- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: It's that time of the month again - unemployment/jobs reports in the morning
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:00 am to son of arlo
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:00 am to son of arlo
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:01 am to BugAC
quote:
fewer hours are a positive because it frees up people who are constrained with jobs,
Thanks for the chuckle.
I'm tired of being a victim constrained by my habits of trying to stay warm during all this climate change, stuffing carbon-laden food down my gullet, and avoiding moisture falling from the skies caused by the greedy Koch brothers. When will we have a politician who can free me from my pitiful plight?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:25 am to Stuckinthe90s
quote:
what am I missing
Nothing. Since day 1, this is how the administration reports job numbers. They count on the public and reporters to not understand basic mathematics.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:30 am to Lsut81
quote:
Makes no fricking sense... So the analyst predicted 75k more jobs than there actually were and for unemployment to hold steady, yet it actually goes down.
Long term unemployment has become a huge problem....people are dropping out of the labor market.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 1:06 pm to BugAC
quote:
Job numbers increased slightly, yet again, and not enough to keep up with the population rate entering the workforce.
Take a look at a very revealing pair of numbers from today's report that no one tends to notice:
"After accounting for the annual adjustment to the population controls, the civilian labor
force rose by 499,000 in January"
"Total employment, as measured by the household survey, increased by 616,000 over
the month"
The various annual adjustments made by the BLS make for some interesting results.
Today's report (Table A) shows a population increase of 170k from December to January. It also shows an increase in the labor force of 523k and an increase in the number of employed of 638k for the same December-to-January period.
So only 170k people were added to the population month-over-month, yet the labor force increased by 523k and the number of employed persons increased by 638k. Awesome !
Oh, wait.
We now have to take into account the new January 2014 "population control effects".
What effect did they have on the numbers in the table?
Lowered the population increase by 2k, to 168k.
Lowered the labor force increase by 24k, to 499k.
Lowered the number of employed persons by 22k, to 616k.
As you can see, these adjustments bring the Table A numbers back in line with the report's narrative numbers.
Allowing for the population increase, that would indicate that 331k folks re-entered the workforce in January (499-168).
To reach an increase of 616k in the number of employed persons, the entire number of persons who re-entered the workforce would have had to find jobs in January, as well as 285k additional persons who were not employed in December. And in addition to that, the equation would mean that anyone who lost a job between the Dec. and Jan,. reporting periods would have already found a replacement job, which we know is a ridiculous assumption.
Yet the BLS report shows an increase of 113k jobs for the month.
This illustrates the foolishness of releasing the "unemployment rate report" and the "jobs report" together each month.
There is no direct correlation between the two, which is why the numbers so often result in complete confusion.
The Household Survey numbers are junk. Excellent example of "garbage in, garbage out". Poll one out of every 2,300+/- households and use very loose parameters (like working one hour the week before makes one "employed"), and allow for the respondents truthfulness/accuracy in answering the questions, as well CB employee "prompting", and one arrives at a rate that is measurable to the tenth of a percent. Throw in the "adjustments" (seasonal, annual, population, etc.) and the numbers become ballpark figures at best. Yet every change of a tenth of a percent in either direction becomes news.
If I'm Obama, I'm in Michigan today saying, "Hey folks, did you see where 616,000 more Americans are are employed today than last month?", and wait for the cheers from a crowd that has no clue where that number came from and how meaningless it really is.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 1:10 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
It's that time of the month again
Yep, time for Dems to insert their monthly tampon to absorb the bleeding for full time jobs and the masses dropping out of the workforce.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 1:18 pm to NHTIGER
Indeed. The birth-death model has been dysfunctional for some time.
The seasonal adjustment can wreck havoc during the holiday season if hiring isn't in line with previous years as well...
Of course there is little appetite to explore, nor curiosity from our betters in the media. Soundbites shall suffice.
The seasonal adjustment can wreck havoc during the holiday season if hiring isn't in line with previous years as well...
Of course there is little appetite to explore, nor curiosity from our betters in the media. Soundbites shall suffice.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News