Gallup - Unemployment likely to be lower come Nov. 2nd Jobs Report....

[Ryan]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158060/unadjusted-unemployment-mid-october.aspx

How will Republicans spin the story if/when the unemployment drops come the November 2nd jobs report?

The decline in unemployment but uptick in the number of Americans working part time but looking for full-time work is likely the result of seasonal hiring, which picks up in the fall for Halloween and continues through the end of the holiday season. Still, seasonally adjusted employment, which accounts for these types of periodic fluctuations, has declined modestly since the end of September. This is a promising sign that employers are adding jobs that will last into the new year.

Gallup's mid-month unemployment numbers are a good early predictor of the monthly numbers released by the BLS. The decline in Gallup's unadjusted and adjusted employment rate suggests that the BLS may report another decline when it releases the October data on Nov. 2.

 

[xBiffx]

I have no doubt the number will be lower in November. It's to the reasons why that are important.

 

[cybrsage]

Why is it lower, due to more people falling off the lists due to being on unemployment for most of Obama's tenure? I cannot see that as a good thing.

 

[mshan]

Honestly, I think most people's minds are made up, so we will all see what we want to see (it's real or the fix is in).


I think 95% confidence interval for September unemployment rate was 7.6% - 8%, so 7.6% could be believable:

"But even still, there is a lot of room for error. The BLS estimates that the standard error for the unemployment rate is 0.1 points. That means that the margin of error, like that you’d use for polls, is about 0.196 points:

It’s higher for changes in the unemployment rate – the standard error is 0.12, so the margin of error is around 0.2352. But the drop in unemployment last month was 0.3 points – so outside the margin of error, and statistically significant. As former Labor Department economist Betsy Stevenson explains, that’s a clear improvement."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ers-come-from/

"As we have noted recently, the flows between employment and unemployment provide a reasonable amount of information about short-term changes in the unemployment rate. When inflows into unemployment are low and outflows from unemployment are high, the headline unemployment rate has a tendency to decline, and vice versa. In particular, the "flow-consistent" unemployment rate--calculated as the rate at which the actual rate would settle over time if the inflow and outflow rate stayed unchanged--is a decent leading indicator for the actual rate. As recently as three months ago, this simple model was pointing to modest increases in unemployment. Now, however, it is again pointing to declines, as shown in Exhibit 2."


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-1...ty-jobs-market

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2274778

 

[mshan]

http://behavioraleconomy.gallup.com/2012/10/time-to-replace-unemployment-rate.html

 

[Londo_Jowo]

How many of the jobs will be the typical holiday season part time jobs at minimum wage?

 

[JDawg1536]

Why is it lower, due to more people falling off the lists due to being on unemployment for most of Obama's tenure? I cannot see that as a good thing.

What the? It is 100% impossible to be on unemployment and "fall off the lists," whatever those lists may be. Unemployment insurance claims have ZERO to do with the unemployment anyway.

 

[cybrsage]

Correct, but unemployment does not last forever - it runs out and then the people still unemployed are now off the radar.

 

[mshan]

I think we've been doing 175k/ month for last year or so, after revisions.

Population growth has only been 0.8%, vs. historic norm as high as 1.4% - 1.5%.

So 1% job growth (100k/month?) might be able to keep up with population growth, and we've been closer to 2% for some time now.

Also remember that while the top line number gets revised after the fact, the unemployment rate is not revised.

One commentator also said that household survey (one used to calculate unemployment rate) might be capturing earlier new small business formation, which hasn't yet shown up in establishment survey (larger corporations?) Same thing with IIRC Morningstar economist Bob Johnson noting alot of small pick up truck sales I think in August, which he says often indicates small business activity.

 

[Wreckem]

How many of the jobs will be the typical holiday season part time jobs at minimum wage?

And thats why they seasonally adjust the numbers.

 

[JDawg1536]

Correct, but unemployment does not last forever - it runs out and then the people still unemployed are now off the radar.

That is completely false. How do you think that would work?

 

[xBiffx]

And thats why they seasonally adjust the numbers.

Doesn't tell you crap about wages, which I believe was his point. Adding a bunch of low wage numbers is not where we want to be. Especially when they go away come next year.

 

[mshan]

Hours and wages spiked up decently in last BLS, IIRC.

Employers are working their workers more hours, and paying more to keep them, rather than hire new workers, given all uncertainty still out there.

October BLS comes out Friday before election, but should get ADP Payrolls report and Challenger Gray Layoff report on Wednesday right before that. Plus initial and continuing claims each Thursday.

 

[bfdd]

End entitlements and people will go back to work.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I think we've been doing 175k/ month for last year or so, after revisions.

Population growth has only been 0.8%, vs. historic norm as high as 1.4% - 1.5%.

So 1% job growth (100k/month?) might be able to keep up with population growth, and we've been closer to 2% for some time now.

Also remember that while the top line number gets revised after the fact, the unemployment rate is not revised.

One commentator also said that household survey (one used to calculate unemployment rate) might be capturing earlier new small business formation, which hasn't yet shown up in establishment survey (larger corporations?) Same thing with IIRC Morningstar economist Bob Johnson noting alot of small pick up truck sales I think in August, which he says often indicates small business activity.

300,000 baby boomers retire every month, GO on ss not unemployment . So we have negitive job growth in the private sector . BAD. Than we have more gooberment jobs added for politics only. Really ugly really bad.

 

[xBiffx]

End entitlements and people will go back to work.

Or rot to death. Either way, problem solved.

 

[cybrsage]

That is completely false. How do you think that would work?

Written in Oct, 2012:

There are 6.7 million Americans not officially counted as part of the labor force who say they’d like a job, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Bringing these lost and largely invisible people back into the economy will be a long and expensive undertaking.

Today the overall unemployment rate is declining, but the number of long-term unemployed remains near historic highs: In late 2009 the percentage of the unemployed who’d been looking for a job for more than six months rose above 40 percent, a level the BLS hadn’t seen in the six decades it’s been tracking unemployment. The number has stayed above 40 percent since. The statistics are even more stark for those who’ve been out of work for more than 99 weeks—the point at which, in most states, unemployment benefits run out. In January 2009 there were 467,000 99ers. Last month the number was 1.8 million.

Those who’ve given up looking slip out of the labor force, into what is sometimes called “nonemployment.” Researchers know remarkably little about them: what they do to support themselves after their benefits run out, or how much they turn to other federal programs such as disability or dip into the underground economy.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-11/the-plight-of-the-long-term-unemployed

These people are not unemployed - they no longer exist on unemployment papers or figures or charts...they are classified by economists as nonemployed and the government ignores them.

 

[Wreckem]

Doesn't tell you crap about wages, which I believe was his point. Adding a bunch of low wage numbers is not where we want to be. Especially when they go away come next year.

Again, thats why unemployment figures are SEASONALLY adjusted. The numbers are adjusted to discount seasonal employment. Its normalizes the data so seasonal hiring doesn't skew the numbers.

 

[zinfamous]

End entitlements and people will go back to work.

...to jobs that don't exist?

...to employers that refuse to hire when they are sitting flush with the greatest profits they have experienced in their lifetimes?


not going to happen.

 

[JDawg1536]

Written in Oct, 2012:


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-11/the-plight-of-the-long-term-unemployed

These people are not unemployed - they no longer exist on unemployment papers or figures or charts...they are classified by economists as nonemployed and the government ignores them.

If someone wants to be employed they are counted. And like I said, unemployment benefits have nothing to do with any calculations of unemployment.

 

[buckshot24]

The economy is what it is. A number going from 7.8 to 7.7 isn't going to change what people think of the economy. They aren't going to have more jobs because of this rate decrease.

 

[Engineer]

...to jobs that don't exist?

...to employers that refuse to hire when they are sitting flush with the greatest profits they have experienced in their lifetimes?


not going to happen.

Actually, I disagree to a certain extent. I do believe that there are jobs (whether good or bad) that will be filled if the money were to be cut off from people (i.e. extended unemployment, etc). I know people who have ridden the system (unemployment) for 2 years and have now suddenly found work just as it ran out. :hmm:

 

[Double Trouble]

People place way to much emphasis on the number and too little on the underlying data. If the unemployment rate drops because people stop looking, that's not good, it's bad. If the number drops because more people looking for full time work settle for part time work, that's not good, that's bad.

Now if the number of people employed in meaningful full time positions increases to the point where it starts making a dent in unemployment, that's good. That's what we need.

Both parties will spin it their way, but it definitely doesn't look like things are heading in the right direction to me.

 

[DCal430]

Written in Oct, 2012:


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-11/the-plight-of-the-long-term-unemployed

These people are not unemployed - they no longer exist on unemployment papers or figures or charts...they are classified by economists as nonemployed and the government ignores them.

The unemployment benefits and the unemployment rate have nothing to do with each other.

 

[DCal430]

Unemployment rate is calculated from the Census monthly Current Population Survey.