth proved better than expected in June, as the labor market showed surprising resilience in the wake of President Donald Trump’s calls for interest rate cuts. Nonfarm payrolls increased a seasonally adjusted 147,000 for the month, higher than the estimate for 110,000, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Thursday. The unemployment rate fell to 4.1%, against a forecast for a slight increase to 4.3%.

There’s nothing especially wrong with the preliminary topline totals from June — 147,000 jobs is a mediocre number, though hardly a disaster — but as is always the case, context is everything.

Over the first six months of 2025, the latest data suggests the economy has added 782,000 jobs. That said, over the first six months of 2024 — when Donald Trump said the economy was terrible — the total was 985,000 jobs, and over the first six months of 2023, the U.S. economy added 1.53 million jobs.

In fact, if we exclude 2020, when the pandemic wreaked havoc on the economy, the first six months of this year show the slowest job growth in the United States since 2010, when the economy was still trying to recover from the Great Recession.

In other words, the White House and its allies are likely to celebrate the new not-that-bad data as terrific news, but the question the president and his team ought to face is simple: “Why has American job growth slowed this year to a 15-year low?”

[progree]

55. Hmmm, darn, that's right. Lowest January-June job growth since 2010 except for 2020 pandemic year

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001


Year Job Growth First 6 Months in Thousands
2010 701

2011 1101
2012 1124
2013 1205
2014 1476
2015 1345
2016 1069
2017 1175
2018 1436
2019 1030
2020 -14124 The Exception (pandemic)
2021 3280
2022 2572
2023 1535
2024 985
2025 782

[Owens]

51. Yet ADP says otherwise

https://www.axios.com/2025/07/02/adp-jobs-june-economy

Private employers shed 33,000 workers in June, the first monthly job loss in at least two years, payroll processing firm ADP said on Wednesday.

[republianmushroom]

52. Am I missing something here.

The private sector lost 33,000 jobs in June, badly missing expectations for a 100,000 increase, ADP says

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143489467

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/02/adp-jobs-report-june-2025.html

[ZDU]

54. "Cook the Books"

"Ummmm, Bob... How about 'COOK THE BOOKS' for 1,000!"

[electricmonk]

57. Even Bloomberg is calling bs

From Bluesky

Wow! Bloomberg is just straight up saying the Trump administration is LYING with today's jobs report.

— Jon Cooper (@joncooper-us.bsky.social) 2025-07-03T13:51:14.660Z

[progree]

63. I found it -

https://archive.ph/NjS1V

Bloomberg Economics’ Anna Wong says:

“June’s unemployment rate fell – defying our and the consensus forecast for a rise — and payrolls grew at a decent clip. But we don’t think this suggests the labor market is in solid shape, as the unemployment drop was due to exits from the labor force, while payroll gains were exaggerated by a Bureau of Labor Statistics model that seeks to measure the impact of business formations and closures.

Details indicate that hiring in private service jobs slowed in June as the cancellation of federal government contracts hits the education and health sectors. There’s little evidence of an impact on payrolls from the trade war, as the logistics sector held up as firms continue stockpiling inventory. We maintain our view that the FOMC will only cut interest rates once in 2025, at the last meeting of the year in December.”

Terminal subscribers can read BE’s first take here. ((there's no link, so I guess This is it -Progree))
Michael Arnold
Bloomberg Economics Editor

There are a lot of other interesting comments from knowledgable sources

I've just picked three --

The reliance on state and local government jobs for about half of the June payroll gain also complicates the messaging for the Trump administration. Because they’ve been slamming the job market under Biden as one that was depending on the public sector. This team is all about re-energizing the private economy.
Chris Anstey
Senior Editor

Jeffrey Rosenberg, a senior portfolio manager at BlackRock, says on Bloomberg TV that the reliance on state and local governments here actually shows that the June payrolls gain was weaker than expected.

Indeed, look at the private payrolls estimate, which was 100,000. That came in at 74,000. That’s down from 137,000 in May.
Chris Anstey
Senior Editor

If we consider that the “breakeven” jobs gain — the increase needed to absorb new entrants to the labor force — is 100,000 or lower, down from the past few years when surging immigration had inflated that figure, then 147,000 is all the stronger a reading.
Chris Anstey
Senior Editor

I could do this all day, there are many more such

[electricmonk]

65. Thanks for the additional info n/t

[Tree Lady]

58. So they hired back people they fired

Because they realized they needed them, then get to say See we have job growth?

[DallasNE]

68. Both BLS And ADP Have Issues But ADP Has More Issues

BLS is "non-farm payroll," and this means that most of the ICE related stuff is not reported by them. ADP reports mostly small to medium sized private employers (at least that was the case 25 years ago when I had to perform a conversion), so it misses most private workers and all government workers. To me, that still doesn't explain why the volatility is so high month over month - perhaps small sample size, when extrapolated, makes for big swings. Do "big picture" by including prior months adjustments in your analysis.