The total number of non-farm workers in the United States has been revised down by more than 800,000! Has the job market already cooled significantly?

On Wednesday Beijing time, the U.S. Department of Labor released the preliminary report on non-farm employment and wages for the first quarter of 2024 (QCEW), new data shows that U.S. job growth is much weaker than initially reported. It is worth noting that this data was originally scheduled to be released at 22:00 Beijing time, but was delayed for unknown reasons. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics stated that the annual benchmark revision's preliminary estimate shows that in March 2024, the total number of non-farm jobs in the U.S. was revised down by 818,000, a decrease of 0.5%, the largest since 2009, with some institutions predicting a reduction of up to 1 million. In March 2024, the total number of jobs in the 370 largest counties in the U.S. was 153.5856 million, a year-on-year increase of 1.3%. In the first quarter of 2024, the average weekly wage in the U.S. rose to $1527, a 4.2% increase year-on-year. This revision is limited to the private sector, with nearly half coming from the professional and business services industry (revised down by 358,000 people, or 1.6%). Other industries that saw significant declines include the information industry (down by 68,000 people, or -2.3%), leisure and hospitality (down by 150,000 people, or -0.9%), and manufacturing (down by 115,000 people, or -0.9%). Following the release of the revised U.S. employment data, the U.S. dollar did not experience significant fluctuations; the yield curve between U.S. 2-year and 10-year Treasury bonds deepened. Foreign media pointed out that this indicates a possible decrease of 68,167 net new jobs per month. The data was unusually delayed by more than half an hour, and the estimated results are preliminary, with the final confirmation expected in February 2025. Some economists believe that the initial employment data may have been exaggerated for various reasons, including adjustments for business creations and closures, as well as how unauthorized immigrant workers are calculated. Chris Rupkey, Chief Economist at FwdBonds, wrote in a report on Wednesday, "It is important for the market to remember that these are not job losses, just that there were never that many jobs to begin with, the U.S. economy clearly doesn't need those phantom 'unemployed' workers, as very strong real consumer spending in the second half of last year drove very strong (economic) growth." Others believe that there is another reason behind this difference - immigration. Since the QCEW report is based on unemployment insurance records, and illegal immigrants cannot apply for unemployment insurance, this data likely excludes thousands of illegal workers that were initially included in wage estimates. The revised data may once again raise concerns among markets and economists, as they believe that the deterioration of the labor market is progressing much faster than initially expected. The July employment report sounded the alarm for a sluggish pace of hiring and a fourth consecutive month of rising unemployment rates, but other indicators such as initial jobless claims and job vacancies show a more moderate slowdown in the economy These data may exacerbate concerns that the Federal Reserve is lagging behind the situation in interest rate cuts. The data released on Wednesday will help shape Federal Reserve Chairman Powell's latest assessment of the labor market. Powell is set to speak on Friday at the Federal Reserve's annual symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. With inflation easing from its peak during the COVID-19 pandemic, policymakers have recently shifted their focus to the labor aspect of their dual mandate. Interestingly, before the official update on the website, information about a downward revision of 818,000 jobs was already circulating on social media platforms. Financial website Forexlive cited sources saying that someone claimed to have personally called the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and they informed him of this number over the phone. While the practice of informing about this data over the phone by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics before an official website update raises doubts, the data ultimately matched the figures on the official website