April unemployment numbers

[Fern]

-snip-
My feeling is the unemployment numbers only tell us what the unemployment market looks like. It does exactly what is designed to do.

Who is this "us"?

If it's the "us" meaning it's for public consumption (and not just economists), and I suppose it is since a summary of results are widely reported, I don't think so.

When unemployment goes down because people despair and stop looking for work, that's misleading.

When unemployment goes up because the job market improves and the unemployed start looking for work again, that's misleading.

Does it give a favorable impression even though the new jobs are low paying and the new employee is underemployed?

Do part time jobs show up the same as as full time jobs? Does 1 person with 2 part jobs of 20 hrs each show up as 2 jobs added? (IDK, I haven't been able to find out.)

Under present conditions it can be very misleading.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Who is this "us"?

If it's the "us" meaning it's for public consumption (and not just economists), and I suppose it is since a summary of results are widely reported, I don't think so.

When unemployment goes down because people despair and stop looking for work, that's misleading.

When unemployment goes up because the job market improves and the unemployed start looking for work again, that's misleading.

Does it give a favorable impression even though the new jobs are low paying and the new employee is underemployed?

Do part time jobs show up the same as as full time jobs? Does 1 person with 2 part jobs of 20 hrs each show up as 2 jobs added? (IDK, I haven't been able to find out.)

Under present conditions it can be very misleading.

Fern

You realize that literally everything you just asked about is contained in the monthly unemployment report, right?

 

[First]

You realize that literally everything you just asked about is contained in the monthly unemployment report, right?

Not likely; dude still believes the state of HI has been hiding the truth about Obama's birth certificate.

 

[werepossum]

You are deeply, deeply confused about how the BLS makes unemployment calculations.

It is kind of funny that "everyone" knows something that is wrong. Maybe at this point you should just say that you didn't know what you were talking about. By the way, I'm still waiting for those part time numbers from early 2012 or 2013 that you claimed bear out your contention.

You have me confused; I have not made any point about part time numbers from early 2012 or 2013.

 

[fskimospy]

You have me confused; I have not made any point about part time numbers from early 2012 or 2013.

You previously mentioned that due to the ACA employers had changed the number of hours people were working, etc. the numbers show no such thing but I'm waiting to see if you have any empirical support for this contention.

As for the payroll survey vs household survey, can you explain yourself?

 

[piasabird]

Unemployment numbers mean nothing. Too much data is not even reported. Need a number for total number of Adults between 18 and 55 with no job. Obviously some of these may be house husbands and layabouts still living in their parent's basement, On disability or mentally unfit for some medical reasons, incarcerated, or whatever else people do that don't work like engaged with criminal activities, Gambling, etc.

Do you think the government is actually going to publish the number of people who work less hours due to ACA? My daughter worked at Wal-mart and I will take her word for it when she says everyone's hours were reduced that works part time. I don't need a stupid government fabricated lie of a number to prove it. She has since gotten a job working in a new growing sector of the economy. She works for a health insurance company??????

My wife is Korean and she was watching this Korean Economics Professor on youtube give lectures on economics and even he was talking about ACA being a major stumbling block for our economy. It is like a giant economic Sink Hole sucking in our economy with it.

 

[fskimospy]

Unemployment numbers mean nothing. Too much data is not even reported. Need a number for total number of Adults between 18 and 55 with no job. Obviously some of these may be house husbands and layabouts still living in their parent's basement, On disability or mentally unfit for some medical reasons, incarcerated, or whatever else people do that don't work like engaged with criminal activities, Gambling, etc.

Do you think the government is actually going to publish the number of people who work less hours due to ACA? My daughter worked at Wal-mart and I will take her word for it when she says everyone's hours were reduced that works part time. I don't need a stupid government fabricated lie of a number to prove it. She has since gotten a job working in a new growing sector of the economy. She works for a health insurance company??????

This is impressively insane.

You realize that the government in fact reports all of these things each and every month, right? That their methodology is transparent and their data is available for anyone to analyze, right?

You guys have seriously lost your minds.

 

[werepossum]

You previously mentioned that due to the ACA employers had changed the number of hours people were working, etc. the numbers show no such thing but I'm waiting to see if you have any empirical support for this contention.

As for the payroll survey vs household survey, can you explain yourself?

That was from multiple people telling me their hours had been cut. To extrapolate that further would require some knowledge whether full time employers were doing more, overall work had been cut, or additional part time workers had been hired. I made no claims either way.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatsp...welch-has-a-point-about-unemployment-numbers/

The biggest issue with the Household Survey is the seasonal adjustment (SA) process itself. Theoretically, for the year as a whole, the changes in employment by month should add up to the same number, i.e., the monthly SA and NSA changes should each add up to the same amount. And, theoretically, the SA should be calculated once at the beginning of the year. But, for the last few years, the BLS has adopted what they call a “Concurrent” SA process in which they recalculate the seasonal factors every month. The practical result of this method is that every month, all of the 12 seasonal factors change, which means that all of the year to date monthly SA data also changes. As a result, by December, the January number has changed 11 times, the February number 10 times, the March number 9 times, etc. Here’s the rub. The BLS will not publish the changed monthly data on the grounds that they don’t want to “confuse” the data users. Because they do this, the monthly change in the unemployment rate is not meaningful because the number it is being compared to has changed, but the BLS won’t tell us what it has changed to. The September 7.8% SA unemployment rate (U-3) as reported in early October is being compared to August’s 8.1% SA rate (reported in early September) despite the fact that August’s unemployment rate has likely changed due to the calculation of new seasonal factors. The BLS knows what the changed August number is, but they won’t publish it until January, 2013.

It's also worth noting that while BLS says the business survey is the reliable one, U3 is still calculated using the numbers from the household survey too.

It's also worth noting that while BLS adopted its secret special sauce under Obama, its adoption of the business survey dates back to at least Bush. Government of all stripes wants to look better on the cheap.

 

[piasabird]

These people are not even considered part of the labor force!

In April, 2.2 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down slightly from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

This seems to indicate there may be other people who have no hope at all and have not looked for work in the last 12 months. So maybe this number should be even higher.

These people are not unemployed because they did not look for work during the reporting period. They are a giant black hole.

 

[Fern]

You realize that literally everything you just asked about is contained in the monthly unemployment report, right?

Yes, and you see this portion of my post:

If it's the "us" meaning it's for public consumption (and not just economists), and I suppose it is since a summary of results are widely reported, I don't think so.

Most people don't read anything but the headlines of an article, much less delve into the details of the report.

Edit: If you're referring to where I may find the answers to part-time jobs etc I have already looked at their website. I'm not patient enough to consider doing so again as I basically disregard what is reported under the present conditions of our economy. E.g., when employment improves I will disregard reports of higher unemployment because of people coming off the sidelines and looking for work.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

That was from multiple people telling me their hours had been cut. To extrapolate that further would require some knowledge whether full time employers were doing more, overall work had been cut, or additional part time workers had been hired. I made no claims either way.

Of course the BLS tracks such things, you realize. You made an unsupportable statement.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatsp...welch-has-a-point-about-unemployment-numbers/

It's also worth noting that while BLS says the business survey is the reliable one, U3 is still calculated using the numbers from the household survey too.

It's also worth noting that while BLS adopted its secret special sauce under Obama, its adoption of the business survey dates back to at least Bush. Government of all stripes wants to look better on the cheap.

Making an unsupported and absurd statement that covers both parties doesn't make it any less of an unsupported and absurd statement. I have no idea what you think that editorial is evidence for.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, and you see this portion of my post:



Most people don't read anything but the headlines of an article, much less delve into the details of the report.

Edit: If you're referring to where I may find the answers to part-time jobs etc I have already looked at their website. I'm not patient enough to consider doing so again as I basically disregard what is reported under the present conditions of our economy. E.g., when employment improves I will disregard reports of higher unemployment because of people coming off the sidelines and looking for work.

Fern

To put all the things you want in that would be one hell of a long headline. As for the rest of it, workforce participation rates are frequently mentioned, as are average hours worked and average hourly wage.

 

[werepossum]

Of course the BLS tracks such things, you realize. You made an unsupportable statement.
SNIP

At best, the BLS could track whether additional part time workers had been hired, although I'm 99% sure they do not track that on a company basis and would have no way to separate such activity from non-related activity in the larger market. BLS could not possibly track if full time employers were doing more work or if overall work had been cut. Just because it's government doesn't mean they are omniscient.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatsp...welch-has-a-point-about-unemployment-numbers/

It's also worth noting that while BLS says the business survey is the reliable one, U3 is still calculated using the numbers from the household survey too.

It's also worth noting that while BLS adopted its secret special sauce under Obama, its adoption of the business survey dates back to at least Bush. Government of all stripes wants to look better on the cheap.

Sorry, there's nothing secret about the BLS' special sauce, nor did they adopt it under Obama. The use of this new "concurrent seasonal adjustment" methodology was introduced with the December, 2003 report, released in January, 2004:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsrs2013.pdf
​

See page 6. That was the other methodology change I mentioned earlier in this thread. Your Forbes op-ed deftly obfuscates that with its misleading "for the last few years." That sounds so much more incriminating than "back during the Bush administration."

It's long past time for you to admit that you simply had, and have, no idea what you're talking about. One can honestly debate the meaning and significance of the BLS data, but to insist on "secret" conspiracies to help Obama is blindly partisan propaganda, putting faith over fact.

 

[werepossum]

Sorry, there's nothing secret about the BLS' special sauce, nor did they adopt it under Obama. The use of this new "concurrent seasonal adjustment" methodology was introduced with the December, 2003 report, released in January, 2004:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsrs2013.pdf
​

See page 6. That was the other methodology change I mentioned earlier in this thread. Your Forbes op-ed deftly obfuscates that with its misleading "for the last few years." That sounds so much more incriminating than "back during the Bush administration."

It's long past time for you to admit that you simply had, and have, no idea what you're talking about. One can honestly debate the meaning and significance of the BLS data, but to insist on "secret" conspiracies to help Obama is blindly partisan propaganda, putting faith over fact.

It's funny that no matter how many times I point out that I'm not alleging a conspiracy, I'm taken to task for insisting on conspiracies.

 

[dank69]

It's funny that no matter how many times I point out that I'm not alleging a conspiracy, I'm taken to task for insisting on conspiracies.

Secret implies conspiracy. Unless it's only one person who knows the secret.

 

[Bowfinger]

It's funny that no matter how many times I point out that I'm not alleging a conspiracy, I'm taken to task for insisting on conspiracies.

It's funny how you so consistently pounce on some immaterial nit to dodge addressing any of the facts presented. You were wrong about the BLS methodology changes. Man up, acknowledge your error, and learn from it.

 

[werepossum]

It's funny how you so consistently pounce on some immaterial nit to dodge addressing any of the facts presented. You were wrong about the BLS methodology changes. Man up, acknowledge your error, and learn from it.

Fine - I was completely wrong about the BLS methodology changes. The BLS is 100% transparent, even though we can't actually see the numbers until next year. However, even though we can't see them, and even though the results are completely bizarre with unemployment dropping swiftly as labor participation hits record lows, we know they are 100% consistent with everything that has ever been done. Also, it is not good to be the ones doing the counting. It is very, very bad.

 

[First]

BLS isn't transparent because they release data....a few months later than you'd like.

As my Jewish grandmother used to say; oy vey.

 

[Bowfinger]

Fine - I was completely wrong about the BLS methodology changes. The BLS is 100% transparent, even though we can't actually see the numbers until next year. However, even though we can't see them, and even though the results are completely bizarre with unemployment dropping swiftly as labor participation hits record lows, we know they are 100% consistent with everything that has ever been done. Also, it is not good to be the ones doing the counting. It is very, very bad.

Grow up. Being a sore loser is unbecoming.

 

[schmuckley]

Fake ass numbers are fake.Unemployment has not been this high since Carter was president.

 

[fskimospy]

Fake ass numbers are fake.Unemployment has not been this high since Carter was president.

Fake how? Be specific.

 

[OverVolt]

Getting a job at walmart with $100k in student debt for biology or whatever doesn't mean a whole lot. Doesn't take a genius to realize there aren't many opportunities for people new to the workforce no matter what the statistics say. Nobody claimed it measured quality of jobs, which it does not. Most of the new jobs have been low paying jobs, so whatever. If wall street wants to blow all their money following headline U-3 go ahead and let them, its not my retirement, I'm 25. Oddly enough the status quo is shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[schmuckley]

Fake how? Be specific.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...rate-20-american-families-everyone-unemployed

The government only counts people receiving unemployment benefits.
When they fall off of that into oblivion,they are not counted as being unemployed,
yet they still have no job.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...rate-20-american-families-everyone-unemployed

The government only counts people receiving unemployment benefits.
When they fall off of that into oblivion,they are not counted as being unemployed,
yet they still have no job.

Yeah you are going to want to do better than Zero Hedge.

I still recall their article from a few years ago telling their readers that all option trading was being discontinued. They don't really know how to interpret and understand things so well. It was one company.