Many companies featured on Money advertise with us. Opinions are our own, but compensation and
in-depth research determine where and how companies may appear. Learn more about how we make money.

Advertiser Disclosure

The purpose of this disclosure is to explain how we make money without charging you for our content.

Our mission is to help people at any stage of life make smart financial decisions through research, reporting, reviews, recommendations, and tools.

Earning your trust is essential to our success, and we believe transparency is critical to creating that trust. To that end, you should know that many or all of the companies featured here are partners who advertise with us.

Our content is free because our partners pay us a referral fee if you click on links or call any of the phone numbers on our site. If you choose to interact with the content on our site, we will likely receive compensation. If you don't, we will not be compensated. Ultimately the choice is yours.

Opinions are our own and our editors and staff writers are instructed to maintain editorial integrity, but compensation along with in-depth research will determine where, how, and in what order they appear on the page.

To find out more about our editorial process and how we make money, click here.

By Ethan Wolff-Mann
September 14, 2015
Getty Images/iStockphoto—Getty Images/iStockphoto

Every month the government publishes the number of jobs added or subtracted from the economy, and when the stats are disappointing, analysts often blame the weather. A snowy winter, a gross spring, crazy heat—the weather can easily slow down construction in particular, cooling the economy and job growth.

This is nothing new or surprising. For some time, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has used a technique it calls “seasonal adjustment” to smooth out seasonal fluctuations based on a normal year. But why not adjust the numbers for the actual weather in a given month?

Economists Michael Boldin and Jonathan H. Wright have proposed doing just that. Last week, they published a paper with the Brooking Institution think tank detailing a weather adjustment method that factors in data points like snowfall and temperature.

The impact, they argue, could be quite large. “We find that weather effects can be important, shifting the monthly payrolls change number by more than 100,000 in either direction,” the pair write in the study. Since the month might have 200,000 jobs added, an unusually warm winter can easily turn a slow month into a strong one, while a blizzard could have the opposite effect.

Strip out the random noise of weather patterns, and we could all get a clearer view of the country’s underlying economic health.

Advertiser Disclosure

The purpose of this disclosure is to explain how we make money without charging you for our content.

Our mission is to help people at any stage of life make smart financial decisions through research, reporting, reviews, recommendations, and tools.

Earning your trust is essential to our success, and we believe transparency is critical to creating that trust. To that end, you should know that many or all of the companies featured here are partners who advertise with us.

Our content is free because our partners pay us a referral fee if you click on links or call any of the phone numbers on our site. If you choose to interact with the content on our site, we will likely receive compensation. If you don't, we will not be compensated. Ultimately the choice is yours.

Opinions are our own and our editors and staff writers are instructed to maintain editorial integrity, but compensation along with in-depth research will determine where, how, and in what order they appear on the page.

To find out more about our editorial process and how we make money, click here.

EDIT POST