Thanks for your comment. I think I may have phrased the paragraph poorly, as double checking the site confirms that my understanding of the B/D Model is correct (even if my explanation is not.) I am probably being confusing by saying the reported change in employment is due to the adjustment… rather than reported data. What I meant by that remark was that the BLS was reporting the change, but businesses were not reporting it to the BLS. The BLS is assuming (but does not really know for sure) that they are there.

But looking at what I said, I also see that I was comparing apples and oranges. Although my analysis was based on year/year change in NSA data, the “more than 100%” comment was reflecting the month/month, seasonally adjusted headline number. A comment linking the two, as I made, is more illustrative than meaningful. A more meaningful look follows:

According to the BLS site, “Note that the the net birth/death figures are not seasonally adjusted, and are applied to not seasonally adjusted monthly employment links to determine the final estimate.”

The B/D adjustments “are applied” to the NSA numbers I used in my analysis. Thus, the year/year NSA change of 1,982,000 jobs includes 1,090,000 jobs that were assumed by the B/D model. To me, the fact that more than one half of the reported (by BLS) jobs created in the last year were not reported to the BLS is even more concerning than a 100% level in a single month. Which again confirms (to me, anyway) my decision to classify the report as “bad and deteriorating” rather than “bad but improving.”

This is incorrect. If you read the BLS page you linked to, it even says that B/D adjustments are made prior to seasonal adjustments.