U.S. payrolls rise by 228,000 in March, but unemployment rate increases to 4.2%

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: CNBC

Published Fri, Apr 4 2025 8:31 AM EDT Updated 5 Min Ago


Job growth was stronger than expected in March, providing at least temporary reassurance that the labor market is stable, the Labor Department reported Friday.

Nonfarm payrolls increased 228,000 for the month, up from the revised 117,000 in February and better than the Dow Jones estimate for 140,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

However, the unemployment rate moved up to 4.2%, higher than the 4.1% forecast as the labor force participation rate also increased.

Though the headline number beat estimates, the report comes against a highly uncertain backdrop after President Donald Trump’s tariff announcement this week that has intensified fears of a global trade war that could damage economic growth.

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/04/jobs-report-march-2025-.html

---

From the source -

Link to tweet

BLS-Labor Statistics
@BLS_gov
·
Follow
Payroll employment rises by 228,000 in March; unemployment rate changes little at 4.2% #BLSData #EmpSit https://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
8:30 AM · Apr 4, 2025

TGIF (except for the markets) and stay tuned for DU's economy analysts with the deep dives!

Article updated.

Previous article -

Published Fri, Apr 4 2025 8:31 AM EDT Updated 9 Min Ago


Job growth was stronger than expected in March, providing at least temporary reassurance that the labor market is stable, the Labor Department reported Friday.

Nonfarm payrolls increased 228,000 for the month, up from the revised 117,000 in February and better than the Dow Jones estimate for 140,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

However, the unemployment rate moved up to 4.2%, higher than the 4.1% forecast.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

Original article/headline -

U.S. payrolls rise by by 228,000 in March, but unemployment rate increases to 4.2%

Published Fri, Apr 4 2025 8:31 AM EDT


Nonfarm payrolls were expected to grow by 140,000 in March while the unemployment rate held steady at 4.1%, according to the Dow Jones consensus forecast.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

[gab13by13]

1. An independent group

had the payroll numbers a lot lower.

Is this the beginning of the Krasnov payroll numbers?

[ImNotGod]

4. yep. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

7. That other group mainly polls their own subscribers

including those who they do payrolls for (one of their services) and that is all "private employers" and doesn't include government, so their numbers are almost always different from the government's numbers.

[progree]

10. The ADP numbers are "actuals" for about 20% of the private workforce. How they estimate the other 80%

I have no idea.

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
(4/4/25: the page no longer exists but trust me, or check archive.org)

Google: ADP vs. Bureau of labor statistics job numbers

Another important difference is that the ADP is private workforce payrolls, while the BLS's headline payroll jobs includes government jobs.

# Nonfarm Employment (Establishment Survey, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001
Monthly changes: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

# 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

In July about 14.7% of employees were in government jobs

=============

The ADP report is often way different than the BLS report, even when comparing private workforce numbers. Under all kinds of administrations.

[walkingman]

2. How can so many people get laid off and the numbers rise? Weird?

[BumRushDaShow]

6. A lot of them may not have filed for UE yet due to court rulings

and/or reinstatements, etc.

[progree]

8. And both surveys were taken in the week containing March 12, if the usual practice was followed

so 3 weeks ago.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. And there have been a billion court rulings over that time

with tens of thousands "reinstated" (some in regions and others nationwide). It's been hard to keep track of!

[TalentAgency]

13. UE #'s

have nothing to do with who is getting benefits. It's all a survey. It's always been a crooked number since the early 90s anyway.

[BumRushDaShow]

16. Most data is by "survey"

But they are surveying states (who manage those programs) to get that data.

[Wiz Imp]

18. Wrong.

The unemployment numbers are based on a survey of households (individuals). I can promise you it is not biased in any way.

The jobs numbers are based on a survey of employer establishments. It is a stratified sample encompassing all employer sizes in all states. Once again not biased (I worked on this program for 35 years).

The states have no input into those numbers whatsoever.

[BumRushDaShow]

20. BLS does their various "surveys"

and a subset is broken down by state.

When there are disasters or other issues IN STATES, the returns from those states can be and have been "delayed", but they will be included in the next month's report.

mahatmakanejeeves includes the data/sources in a post below - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3433378

The point is that BLS is compiling and reporting what they receive and is not personally generating their own numbers as the person I was replying to was attempting to assert.

[Wiz Imp]

23. No. You are completely 100% wrong

Trust me. I worked on these programs for 35 years. The surveys are national surveys and the labor force and jobs numbers are calculated by BLS employees located in DC from the nationwide data/information collected from the surveys of households and employer establishments.

BLS is compiling nothing. State numbers are generated completely independently of the national numbers.

Quit digging. You do not know what you are talking about.

The only national numbers which are compiled from state numbers are the weekly unemployment claims numbers which states report weekly to ETA, not BLS. Those are actual counts of claims NOT from a survey. (I oversaw the reporting of those numbers as well). Those numbers have zero connection to the labor force and jobs numbers released today.

[BumRushDaShow]

25. "jobs numbers are calculated by BLS employees located in DC "

Didn't I just write that or are you confusing me with the newbie who replied to me? You are misinterpreting what I am saying.

And this -

BLS is compiling nothing.

versus

The surveys are national surveys and the labor force and jobs numbers are calculated by BLS employees located in DC

shows that in your fury, you don't seem to get that "compiling" and "calculating" are synonymous.

Tables are generated.

There has been unfortunately a CT that goes around on DU that the civil servants are fudging the numbers and having been a fucking civil servant for over 30 years myself, I know they become political footballs depending who is President. I linked to what mahatmakanejeeves usually posts in these threads monthly.

So time for you to take a damn breather. It's Friday.

[Wiz Imp]

28. I don't know why you refuse to accept it, but you still have several facts wrong.

compiling and calculating are NOT synonyms. I have checked over half a dozen thesaurus/synonym sites online and have not found a single one that lists compile as a synonym for calculate. And I've never heard the word compile used to mean calculate in any way.

The national weekly unemployment claims are compiled (added together from state numbers)

The national job numbers are calculated by plugging the survey responses into a mathematical formula. A completely different process.

Additional statements you are wrong about:

they are surveying states (who manage those programs) to get that data.

This is completely wrong. BLS is not surveying states and the states do not manage those programs. The national jobs numbers are completely controlled by BLS - states have zero input. your statement is 100% false.

When there are disasters or other issues IN STATES, the returns from those states can be and have been "delayed", but they will be included in the next month's report.

Once again, completely wrong. There are no "returns" from states as they have no part in the process. There nothing to include in the next month's report. This statement is also 100% false.

If you're trying to get at this issue:

Final employment numbers for March won’t be out until May. BLS revises its payroll survey data in each of the two months following an initial release. BLS revises the data using additional survey responses that come in late, and by making further seasonal adjustments.

that has happened since the beginning of the survey and really has nothing to do with disasters. The survey has a very tight window in which employers can respond and be used in the preliminary estimates. Some employers are never able to meet that window, meaning their responses only ever go into the calculations of the revised numbers. And to be clear this has to do with survey responses from employers NOT "returns" from states.

The point is that BLS is compiling and reporting what they receive and is not personally generating their own numbers

I'll give you a little leeway here due to your misuse of the word compiling but you are still wrong. I already explained that that the survey responses are plugged into mathematical formulas to generate the jobs "estimates". BLS does not report what they receive - the individual survey responses are what BLS receives and they are never reported. By plugging the survey responses into mathematical formulas, BLS does, in fact, generate the jobs numbers themselves.

This survey has been done monthly for like 85 years and to this point, the published numbers have always been 100% the numbers generated from the mathematical formulas. They have NEVER been changed due to political pressure. Only a handful of people (other than the statisticians/economists responsible for generating them) see the numbers prior to publication at 8:30 AM on the "First Friday" of every month (I'm pretty sure that number is less than 10 and maybe less than 5). That includes the President who learns the numbers at the same time as everyone else - at 8:30 AM. So if that is the point you were trying to make, that is correct. However, you'd have to be a naive fool to think that this administration will definitely respect the historical norms moving forward. I still know numerous people who work on this program at BLS and they are very fearful that at some point the Trump administration will ignore the real numbers calculated from the survey and publish made up numbers more to their liking (or even worse, ask the BLS statisticians to fudge the numbers themselves). That does not appear to have happened yet, but it is a very real possibility.

[BumRushDaShow]

29. "The national job numbers are calculated by plugging the survey responses into a mathematical formula. "

You need to COMPILE the survey responses and calculate to produce reports. I have had to do this in my later years at my agency (and even had to get some of it down to "1-pagers" ).

Regarding this -

If you're trying to get at this issue:

Final employment numbers for March won’t be out until May. BLS revises its payroll survey data in each of the two months following an initial release. BLS revises the data using additional survey responses that come in late, and by making further seasonal adjustments.
that has happened since the beginning of the survey and really has nothing to do with disasters. The survey has a very tight window in which employers can respond and be used in the preliminary estimates. Some employers are never able to meet that window, meaning their responses only ever go into the calculations of the revised numbers. And to be clear this has to do with survey responses from employers NOT "returns" from states.

I do know there are "revisions" but also (since I post these almost every month) that there will be "missing data" ( "late" ) for whatever reason, which HAS included due to weather-related issues. That gets rectified in a revision. THAT is all I am saying. The revisions refine the data.

The point is that BLS is compiling and reporting what they receive and is not personally generating their own numbers
I'll give you a little leeway here due to your misuse of the word compiling but you are still wrong. I already explained that that the survey responses are plugged into mathematical formulas to generate the jobs "estimates". BLS does not report what they receive - the individual survey responses are what BLS receives and they are never reported. By plugging the survey responses into mathematical formulas, BLS does, in fact, generate the jobs numbers themselves.

Plugging into mathematical formulas = "calculating".

The CT is that people are "fudging" the calculations. But you keep on avoiding that original issue being argued, which was the CT, which I was rejecting.

[Wiz Imp]

30. OK. One last response and I'm done.

You say

The CT is that people are "fudging" the calculations. But you keep on avoiding that original issue being argued, which was the CT, which I was rejecting.

My last post I said.

This survey has been done monthly for like 85 years and to this point, the published numbers have always been 100% the numbers generated from the mathematical formulas. They have NEVER been changed due to political pressure. Only a handful of people (other than the statisticians/economists responsible for generating them) see the numbers prior to publication at 8:30 AM on the "First Friday" of every month (I'm pretty sure that number is less than 10 and maybe less than 5). That includes the President who learns the numbers at the same time as everyone else - at 8:30 AM. So if that is the point you were trying to make, that is correct. However, you'd have to be a naive fool to think that this administration will definitely respect the historical norms moving forward. I still know numerous people who work on this program at BLS and they are very fearful that at some point the Trump administration will ignore the real numbers calculated from the survey and publish made up numbers more to their liking (or even worse, ask the BLS statisticians to fudge the numbers themselves). That does not appear to have happened yet, but it is a very real possibility.

How is that ignoring it? I wrote a whole paragraph on it. What part of "They have NEVER been changed due to political pressure. " do you not understand? Having worked on the program for 35 years, I made clear that I know for a fact that the published numbers have ALWAYS been legitimate. I even explained how the process works and that only a handful of people see the numbers prior to publication. I don't know how I can be any clearer than that.

However, I also pointed out that there is a real fear among people who work on the program that the longstanding honesty and integrity of the program may be destroyed given the tendencies of the Trump administration. There is no indication that has happened yet, but as I said before, you'd have to be a naive fool to think that there is no chance that this administration might try to fudge the numbers at some point. It's not guaranteed to happen, but it's a very real possibility. And as I said, I know people who work on the program who fear that it will happen. If the people who work on the program are concerned, then we all should be.

[BumRushDaShow]

31. "How is that ignoring it?"

"Ignoring" in terms of ignoring my original intent regarding the poster who I was replying to before you jumped in, who said this -

It's always been a crooked number since the early 90s anyway.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

27. I'm delurking long enough to note that this week's report on unemployment claims numbers is here too.

Thu Apr 3, 2025: Fewer Americans file for jobless benefits last week as labor market continues to show strength

Thu Apr 3, 2025: From the source, the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration:

[biophile]

3. Are the drumpf administration numbers reliable?

I doubt it. Gab13 is correct to look for alternative sources.

[ImNotGod]

5. to answer, no, there is no way he will allow any negative reports. nt

[Wiz Imp]

19. At this point, I'm inclined to say they are still honest

If the Trump administration were to fudge the numbers, they'd want them to look a whole lot better than this. Last month Trump bragged about the drop in Federal Government jobs. This report shows a drop of just 4000 Federal jobs. surely Trump wants that number to be a whole lot bigger. He also bragged about an increase in manufacturing jobs. This report shows a super anemic gain in manufacturing of just 1000.

The report also showed big downward revision to the previously published numbers for January and February.

To top it all, the massive layoffs and firings of federal employees are still not showing up in these numbers. Since many were court ordered to be reinstated, most have apparently not been removed from the counts yet. According to the New York Times, at least 60,000 people have been fired. If they were included in the report, the gain in jobs would be much lower.

While the top line job increase number looks OK, looking at the details, this was not a positive report at all. Future months (especially when the federal job cuts start being accounted for) will look much worse.

[mdbl]

11. Who's hiring?

Article says "For March, health care was the leading growth area".

I can't see sustaining that with all the cuts the Dogebags are doing to senior and indigent health care.

[BumRushDaShow]

12. The "health" cuts just started up towards the end of last month and into this month

So we will have to look down the road a few months. There was a court ruling, i think yesterday, that ordered restoration of some of the funding cuts (I think the COVID money).

[mahatmakanejeeves]

14. From the source, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Payroll employment rises by 228,000 in March; unemployment rate changes little at 4.2%
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 228,000 in March, and the unemployment rate changed little at 4.2 percent. Job gains occurred in health care, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing. Federal government employment declined.

Economic News Release USDL-25-0452
Employment Situation Summary
Transmission of material in this news release is embargoed until 8:30 a.m. (ET) Friday, April 4, 2025

Technical information:
Household data: [phone] * [e-mail] * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: [phone] * [e-mail] * www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact: [phone] * [e-mail]


THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- MARCH 2025


Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 228,000 in March, and the unemployment rate changed little at 4.2 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing. Employment also increased in retail trade, partially reflecting the return of workers from a strike. Federal government employment declined.

This news release presents statistics from two monthly surveys. The household survey measures labor force status, including unemployment, by demographic characteristics. The establishment survey measures nonfarm employment, hours, and earnings by industry. For more information about the concepts and statistical methodology used in these two surveys, see the Technical Note.

Household Survey Data

Both the unemployment rate, at 4.2 percent, and the number of unemployed people, at 7.1 million, changed little in March. The unemployment rate has remained in a narrow range of 4.0 percent to 4.2 percent since May 2024. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (3.8 percent), adult women (3.7 percent), teenagers (13.7 percent), Whites (3.7 percent), Blacks (6.2 percent), Asians (3.5 percent), and Hispanics (5.1 percent) showed little or no change in March. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 1.5 million, changed little in March. The long-term unemployed accounted for 21.3 percent of all unemployed people. (See table A-12.)

The labor force participation rate, at 62.5 percent, changed little over the month and over the year. The employment-population ratio held at 59.9 percent in March. (See table A-1.)

The number of people employed part time for economic reasons, at 4.8 million, changed little in March. These individuals would have preferred full-time employment but were working part time because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.)

The number of people not in the labor force who currently want a job was essentially unchanged at 5.9 million in March. These individuals were not counted as unemployed because they were not actively looking for work during the 4 weeks preceding the survey or were unavailable to take a job. (See table A-1.)

Among those not in the labor force who wanted a job, the number of people marginally attached to the labor force, at 1.7 million, was essentially unchanged in March. These individuals wanted and were available for work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months but had not looked for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. The number of discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached who believed that no jobs were available for them, changed little at 509,000 in March. (See Summary table A.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 228,000 in March, higher than the average monthly gain of 158,000 over the prior 12 months. In March, job gains occurred in health care, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing. Employment also increased in retail trade, partially reflecting the return of workers from a strike. Federal government employment declined. (See table B-1.)

Health care added 54,000 jobs in March, in line with the average monthly gain of 52,000 over the prior 12 months. Over the month, employment continued to trend up in ambulatory health care services (+20,000), hospitals (+17,000), and nursing and residential care facilities (+17,000).

In March, employment in social assistance increased by 24,000, higher than the average monthly gain of 19,000 over the prior 12 months. Over the month, individual and family services added 22,000 jobs.

Retail trade added 24,000 jobs in March, as workers returning from a strike contributed to a job gain in food and beverage retailers (+21,000). General merchandise retailers lost 5,000 jobs. Employment in retail trade changed little over the year.

Employment in transportation and warehousing rose by 23,000 in March, about double the prior 12-month average gain of 12,000. In March, job gains in couriers and messengers (+16,000) and truck transportation (+10,000) were partially offset by a job loss in warehousing and storage (-9,000).

Within government, federal government employment declined by 4,000 in March, following a loss of 11,000 jobs in February. (Employees on paid leave or receiving ongoing severance pay are counted as employed in the establishment survey.)

Employment showed little change over the month in other major industries, including mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction; construction; manufacturing; wholesale trade; information; financial activities; professional and business services; leisure and hospitality; and other services.

In March, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 9 cents, or 0.3 percent, to $36.00. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by 3.8 percent. In March, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees edged up by 5 cents, or 0.2 percent, to $30.96. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

In March, the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 34.2 hours. In manufacturing, the average workweek was little changed at 40.2 hours, and overtime was unchanged at 2.9 hours. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls increased by 0.2 hour to 33.8 hours in March. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for January was revised down by 14,000, from +125,000 to +111,000, and the change for February was revised down by 34,000, from +151,000 to +117,000. With these revisions, employment in January and February combined is 48,000 lower 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.)

_____________
The Employment Situation for April is scheduled to be released on Friday, May 2, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. (ET).

* * * * *

Facilities for Sensory Impaired

Information from these releases will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: [phone], Federal Relay Services: 1-800-877-8339.

-- -- -- -- -- --

From Bluesky:

Ed Moltzen
‪@emoltzen.bsky.social‬

Follow
The March unemployment numbers don't look bad, until you read 15 paragraphs into the report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It's more likely the U.S. lost jobs in March than gained anything:
Within government, federal government employment declined by 4,000 in March, following a loss
of 11,000 jobs in February. (Employees on paid leave or receiving ongoing severance pay are
counted as employed in the establishment survey.)
ALT
April 4, 2025 at 8:35 AM

https://bsky.app/profile/emoltzen.bsky.social/post/3llygkf2tcc26

[Marthe48]

15. The economy is propelled by the last of the momentum

from Bidenonmics. Can't maintain the positive movement without getting any more positive energy.

[wolfie001]

17. The last sputtering gasps of the Biden Boom! Finished in 2 months by an orange bloated lying fraudster

Assisted by every racist that voted for him.

[Wiz Imp]

21. I just saw in the linked article from CNBC

that DOGE related layoffs have totaled more than 275,000 so far. The official number have shown a drop in federal government employment of just 15,000.

If the official numbers showed that 275,000 drop, the total job gains for the past 2 months combined would be just 85,000 (which is pathetic).

[BumRushDaShow]

22. But how many have been reinstated by the courts?

Any reporting without taking into account any court-ordered actions, will mean fluctuations.

[Wiz Imp]

24. The best I can tell about 25,000 have been reinstated by the courts.

[BumRushDaShow]

26. I found the NYT is doing a running tally and apparently the "275,000" is just an "announced" number

and not an "actual" - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/28/us/politics/trump-doge-federal-job-cuts.html

(No paywall)

That NYT page actually has separated out each of the departments/agency and their numbers.

The Federal Work Force Cuts So Far, Agency by Agency

By Elena Shao and Ashley Wu Updated April 1, 2025

April 1, 2025: The layoffs of 10,000 health workers, including those employed at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, began on Tuesday morning.

Confirmed cuts* At least 56,090
Employees who took buyouts About 75,000
More planned reductions At least 171,080

*Many of these employees have been temporarily reinstated, following court orders.

The (violation of Antideficiency Act) so-called "buyouts" were supposedly going into effect Sept. 30 with people supposedly on "paid leave" until that time (at least when the option was first mentioned early on), but who knows if that is the case now or what as it was done hodgepodge.