First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Very nice, thanks for the link.
According to the BLS it's an experimental series, and it's tough to see if this is historically significant without data going further back than December 2000. I'd love to see more analysis of the data, specifically how BLS calculates job openings since it would seem that there must be a substantial additional girth of data available for job openings due to improved access to those jobs (via the Internet), meaning there simply is no way to know with the same accuracy that there were, say, 1M job openings in 2000 but 3M today (random #'s) without finding a way to control for the explosion of job opening communication protocols since then. I wonder how do they control for it, or perhaps they are confident in their sample size explaining away that error. Not that I doubt this data, but it's really only interesting and not much more, without historical data. Did we have 7:1 or 8:1 ratios in the early 80's?
Also, according to that series of data we have had about the same amount of job openings the last several months that we had almost all of 2002 and 2003. Now, granted there are more unemployed now then there were then, but all that means is that it'll take longer to get back to full employment. Which isn't terrible if we're around 7% by 2012/2013, which would happen if we doubled the private sector growth from last year for another 2 years.
Last edited:
