Job report: 171,000 new jobs in October, previous months revised up 84,000, UR @ 7.9%

[PokerGuy]

Funny how most of the main stream media starts with the headline that 179k jobs were created, then state that the UR is 7.9%. They conveniently fail to mention that the rate went UP to 7.9%.

When the job number of jobs sucked but the rate went down, they had big headlines promoting the rate had dropped.

The truth is that neither the rate nor the number of jobs really matters. You have to dig into the details to figure out what's going on, what kind of jobs are created, how many people are leaving the pool (giving up) etc.

 

[dank69]

Funny how most of the main stream media starts with the headline that 179k jobs were created, then state that the UR is 7.9%. They conveniently fail to mention that the rate went UP to 7.9%.

When the job number of jobs sucked but the rate went down, they had big headlines promoting the rate had dropped.

The truth is that neither the rate nor the number of jobs really matters. You have to dig into the details to figure out what's going on, what kind of jobs are created, how many people are leaving the pool (giving up) etc.

Yes, you do need to dig into the details. Why don't you let us know what your findings are?

 

[mshan]

My initial impression of economic and employment data released yesterday and today is that economy is actually stronger than headline numbers indicate...

 

[emperus]

Working on my run for president in 2016.

We don't need another low information President.

 

[umbrella39]

Let um cook the books all they want. Even 7.7% unemployment at this point would still stink to high heaven and is just further proof of the failures of the current policies in place.

Cook the books?

Please explain how they cooked the books...

 

[Nemesis 1]

The labor participation rate improved with this report. That's part of why the rate ticked up a bit.

You can't have it both ways.

Words you should adhere to . Your doing that which you accuse others of . This report was hooriable . Again no mention of the 300,000 people who retired /. Negitive job growth of 150,000 if you add in retiring people , 300,000 retire only 188,000 new jobs . LOL at the foolishness

 

[mshan]

Morningstar Video Commentary on this morning's jobs report:

- http://www.morningstar.com/Cover/videoCenter.aspx?id=573455

- large upside revisions to previous months; e. g. August now 192,000! (edit: correct August BLS numbers (original release) were 96,000 and 8.1% unemployment: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_09072012.htm)

- construction workers still missing from BLS report. We've doubled housing starts from 500k to almost 1 million, and BLS shows no net construction workers hired, yet!!!

- more upside revisions to previous unemployment reports seem quite likely, but BLS does not go back and revise unemployment rate

- and as Bob Johnson has previously said, watch consumer confidence / consumer spending. Corporations have pulled back, but consumer keeps spending. Hope for snapback if consumer maintains spending, because companies will have to ramp up to meet real demand they see out there... (they may be running out of room to eke out further productivity gains from technology, and I think I read that wages have fallen into line with cost of incremental productivity gain through technology, so real sustained incremental demand, hopefully, translates into a more rapid rate of job growth in months to come)


:thumbsup:

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/201...-report-isnt-as-bad-as-it-looks/?mod=yahoo_hs

 

[Capt Caveman]

Words you should adhere to . Your doing that which you accuse others of . This report was hooriable . Again no mention of the 300,000 people who retired /. Negitive job growth of 150,000 if you add in retiring people , 300,000 retire only 188,000 new jobs . LOL at the foolishness

Like usual, you're not intelligent to realize that those positions are included in the number.

 

[umbrella39]

I have no idea why people will not take the 10 minutes of so out of their life to read the BLS page of how they do and more importantly for our purposes here... how they do not calculate the jobs numbers.

 

[jackstar7]

Funny how most of the main stream media starts with the headline that 179k jobs were created, then state that the UR is 7.9%. They conveniently fail to mention that the rate went UP to 7.9%.

When the job number of jobs sucked but the rate went down, they had big headlines promoting the rate had dropped.

The truth is that neither the rate nor the number of jobs really matters. You have to dig into the details to figure out what's going on, what kind of jobs are created, how many people are leaving the pool (giving up) etc.

Or in this case, how many more entered the pool creating the rise in the UE %...

 

[woolfe9999]

The labor participation rate improved with this report. That's part of why the rate ticked up a bit.

You can't have it both ways.

Yet it's always pointed out when the unemployment rate goes down but labor force participation goes down with it. These same people will never mention it when labor force participation goes up, like it did this month and last.

 

[woolfe9999]

Cook the books?

Please explain how they cooked the books...

Yeah I as well would like to hear from Matt his evidence that BLS is "cooking the books." Sourced from somewhere credible, not moronic right wing echo chamber drivel which reflexively writes off every single piece of inconvenient information as conspiracy, from electoral polling to climate science to economic data. All of the traditional sources of information are now apparently infected by a liberal conspiracy...except of course when they tell them what they want to hear.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I have no idea why people will not take the 10 minutes of so out of their life to read the BLS page of how they do and more importantly for our purposes here... how they do not calculate the jobs numbers.

I guess there's more fun to be had jumping on the interwebs and ranting for hours like an uninformed hack than taking ten minutes to have a clue.

 

[glenn1]

The point is that no matter whom wins in a few days, the hiring rate is picking up and approaching that 250-300k per month figure we all need to start seeing improvements (ie: pay increase, better benefits, ect). Assuming Congress gets the fiscal cliff taken care of without much drama, I doubt the tea party will make much of a fuss over it since the beat down they had last year on the debt ceiling. Businesses will start to hire, business owners simply want certainty which is currently missing.

This report is good news, but it's foolish to extrapolate the trend to say we're heading to 250-300k hirings/month. It might go up to that level, but it could also go down (perhaps even precipitously). Let's hope for the better outcome but not be Pollyanna about it.

 

[mshan]

I think the 250k number was for old ADP report as baseline (?).

Population growth has only been 0.7% - 0.8% (historically it's been as high as 1.4% - 1.5%), so job growth to absorb new workers is only 100k - 125k per month (BLS / seasonally adjusted, annualized rate (SAAR)).

We are already seeing wage increases and longer work week.

Plus, IIRC, work week from Bush era to Obama era has increased by 2 hours, and that would be equivalent to 2 million more full-time workers being employed if employers had chosen that route (vs. working current workers more and maybe using more part-time workers).

Seems like BLS job growth (SAAR) is slowly accelerating, from say 150k/month (first half of year) to possibly above 175k/month (where we are already with revisions), hopefully also consistent with above 2% real GDP growth (2 - 2.5%?)






Gallup's Take:

"The U.S. Payroll to Population employment rate (P2P), as measured by Gallup, was 45.7% for the month of October, up from 45.1% in September, and reflecting the highest percentage of Americans with good jobs since Gallup began Daily tracking of U.S. employment in 2010.

Gallup has studied employment worldwide for the last three years, and has shown that P2P is much more predictive than unemployment of a country's economic health and the wellbeing of its citizens. While P2P is the best metric for measuring the number of good jobs, it admittedly excludes some self-employed and part-time workers who have good jobs.

In October, 4.8% of Americans were self-employed for more than 30 hours per week, and an additional 6.9% of the total population was employed part time but did not desire full-time work. Many of these Americans also have good jobs and are working the number of hours they desire."


http://www.gallup.com/poll/158495/payroll-population-rate-october.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158483/unadjusted-unemployment-down-october.aspx

"To put it another way, 93 percent of the people who would have been employed in an economy such as we had in 2007 are employed today and are likely to feel that they are as busy with work today as they were then. The other 7 percent are not working at all."


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/the-asymmetric-recovery/

 

[EagleKeeper]

That's b/c you don't understand the numbers. And based on the current global economy, thinking the employment rate could be a couple of whole points lower is silly.

Oh wait, you actually believe Romney about being able to add 12 million jobs with no plan on how he's going to do it while reducing the deficit, lowering taxes and increasing military spending.

Obama promised similar items;

What did he accomplish?

Spent a chunk of money to keep public jobs in play for a couple of years; now those jobs are still in jeopardy because of tax revenues still down.

Shovel ready jobs were brought forward; but did not generate any long term benefits.

 

[First]

Like I said, its not about quantity. I can have it both ways. The only way we are going to see any "recovery" is getting Americans back to good paying jobs, not sending them to lower paying PT jobs.

To send them back to work in a lower employment status that they originality came from is far from recovering. They need to get back from where they came to call it a recovery.

Hourly wages and professional (i.e. high-paying) jobs increased at a faster rate than part-time jobs in this report. So your point is (per usual) shit.

 

[sm625]

US median income is below the 10 year moving average AND is below where it was 10 years ago. We were in recession 10 years ago... I do believe US median income is at a 17 year low! No one is talking about this becaus ethey are too busy mentally masturbating over absolutely meaningless numbers.

 

[Munky]

And now, for some reality smackdown...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-02/chart-day-americas-geriatric-work-force

The vast majority of those jerbs went to baby boomer seniors who refuse or are unable to leave the workforce. But don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of your puppet parade.

 

[DrPizza]

Words you should adhere to . Your doing that which you accuse others of . This report was hooriable . Again no mention of the 300,000 people who retired /. Negitive job growth of 150,000 if you add in retiring people , 300,000 retire only 188,000 new jobs . LOL at the foolishness

Oh, coincidentally no one at the lower end - 18-22 year olds entered the work force?

 

[mshan]

October Data Show Stronger Labor Market as Workers Return and Part-Time Work Falls


"The October jobs figures released today by the BLS showed a stronger U.S. labor market. The unemployment rate edged up by 0.08 percentage points, just enough to raise the headline rate from 7.8 to 7.9 percent. However, a look at the underlying data showed that the uptick in the headline rate was a “good” increase of the kind that we often see as previously discouraged workers return to a strengthening labor market.

The labor force increased by 578,000 workers in October. The number of employed persons, as measured by the household survey from which these data come, increased by 410,000. Since the increase in new jobholders was less than the increase in the labor force, the number of unemployed increased by a reported 170,000. (The numbers don’t sum because of rounding errors.) The unemployment rate is the ratio of employed persons to the labor force.

The BLS also publishes a broader measure of unemployment known as U-6. It includes discouraged workers who have given up looking because they think there are no jobs to be found, people who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work if available, and some other marginally attached workers. The number of involuntary part-time workers fell by 296,000 in October, helping to bring U-6 down from 14.7 percent to 14.6 percent.

Looking at other data from the household survey, we find that the employment-population ratio increased from 58.7 to 58.8 percent. That marks its highest level in more than three years. The labor force participation rate increased as well, from 63.6 percent to 63.8 percent. Both of these data points are further signs of a strengthening labor market."


http://www.economonitor.com/dolanec...et-as-workers-return-and-part-time-work-falls

 

[PJABBER]

Rick Santelli Says that Obama Has NOT Created Net Jobs During His Term As President

 

[Ryan]

Words you should adhere to . Your doing that which you accuse others of . This report was hooriable . Again no mention of the 300,000 people who retired /. Negitive job growth of 150,000 if you add in retiring people , 300,000 retire only 188,000 new jobs . LOL at the foolishness

hooriable.

 

[jackstar7]

Rick Santelli Says that Obama Has NOT Created Net Jobs During His Term As President

Not what he actually said... but whatever.

Keep on whistling.

 

[umbrella39]

And now, for some reality smackdown...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-02/chart-day-americas-geriatric-work-force

The vast majority of those jerbs went to baby boomer seniors who refuse or are unable to leave the workforce. But don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of your puppet parade.

Look, another cheerleader...