ADP Private NFP and Implied BLS NFP [updated]

ADP released +42K private NFP surprises upside (+32K Bloomberg consensus).

Figure 1: ADP private NFP, October release (blue), Bloomberg consensus of 10/3 (light blue square), September release (tan), all in 000’s. Source: ADP-Stanford Digital Economy Lab via FRED, Bloomberg, and author’s calculations.

in guessing October total NFP employment, I follow the methodology shown here. Assuming 100K 150K reduction in government employment due to counting of DRP participants (in August, overall government employment fell 15K; McEntarfer suggests DRP reduction is 150-200K), the BLS measure equals ADP measure of private NFP, then we get this picture:

Figure 2 [updated]: ADP Private nonfarm payroll employment (blue, left scale), Bloomberg consensus implied employment of 10/3 (light blue square, left scale); BLS benchmark-implied nonfarm payroll employment (black, right scale), implied NFP (chartreuse, right scale), all in 000’s, s.a. Assumes 150K decrease in reported government employment per Treasury. Source: ADP, BLS via FRED, Treasury, and author’s calculations.

5 thoughts on “ADP Private NFP and Implied BLS NFP [updated]”

  1. Macroduck

    Off topic – Democrats sweep mid-mid-term elections:

    In the NYC mayoral race, 7% of voters refused to vote for anything but a Republican, even though voting for Cuomo would have meant that Cuomo would have been competitive. Mamdani won with just 50.4% of the vote. It’s good that he won. For the purposes of post-mortem blather, it’s good that he won with an outright majority. For practical looking-ahead purposes, it’s not as big a win as I’d like.

    As to looking ahead, let’s consider who voted big for Mamdani – young voters and other “big turn-out” unreliable voters did. Who elected Clinton? Young voters and big turn-out unreliable voters. Obama? Ditto. Who is being courted by Democratic elites? Not the people who turn out to win it for Democrats.

    Now that California can go ahead and gerrymander, just like Texas, does that mean Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana and Nebraska are more likely to do the same? Republicans, in states which have already decided to gerrymander, seem likely to pick up 4 more House seats than will Democrats. There are no Democratically controlled states currently thinking about joining the game. Gerrymandering is shaping up to be a win for Republicans in the mid-terms, just less so after California’s vote.

    Yesterday was a win for Democrats, but there is still a felon in the White House and a growing willingness among Republicans to suppress democracy.

    1. joseph

      If anyone is wondering about all the national coverage of a local mayor’s race, it should be noted that New York City has a bigger population than 38 of the US states and a budget that is bigger than every state except California and New York State.

  2. Macroduck

    Off topic – How are we doing on limiting greenhouse gas emissions?:

    • The global average carbon dioxide set a new record high in 2024: 422.7 parts per million (“ppm” for short).
    • The increase over 2023 amounts was 3.75 ppm—the largest one-year increase on record.

    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

    It seems 2024 was the worst year ever, getting worse faster than ever. The U.S. and China are two of the worst culprits. Which government isn’t even trying?

    P.S. Don’t expect that link to work much longer.

  3. Macroduck

    Off topic – The Supreme Court began oral arguments in the IEEPA tariff case today. Questions from the Justices seemed pretty one-sided, as reflected in Kalshi betting:

    https://kalshi.com/markets/kxdjtvostariffs/tariffs-case/kxdjtvostariffs

    Odds are priced at 29% tariffs remain, 71% tariffs are undone. In other contracts, only 2 or 3 Justices are seen likely to side with tariffs, but the odds of IEEPA-justified tariff payments being refunded are put at only 24%. This last bit baffles me. If the tariffs aren’t legal, what justification can there be for Treasury to keep the money? Even if the felon-in-chief comes up with another justification for tariffs on goods till now covered under IEEPA, ex-post-facto imposition of law is prohibited under the Constitution. So, presumably, is ex-post-facto executive action which amounts to usurpation of Congressional  prerogative.

Comments are closed.