Only 98,000 jobs in March

[Bitek]

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- MARCH 2017


The unemployment rate declined to 4.5 percent in March, and total nonfarm payroll employment edged up by 98,000,
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in professional and business services
and in mining, while retail trade lost jobs.

---


One bright spot is that wages are up modestly, however job creation through Twitter berating is so far off to a poor start.

Fake data again? What will the response be?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm going to be fair to Trump in the same way I was to Obama. I heard most of February's gains were construction and the weather was mild. March was not mild weather. Theory is construction work slowed due to the weather.

 

[Phynaz]

Lowest unemployment in a decade is a bad thing?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Lowest unemployment in a decade is a bad thing?

And this too

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Naw, he'll take credit for it just as all his predecessors did.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Lowest unemployment in a decade is a bad thing?

Just be mindful of when most of those unemployment gains were made...

 

[Phynaz]

Just be mindful of when most of those unemployment gains were made...

Today employment is good. The I hate Republicans faction wants to make this a bad thing.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Today employment is good. The I hate Republicans faction wants to make this a bad thing.

This will always happen, I have no doubt there'll be spin from some sites that is pointing out that 'gains have been reduced by x% because of Trump' because the number of jobs gained is less than previous months, or whatever. More jobs is always good.

 

[dank69]

Let's consult the liberal media to see how they spin this against Trump:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/us-jobs-report-march-2017-120702757.html

unemployment rate plunges to 4.5%

Just look at that PLUNGE:

 

[Phynaz]

What's your point? That you can't comprehend that the economy added nearly half a million jobs in March?

 

[fskimospy]

What's your point? That you can't comprehend that the economy added nearly half a million jobs in March?

The economy did not add nearly half a million jobs in March. You're trying to use the household survey because you think it's convenient, which is not honest.

Let me guess, right wing media is trumpeting the household survey? I wonder if they will still think it's good when it shows us losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a few months from now due to natural variation due to its huge margin of error. My guess is they will pretend it doesn't exist. 😉

See here:

 

[Phynaz]

If CNBC is right-wing media, then sure. They are reporting a total of 472,000 jobs created last month.

 

[fskimospy]

If CNBC is right-wing media, then sure. They are reporting a total of 472,000 jobs created last month.

From CNBC's website:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/07/march-nonfarm-payrolls.html

Nonfarm payrolls grew by just 98,000 in March though the unemployment rate fell to a 10-year low of 4.5 percent, according to a closely watched report Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Payrolls had been expected to increase by 180,000 in March, according to economists surveyed by Reuters.

Maybe some talking head on CNBC referenced the household survey but it is not a reliable measure and it cannot be compared to the far more accurate payroll survey.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Could we just develop one reliable benchmark that we can all mostly agree upon. I'm so tired of the dissection of jobs reports.

 

[Phynaz]

The economy did not add nearly half a million jobs in March. You're trying to use the household survey because you think it's convenient, which is not honest.

Let me guess, right wing media is trumpeting the household survey? I wonder if they will still think it's good when it shows us losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a few months from now due to natural variation due to its huge margin of error. My guess is they will pretend it doesn't exist. 😉

See here:

Funny, A year ago you were all about using BLS data to support your position. During the Obama administration you were even linking to it and telling people it was the be-all of employment data.

I'll help you find it so you can refresh your memory,
https://forums.anandtech.com/search/236235/?q=bls&o=date&c[node]=24&c[user][0]=191266

Two face much?

If a Republican had done this you would call them a hypocritical liar.

 

[thraashman]

Today employment is good. The I hate Republicans faction wants to make this a bad thing.

The entire point is that when February job numbers exceeded expectations Trump took credit despite none of his policies being in place early enough to have affected the numbers. And now that numbers fell short of expectations we expect him to shift blame, because that's sorta what he does. He takes credit for things that are good which he had nothing to do with, and he insists he never makes mistakes or does anything wrong despite being probably the biggest fuckup to ever set foot in the White House.

Also worth nothing the US is seeing a tourism slump that is directly caused by Trump's rhetoric and policies and is costing the US billions in tourism dollars

 

[fskimospy]

Funny, A year ago you were all about using BLS data to support your position.

Two face much?

Haha, thanks for just showing you have no clue as to what you're talking about. I am always all about using BLS data, which is what the payroll survey is (the 98,000 number). The BLS itself views the payroll survey as the most reliable estimate of changes in employment and so I defer to their expertise.

Since presumably you are also a big fan of using BLS data I'm sure you agree with them and will be using the 98,000 number now too. Is that correct?

 

[Phynaz]

Haha, thanks for just showing you have no clue as to what you're talking about. I am always all about using BLS data, which is what the payroll survey is (the 98,000 number). The BLS itself views the payroll survey as the most reliable estimate of changes in employment and so I defer to their expertise.

Since presumably you are also a big fan of using BLS data I'm sure you agree with them and will be using the 98,000 number now too. Is that correct?

What?

The headline unemployment rate decline came as the ranks of the unemployed fell by 326,000, according to the BLS household survey. The civilian labor force expanded by 145,000, though those not in the labor force rose slightly to 94.2 million. The ranks of the employed surged by 472,000.

You just said using the the BLS data is dishonest, make up your mind.

 

[fskimospy]

What?

You just said using the the BLS data is dishonest, make up your mind.

I did not say using BLS data is dishonest, I said using the household survey instead of the payroll survey is dishonest as the household survey is known to be a less accurate measure of changes in employment.

I suggest you read more from BLS on this subject:

https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.htm

The payroll survey (CES) is designed to measure employment, hours, and earnings in the nonfarm sector, with industry and geographic detail. The survey is best known for providing a highly reliable gauge of monthly change in nonfarm payroll employment. A representative sample of businesses in the U.S. provides the data for the payroll survey.

The household survey (CPS) is designed to measure the labor force status of the civilian noninstitutional population with demographic detail. The national unemployment rate is the best-known statistic produced from the household survey. The survey also provides a measure of employed people, one that includes agricultural workers and the self-employed. A representative sample of U.S. households provides the information for the household survey.
...
Employment estimates from both surveys are subject to sampling error. Household survey employment is subject to much greater sampling error than payroll survey employment, due to its smaller sample size.

Change in employment required to be statistically significant at the 90% CI:
Payroll survey: ± 120,000
Household survey: ± 500,000

If you have an analytically valid reason for purposefully using a less accurate measure then by all means tell me what it is. In any case, both changes in jobs are statistically indistinguishable from zero at the 90% CI and could in fact have been negative for February.

 

[Atreus21]

9 times out of 10, the president has about as much impact on the economy as my dancing has on the rain.

 

[Moonbeam]

9 times out of 10, the president has about as much impact on the economy as my dancing has on the rain.

Do you pray?

 

[umbrella39]

Another recently active PutinBot has shown up to move the goal posts and spin what would have been nose thumbed up bad news 365 days ago into silk... imagine the odds....

 

[Atreus21]

Do you pray?

Not often enough.

 

[Moonbeam]

Not often enough.

O ye, of little faith

 

[Atreus21]

O ye, of little faith

I am well rebuked.