美國勞工統(tǒng)計局（BLS）開始公布就業(yè)數(shù)據(jù)至今已有100年了。上周五上午，就像過去的每個月一樣，這個設(shè)在華盛頓、沒有花架子而且“一直在戰(zhàn)斗”的獨立、技術(shù)官僚型部門公布了一組反映美國就業(yè)形勢的新數(shù)據(jù)，引起了經(jīng)濟學(xué)家、生意人、政客和電視臺評論人士的關(guān)注。

然而，這份月度就業(yè)報告已經(jīng)今非昔比。

10多年來，私營行業(yè)就業(yè)數(shù)據(jù)收集和分析風(fēng)生水起，BLS得到的資金卻一直原地踏步。在大數(shù)據(jù)受到熱捧的時代，該局一直未能實現(xiàn)創(chuàng)新，實際上還砍掉了一些重要的新項目。情況本不該如此。雖然民間機構(gòu)在補充和分析就業(yè)數(shù)據(jù)方面有一席之地，但就業(yè)數(shù)據(jù)有公益性質(zhì)，它們應(yīng)該出自一個獨立的政府機構(gòu)。

國會克扣已經(jīng)不多的就業(yè)統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)預(yù)算對美國經(jīng)濟毫無裨益。

2009年以來BLS的資金一直呈下滑或停滯態(tài)勢。2016財年該機構(gòu)的預(yù)算為2370萬美元，低于奧巴馬政府基于現(xiàn)實預(yù)期提出的全額預(yù)算要求。BLS的購買力低于2001年前后的水平。也就是說它一直無法對自己的工作進行升級或調(diào)整，也無法在數(shù)據(jù)收集或分析方面進行創(chuàng)新。該局不得不砍掉的項目包括大規(guī)模裁員數(shù)據(jù)和國際勞動力比較，就應(yīng)對衰退和確定就業(yè)政策最佳實施方案而言，這些項目都很重要。

BLS現(xiàn)任及前任官員都曾表示，他們迫切希望擴大BLS的工作范圍，以便衡量獨立承包商的崛起、全球供應(yīng)鏈對經(jīng)濟的影響以及金融危機以來工資增長率的變化。但可用資金不足。獨立承包商這個例子尤為突出。政府和私人組織在研究中估算，所謂的零工經(jīng)濟就業(yè)占美國勞動力的比重介于5%到三分之一之間，如果BLS不能獲得更多資源，公眾對此仍將一無所知。

資金少其實并不意外。在國會，確保統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)可靠很難成為一條吸引人的理由。但它應(yīng)該如此。良好的信息是良好決策的關(guān)鍵。

10年來，經(jīng)濟統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)變得越發(fā)重要，原因很多。大衰退開啟了一個對勞動力市場感到焦慮和困惑的時代。零工經(jīng)濟的崛起以及制造業(yè)的發(fā)展等變化讓決策層、教育機構(gòu)、職業(yè)培訓(xùn)機構(gòu)和企業(yè)主很難弄清楚就業(yè)形勢。正如《華爾街日報》最近報道的那樣，大學(xué)在指導(dǎo)學(xué)生方面尤為困難，原因是職位名稱和技能要求正以前所未有的速度發(fā)生變化，在工廠車間和辦公室都是這樣。

私營公司正在竭盡全力來滿足需求。各家公司的經(jīng)濟學(xué)家、數(shù)據(jù)科學(xué)家、軟件開發(fā)人員和營銷高管都在設(shè)計軟件，其目的不光是幫助客戶分析自身業(yè)績，他們還要幫助公眾和決策層了解就業(yè)形勢。舉例來說，目前多家公司都在考慮如何分析職位描述并讓它標準化，以便幫助求職者、公眾和教育機構(gòu)。作為人力資源軟件公司首席經(jīng)濟學(xué)家，我把重點放在怎樣用專有數(shù)據(jù)來提供比大多數(shù)現(xiàn)有公開數(shù)據(jù)更精致的細節(jié)上，比如按大城市來劃分新工作和求職者（包括求職成功和不成功的）所在地以及求職者發(fā)現(xiàn)就業(yè)機會的渠道。我的目標是讓統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)更豐富，能為求職者、用人單位、教育機構(gòu)和決策層所用。

私營領(lǐng)域的這些努力，包括編制專有數(shù)據(jù)和開發(fā)分析工具，無疑能為BLS的工作提供補充。但我們這些私營公司并不奢望自己能填補這個空缺。

就收集客觀數(shù)據(jù)并將其整合為可供決策層使用的材料而言，絕對沒有哪家公司或哪個團體的能力可以和聯(lián)邦政府相提并論。就業(yè)統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)為關(guān)鍵的公眾職能提供支持，從設(shè)定利率到確定總統(tǒng)的工作日程都是如此。因此，納稅人應(yīng)該為編制這些數(shù)據(jù)提供支持。

改善統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)的理由可能獲得民主、共和兩黨的共同支持。去年，賓夕法尼亞州共和黨眾議員麥克?菲茨帕特里克和密西根州自由派眾議員約翰?科尼爾斯共同主持了一次眾議院簡報會，重點就是需要改善就業(yè)數(shù)據(jù)。雖然為聯(lián)邦政府部門提供資金的問題傳統(tǒng)上更能引起左派的共鳴，但右派也已經(jīng)意識到統(tǒng)計部門需要改進工作，最好的證據(jù)就是唐納德?特朗普最近聲稱實際失業(yè)率高達42%。

國會可以改變這種局面。在接下來幾個月，議員們將審議2017財年預(yù)算，因而又有機會為BLS提供充足資金，以便該機構(gòu)啟動必要的升級。

對經(jīng)濟領(lǐng)域從業(yè)者來說，每個月的第一個周五仍是一個神圣的日子。但它的意義取決于BLS能提供什么樣的數(shù)據(jù)。美國人再也不能不把就業(yè)數(shù)據(jù)當(dāng)回事了。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

約翰?賴特是領(lǐng)先人力資源軟件公司iCIMS首席經(jīng)濟學(xué)家和前美聯(lián)儲經(jīng)濟學(xué)家。

譯者：Charlie

審校：詹妮

It’s been 100 years since America’s Bureau of Labor Statistics started publishing its jobs numbers. This morning—and with every revolution of the moon around the earth—the independent, technocratic, no-frills Washington office carries the torch, captivating economists, businesspeople, politicians, and TV pundits with a new trove of data about the state of America’s employment situation.

But the monthly jobs report isn’t what it used to be.

For more than a decade, BLS funding has flat-lined while private-sector employment data collection and analysis have boomed. In the vaunted age of big data, the Bureau is failing to innovate and actually cutting important new programs. It shouldn’t be this way. While the private sector has a role to play in supplementing and analyzing employment data, jobs numbers are a public good: They’re supposed to be produced by an independent government agency.

Congress isn’t doing our economy any favors by scrimping on the already-small budget for employment statistics.

Funding for BLS has been falling or stagnant since 2009. Funding in the fiscal year 2016 budget is $23.7 million below what the Obama Administration requested based on realistic estimates of what it would take to fully fund the agency. The Bureau’s purchasing power is lower than it was around 2001. This means it hasn’t been able to update or refine its measures or seek to innovate in data collection or analysis. The Bureau has already had to eliminate programs, including Mass Layoffs Statistics and International Labor Comparisons—initiatives that were important for responding to recessions and identifying best practices in labor policy.

Current and former BLS officials have declared their eagerness to expand the Bureau’s work to measure the rise of independent contractors, the impact of global supply chains on the economy, and the dynamics of wage growth since the financial crisis—but there’s not enough funding available. The example of independent contractors is particularly glaring. Studies by government and private organizations estimate so-called “gig economy” jobs at anywhere from 5% to a third of the American workforce, and society will remain in the dark without more resources at the BLS.

The paltry funding shouldn’t be surprising. Ensuring solid statistics is hardly a sexy cause on Capitol Hill. But it should be. Good information is essential for good policymaking.

In the past decade, economic statistics have become more important for a range of reasons. The Great Recession ushered in an age of angst and confusion regarding the labor market. Changes like the rise of the “gig economy” and the evolution of the manufacturing sector have left policymakers, educational institutions, workforce training bodies, and business owners struggling to make sense of the jobs situation. As the Wall Street Journal recentlyreported, universities in particular are struggling to orient students as job titles and skill requirements shift at an unprecedented pace—whether on the factory floor or in the cubicle.

Private sector players are doing their best to meet the need. Economists, data scientists, software developers, and marketing executives at diverse firms are designing software not only to help clients analyze their performance, but also to help the public and policymakers make sense of the employment landscape. Right now, for instance, multiple firms are thinking about how to analyze and standardize job descriptions in a way that would help both applicants and public and educational agencies. As chief economist for an HR software company, I’m focusing on how to use proprietary data to provide finer-grain details than what’s available in most publicly available data—such as the location of new jobs vs. candidates (both successful and unsuccessful) by metropolitan area, as well as the channel by which the applicant found the job. The goal is richer statistics, useful for job candidates, employers, educators, and policy makers.

The cumulative effect of these private sector efforts—including the development of proprietary data and analysis tools—will no doubt supplement BLS activity. But we in the private sector are under no illusion that we can fill the gap.

There’s simply no firm or consortium that can match the federal government’s ability to collect objective data and aggregate it into useful material for policymakers. Employment statistics support essential public functions—from setting interest rates to shaping presidential agendas—so taxpayers should support their development.

The cause of better statistics could win a bipartisan following. Last year, Pennsylvania Republican Mike Fitzpatrick and Michigan liberal John Conyers teamed up to host a Congressional briefing focused on the need for better employment numbers. While funding for federal agencies traditionally has more resonance on the left, we need look no further than Donald Trump’s recent remarks that the real unemployment rate is as high as 42% to see the right’s recognition that statistical agencies need to improve their game.

Congress can rectify the situation. In the coming months, lawmakers will be considering the fiscal year 2017 budget and will have another opportunity to fully fund BLS so the agency can start making necessary upgrades.

The first Friday of the month is still a hallowed day in the economics profession. But the date is only as meaningful as the data that the Bureau can provide. Americans can’t keep taking labor statistics for granted.

Josh Wright is a chief economist for iCIMS, a leading HR software firm, and a former Federal Reserve economist.