# A disappointing 20,000 jobs added in February.... how is that possible?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-disappointing-20-000-jobs-added-in-february-how-is-that-possible/830779>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [March 8, 2019, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-disappointing-20-000-jobs-added-in-february-how-is-that-possible/830779 "2019-03-08T17:56:10Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GreysonCarlisle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@GreysonCarlisle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreysonCarlisle)\
**Post date:** [March 8, 2019, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-disappointing-20-000-jobs-added-in-february-how-is-that-possible/830779/1 "2019-03-08T17:56:10Z")

</div>

According to [this article](https://thehill.com/policy/finance/433162-february-jobs), January saw over 300,000 jobs added. February was expected to add 180,000 jobs. But we only got 20,000.

That seems less like a disappointing month and more like something is hinky with the numbers.

My guesses are that the Feb numbers are simply wrong, that the previous numbers (and Feb’s forecast) were artificially inflated, or that a different metric is being used. And I guess it’s possible for the forecast to actually be off by eight ninths, but I don’t understand how.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\
**Post date:** [March 8, 2019, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-disappointing-20-000-jobs-added-in-february-how-is-that-possible/830779/2 "2019-03-08T18:01:48Z")

</div>

It looks like it might be a bit of numerical flukiness. As per [this article on CNBC](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/08/nonfarm-payrolls-february-2019.html):

> [@](#):
>
> The jobless rate fell in part because of the vagaries the Labor Department uses to calculate the headline rate — there was an increase of 198,000 in those considered not in the labor force, while those classified as unemployed fell by 300,000 and the ranks of the employed decreased by 45,000, according to the household survey.
> 
> A more encompassing unemployment rate that counts discouraged workers as well as those holding jobs part time for economic reasons, often called the “real” unemployment rate, plunged to 7.3 percent in February from 8.1 percent in January. Those employed part time for economic reasons tumbled by 837,000 to 4.3 million while those completing temporary jobs fell by 225,000, which a Labor Department official said was a consequence of the government shutdown that ended in late February.

As noted in the last sentence above, I wouldn’t discount the possibility that the government shutdown in January played a role in making the numbers move around oddly.