Harmony Central Forums
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Employment data doesn't quite add up

Collapse



X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Employment data doesn't quite add up

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/4019...8b690&uprof=45

    An interesting deep-dive is quoted above.

    So according to this data, the civilian labor force declined by 195k, the number of employed decreased by 43k, the number of unemployed dropped by 152k and the number of people not in the labor force increased by 425k. Huh? So if the number of employed fell, that would suggest 43k people became unemployed. If the number of unemployed drops you would think they became employed, or they left the labor pool, which means they are no longer being counted. I forgot to mention the size of the labor force shrank as well. Through all of this, we created 161k jobs in October and on top of that the unemployment rate fell. Does any of this make any sense? Shrink the numerator, shrink the denominator, and you can find a great unemployment number [...] there are fewer people in the labor force and more people out of work. The unemployed apparently were not added to the employed. Otherwise, that number would have increased, not decreased. The unemployed that came out simply are no longer being counted. Period.
    In a nutshell, the base underlying number seem to state that fewer people are actually employed. Can anyone here show the source for this guy's numbers and sort it out?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	26750043-1478270790323041_origin.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	73.0 KB
ID:	31848171
    Last edited by SteinbergerHack; 11-05-2016, 09:32 AM.
    "The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency." ------------------ Pope John Paul II

  • #2
    But wages increased by 1000%!

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm just trying to figure out how a net loss of 43,000 jobs is a good economic indicator.
      "The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency." ------------------ Pope John Paul II

      Comment


      • The Badger
        The Badger commented
        Editing a comment
        It's Trump Math. Like Voltaire's "Candide," everything is all for the best in this best of all possible administrations. If the facts disagree, then it's the facts that are lying.

      • SteinbergerHack
        SteinbergerHack commented
        Editing a comment
        "Trump math"? This was from 2016 - it was Obama's math!

        Try to keep up......


    • #4
      Originally posted by SteinbergerHack View Post
      I'm just trying to figure out how a net loss of 43,000 jobs is a good economic indicator.
      Left wing bizzaro mathematics?

      Comment


      • #5
        Figures lie and liars figure?

        ​Has there ever been any such 'data' on almost any subject that can't be twisted and spun to say whatever it is you need it to say?

        ​We all know that underlying truth of the employment numbers is that it doesn't accurately reflect the people who have dropped out of the labor market. Which is why nobody is really that excited about the unemployment number being low. Everyone knows the economy is still in worse shape than that number indicates.

        ​It's never been a great statistic. But it's the one we have used for decades now.
        ______________

        Comment


        • guitarcapo
          guitarcapo commented
          Editing a comment
          What barometer are you using to back up your statement that the economy is in bad shape? Stock market? Interest rates? Gas prices? Dollar value against other currencies?

      • #6
        Originally posted by Telecruiser View Post

        Left wing bizzaro mathematics?
        ​I don't know that you can blame it on 'left' or 'right'. The unemployment rate has been calculated the same way for decades regardless of who has been in the White House or running the Congress or whatever.
        ______________

        Comment


        • guitarcapo
          guitarcapo commented
          Editing a comment
          Oops

      • #7
        People quit their jobs to start their own business, people quit and become a day-traders, people quit and go back to school, people retire, go on disability, get pregnant and decide to be a stay at home parent. There are lots of reasons why people would leave the workforce and yet not be counted as "unemployed".
        Last edited by BA.Barcolounger; 11-05-2016, 10:28 AM.

        Comment


        • guitarcapo
          guitarcapo commented
          Editing a comment
          The internet has dramatically impacted the economy away from the standard manufacturer employer/employee model

      • #8
        Maybe they don't add up in the same way that the Clinton Foundation numbers didn't add up to people who hate the Clintons.
        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        "Faith ruled the Dark Ages."

        Comment


        • #9
          Originally posted by BA.Barcolounger View Post
          People quit their jobs to start their own business, people quit and become a day-traders, people quit and go back to school, people retire, go on disability, get pregnant and decide to be a stay at home parent. There are lots of reasons why people would leave the workforce and yet not be counted as "unemployed".
          Nice broad-brush, but 43,000 in one month on top of the 161,000 job gains? This is a NET number, so you have to include the number of people who graduate college, those who return to the workforce after raising kids, those who come off disability, etc. Added to the 161,000 net job gains, this would mean that we are losing 200,000 people from the workforce every month in addition to the offset of the people entering the workforce. This doesn't pass the sniff test (2.4M annual loss rate vs. 160M workforce).
          "The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency." ------------------ Pope John Paul II

          Comment


          • #10
            When they talk about how many jobs are added, they don't break it out by doctors, lawyers, skilled trades, knowledge workers, burger flippers, dishwashers, landscapers, service industry, etc. The other thing they don't provide are the details of how many of these jobs are going to H1B workers, as opposed to U.S. Citizens.
            Originally posted by MrKnobs
            God, that's beautiful man! And they say romance is dead!

            Comment


            • RogueGnome
              RogueGnome commented
              Editing a comment
              for those who give a darn there is the BLS.

          • #11
            Originally posted by BA.Barcolounger View Post
            People quit their jobs to start their own business, people quit and become a day-traders, people quit and go back to school, people retire, go on disability, get pregnant and decide to be a stay at home parent. There are lots of reasons why people would leave the workforce and yet not be counted as "unemployed".
            no no no no no. they only leave to leach of the system.
            Last edited by moogerfooger; 11-05-2016, 01:12 PM.

            Comment


            • #12
              Originally posted by SteinbergerHack View Post

              Nice broad-brush, but 43,000 in one month on top of the 161,000 job gains?
              43,000 out of 220 million. That is 1/50th of one percent.

              I find it quite easy to believe that 1 person out of every 10,000 people left the workforce voluntairly.

              Edit: my math is probably bad.
              Last edited by BA.Barcolounger; 11-05-2016, 06:29 PM.

              Comment


              • #13
                Originally posted by BA.Barcolounger View Post

                43,000 out of 220 million. That is 1/50th of one percent.

                I find it quite easy to believe that 1 person out of every 10,000 people left the workforce voluntairly.

                Edit: my math is probably bad.
                There is volutary movement into and out of the workforce. This number is net of both new jobs and voluntary entries into the workforce. Think it through - the actual number of workforce exits is 200,000 plus entries into the workforce, and that's just one month.
                "The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency." ------------------ Pope John Paul II

                Comment


                • #14
                  Originally posted by SteinbergerHack View Post
                  Can anyone here show the source for this guy's numbers and sort it out?
                  Since you called it into question, that would be your job.

                  Comment


                  • #15
                    Originally posted by SteinbergerHack View Post

                    Nice broad-brush, but 43,000 in one month on top of the 161,000 job gains? This is a NET number, so you have to include the number of people who graduate college, those who return to the workforce after raising kids, those who come off disability, etc. Added to the 161,000 net job gains, this would mean that we are losing 200,000 people from the workforce every month in addition to the offset of the people entering the workforce. This doesn't pass the sniff test (2.4M annual loss rate vs. 160M workforce).
                    that adds up to about what should be expected.

                    based solely on the numbers, boomers could be retiring at a rate of 10,000 per day, assuming everyone of them was employed. even if only half worked, that figure would be 150,000 per month retiring.

                    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...y-day/?0p19G=c
                    Last edited by Turd Furgison; 11-05-2016, 08:18 PM.
                    {O,O}
                    (__(\
                    " "

                    Comment













                    Working...
                    X