Via CNN/Money:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/05/news/economy/september-jobs-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

...Commentators from both sides of the political spectrum were quick to jump on the numbers Friday morning as both a sign that the job market has improved recently, and that economic growth remains far too slow to pull millions of Americans out of unemployment.
Both points are correct...

So what will the impact be on the election?

I don't see how new jobs are less than 120,000 yet the unemployment rate suddenly falls .3%. Must be that new math.

The London Evening Standard pointed out that while more jobs have been created than have been lost since 2008 (over 4 million) the growth of population has outpaced that, so unemployment is still rising.

Its because Unemployment rates don't count discouraged workers, which is defined as anyone thats been out of work for a certain period of time(can't remember what the exact time is, 6 months maybe?) or stops looking for a job.

So even if no new jobs are created the unemployment rate will still go down.

The actual unemployment rate is always much higher then it actually is, so its probably around 15% if discouraged workers are included.

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't see how new jobs are less than 120,000 yet the unemployment rate suddenly falls .3%. Must be that new math.

No, its new definitions.

 d-usa wrote:

So what will the impact be on the election?

Probably pretty minimal. I could be wrong, but I doubt most Americans truly follow economic indicators. It's more a case of waiting for the experts to say, "Amazing news! We're so far out of the woods we're on the beach sipping mai tais!"

If the rate had dropped to the normal rate of 5% then it might effect the Election in a measurable way.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The London Evening Standard pointed out that while more jobs have been created than have been lost since 2008 (over 4 million) the growth of population has outpaced that, so unemployment is still rising.

Immigration, and specifically illegal immigration and the numbers of resident illegals has fallen since the recession started. Is that accounted for in that? A movement towards those jobs from being counted within standard birth statistics could alter the numbers a few points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If the rate had dropped to the normal rate of 5% then it might effect the Election in a measurable way.

If the rate dropped to 5% Obama would be winning by 20 points. A visible end to backsliding unemployment numbers should be a pretty visible boost to the president, though it might not effect actual voting patterns much at all.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The London Evening Standard pointed out that while more jobs have been created than have been lost since 2008 (over 4 million) the growth of population has outpaced that, so unemployment is still rising.

Immigration, and specifically illegal immigration and the numbers of resident illegals has fallen since the recession started. Is that accounted for in that? A movement towards those jobs from being counted within standard birth statistics could alter the numbers a few points.

Illegals arn't included in Employment numbers. Only legal residents between the ages of 16 and 55, arn't enrolled in school, are activly looking for a job, or have one are counted.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Illegals arn't included in Employment numbers. Only legal residents between the ages of 16 and 55, arn't enrolled in school, are activly looking for a job, or have one are counted.

Right, he's saying illegal immigration has dropped, so Americans or legal residents are picking up the jobs the illegals would've had.

I believe.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its because Unemployment rates don't count discouraged workers, which is defined as anyone thats been out of work for a certain period of time(can't remember what the exact time is, 6 months maybe?) or stops looking for a job.

So even if no new jobs are created the unemployment rate will still go down.

The actual unemployment rate is always much higher then it actually is, so its probably around 15% if discouraged workers are included.

Did you read the article?

Just asking, because that point is actually addressed fairly early in it.

 Seaward wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Illegals arn't included in Employment numbers. Only legal residents between the ages of 16 and 55, arn't enrolled in school, are activly looking for a job, or have one are counted.

Right, he's saying illegal immigration has dropped, so Americans or legal residents are picking up the jobs the illegals would've had.

I believe.

Except the jobs the majority of illegals take are agricultural jobs, such as picking produce, which the vast majority of people here would not even consider. Even though they pay good money.

I'd sure be nice if people would be willing to do actual labor but we are lazy americans after all.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The London Evening Standard pointed out that while more jobs have been created than have been lost since 2008 (over 4 million) the growth of population has outpaced that, so unemployment is still rising.

Immigration, and specifically illegal immigration and the numbers of resident illegals has fallen since the recession started. Is that accounted for in that? A movement towards those jobs from being counted within standard birth statistics could alter the numbers a few points.

Illegals arn't included in Employment numbers. Only legal residents between the ages of 16 and 55, arn't enrolled in school, are activly looking for a job, or have one are counted.

That can't be correct since the numbers include seasonal temporary work which so far as I know is largely impacted by college students getting vacation time work. That sounds like a very constrained number if it can't count the college going populace which is a large percentage of the population up through aged up to 22-24.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Illegals arn't included in Employment numbers. Only legal residents between the ages of 16 and 55, arn't enrolled in school, are activly looking for a job, or have one are counted.

Right, he's saying illegal immigration has dropped, so Americans or legal residents are picking up the jobs the illegals would've had.

I believe.

Except the jobs the majority of illegals take are agricultural jobs, such as picking produce, which the vast majority of people here would not even consider. Even though they pay good money.

No, they don't.

They arn't included because of that seasonal fluctuation. Including them would give an unstable picture of the actual economy. They are used for other numbers however.

 Grey Templar wrote:
They arn't included because of that seasonal fluctuation. Including them would give an unstable picture of the actual economy. They are used for other numbers however.

So when they say that the numbers are seasonally adjusted, that's what they mean? Huh, I figured that part was in the basic unemployment statistic and seasonal adjustments were just adjustments based on historical trends to account for short term changes. I suppose seasonal temp work is a short term change.

Exactly. Economics is complicated for the uninitiated. I'm just starting to understand it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Exactly. Economics is complicated for the uninitiated. I'm just starting to understand it.

I think I just ended up assuming that was in there because I've never not heard someone use the seasonally adjusted rate when describing unemployment numbers. The rest of the caveats for what is and isn't in the unemployment numbers was known to me, but that one was kinda out of left field. They should probably just put that in there in the first place, I'm kinda scratching my head as to why they don't.

its because if you include seasonal fluctuations it can give a false picture of the economy.

So we have college students getting part time jobs over the summer. If we included these numbers it could give a false picture that the economy is improving because more people are getting work. Likewise we would register a false economic dip when these students went back to school.

Similer fluctuations would also register for seasonal jobs such as Fishing, Crop harvesting, or Tourist based jobs.


By eliminating these variables we get a picture of whats really going on.

 Grey Templar wrote:
its because if you include seasonal fluctuations it can give a false picture of the economy.

So we have college students getting part time jobs over the summer. If we included these numbers it could give a false picture that the economy is improving because more people are getting work. Likewise we would register a false economic dip when these students went back to school.

Similer fluctuations would also register for seasonal jobs such as Fishing, Crop harvesting, or Tourist based jobs.


By eliminating these variables we get a picture of whats really going on.

That only works insofar as you discount a significant portion of the population, which in and of itself invalidates the employment statistic as a meaningful tool for viewing employment. Seasonal and temporary work is more important to the American population now than it likely has been in decades, discounting it to get a picture of whats really going on would seem to do more damage than good. That's why I thought seasonally adjusted numbers used historical trends to place increases or decreases in temp labor markets at an adjusted rate for the year (which is what it is and is why everyone uses it). That's not something impossible to use in the base report.

Those people are not significant contributers to the economy because of the fluctuation.

The best way to guage the state of the economy is to measure the people with stable jobs that don't fluctuate, they are what actually indicates an economic downturn. hence why the other workers are not measured.

Those people are not significant contributers to the economy because of the fluctuation.

That's inaccurate. Fluctuation =/= insignificant contribution.

The best way to guage the state of the economy is to measure the people with stable jobs that don't fluctuate, they are what actually indicates an economic downturn. hence why the other workers are not measured.

Why is that more accurate than measuring a seasonally adjusted rate? All you're doing is discounting an increasingly significant portion of the economy for the sake of easy math.

Math that shows what the actual picture is. Including them would squew the results depending on the time of year.

Anyone hear about the guy that tweeted this was a product of the Chicago machine? I loled.
But yeah this is the product of more long term unemployed and discouraged workers dropping off than actual employment risig. The timing would be suspicious if it hadn't been coming for awhile.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Math that shows what the actual picture is. Including them would squew the results depending on the time of year.

...

Which is why it's important to metric those using historical trends rather than arbitrarily missing industries. It's not an accurate employment picture when agriculture is missing from it. I'm pretty sure the reason everyone uses seasonally adjusted numbers everywhere all the time is precisely because the base statistic isn't really a strong indicator of current economic performance in a modern U.S. economy with its increasingly transient workforce.

Agriculture isn't a good indicator of the economy anyway, because food consumption doesn't change during an economic downturn very much. Food is cheap enough to where it doesn't fluctuate with the economy, it fluctuates with restrictive legislation and changes in weather.

The Agricultural Industry is very stable.

 AustonT wrote:
Anyone hear about the guy that tweeted this was a product of the Chicago machine? I loled.
But yeah this is the product of more long term unemployed and discouraged workers dropping off than actual employment risig. The timing would be suspicious if it hadn't been coming for awhile.

Second time that commend has been made, and again, did you guys read the article?

Unemployment unexpectedly fell to 7.8% in September, down from 8.1%, as a survey of U.S. households showed 873,000 more Americans had jobs compared to a month earlier.

So not quite a million people got jobs, but the reason the number dropped is because people stopped looking for work?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Agriculture isn't a good indicator of the economy anyway, because food consumption doesn't change during an economic downturn very much. Food is cheap enough to where it doesn't fluctuate with the economy, it fluctuates with restrictive legislation and changes in weather.

The Agricultural Industry is very stable.

I think you're talking past my actual arguments at this point.

It means 873,000 more jobs were added compared to last month, and the Unemployment rate went down. But the 2 are not related. The unemployment rate has dropped because more unemployed people have moved into the discouraged workers class, which is not counted. The jobs added are not responsable for the decline.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If the rate had dropped to the normal rate of 5% then it might effect the Election in a measurable way.

If the economy were adding 500,000 new jobs a months Obama would be ahead by 35 points methinks.

 d-usa wrote:
So not quite a million people got jobs, but the reason the number dropped is because people stopped looking for work?

@d-usa: If you want to understand the Republican perspective on this figure, you'll need to squeeze your eyes tightly shut, put your fingers in your ears, and yell "Obama will destroy civilization" at the very top of your lungs.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't see how new jobs are less than 120,000 yet the unemployment rate suddenly falls .3%. Must be that new math.

No, its new definitions.

Aren't they also saying 800,000 joined the employed or something? I'm seriously not getting it, unless its bs shenanigans.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It means 873,000 more jobs were added compared to last month, and the Unemployment rate went down. But the 2 are not related. The unemployment rate has dropped because more unemployed people have moved into the discouraged workers class, which is not counted. The jobs added are not responsable for the decline.

Did you read the article? Because I really don't think you did and are just repeating talking points.

Where did you get the idea that 873,000 more lobs were added compared to last month?

I was replying to your post.

The article makes it pretty clear that there are two separate surveys.

One is the unemployment survey:

Unemployment unexpectedly fell to 7.8% in September, down from 8.1%, as a survey of U.S. households showed 873,000 more Americans had jobs compared to a month earlier.

And the other is the jobs-added survey:

A separate survey of employers, considered the key metric that Wall Street watches, showed businesses added 114,000 jobs in September. It marked a slowdown in hiring, after July and August were revised significantly higher.

Yet somehow you are saying that both those surveys are wrong, unemployment dropped instead of 873,000 people getting jobs they really just stopped looking for work. And instead of 114,000 jobs added they added 873,000?

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It means 873,000 more jobs were added compared to last month, and the Unemployment rate went down. But the 2 are not related. The unemployment rate has dropped because more unemployed people have moved into the discouraged workers class, which is not counted. The jobs added are not responsable for the decline.

Did you read the article? Because I really don't think you did and are just repeating talking points.

Where did you get the idea that 873,000 more lobs were added compared to last month?

From articles like this? This is why I'm confused.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-unemployment-falls-7-8-pct-44-month-155317944--finance.html

How did "the employed" jump 873,000 here were only 114,000 net new jobs? I think Dogma's right. The definition's been changed which means people are playing with the numbers.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I was replying to your post.

Which had the quote from the article, stating that 873,000 more people had jobs than last month.

If you are not going to read the article and comment on facts, then proceed with the posting of predetermined talking points.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It means 873,000 more jobs were added compared to last month, and the Unemployment rate went down. But the 2 are not related. The unemployment rate has dropped because more unemployed people have moved into the discouraged workers class, which is not counted. The jobs added are not responsable for the decline.

The article doesn't actually state that. It gives two sentences to underemployment at all and mostly just states it's current rate. Looking at other articles it doesn't appear that the undermployment rate has increased as the actual labor pool itself increased (something that doesn't occur with a significant increase in underemployment).

Wait, what?

The article has these fact in it, one of which is the 873,000 jobs. And I was talking about it.

I'm confused?

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It means 873,000 more jobs were added compared to last month, and the Unemployment rate went down. But the 2 are not related. The unemployment rate has dropped because more unemployed people have moved into the discouraged workers class, which is not counted. The jobs added are not responsable for the decline.

Did you read the article? Because I really don't think you did and are just repeating talking points.

Where did you get the idea that 873,000 more lobs were added compared to last month?

From articles like this? This is why I'm confused.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-unemployment-falls-7-8-pct-44-month-155317944--finance.html

How did "the employed" jump 873,000 here were only 114,000 net new jobs? I think Dogma's right. The definition's been changed which means people are playing with the numbers.

What is their definition of "adding new jobs"? That would be something to look into before I could figure it out.

From reading the article it also states that many of the jobs are part-time jobs. So it could possibly be a case of "1 new job added = 1 FTE" and "2 people employed part time = 1 FTE". I honestly don't know.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It means 873,000 more jobs were added compared to last month, and the Unemployment rate went down. But the 2 are not related. The unemployment rate has dropped because more unemployed people have moved into the discouraged workers class, which is not counted. The jobs added are not responsable for the decline.

Did you read the article? Because I really don't think you did and are just repeating talking points.

Where did you get the idea that 873,000 more lobs were added compared to last month?

From articles like this? This is why I'm confused.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-unemployment-falls-7-8-pct-44-month-155317944--finance.html

How did "the employed" jump 873,000 here were only 114,000 net new jobs? I think Dogma's right. The definition's been changed which means people are playing with the numbers.

I keep reading 530 thousand new temp and seasonal jobs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Wait, what?

The article has these fact in it, one of which is the 873,000 jobs. And I was talking about it.

I'm confused?

You are correlating the rise in unemployment with a rise in underemployment without actual evidence.

 d-usa wrote:
The article makes it pretty clear that there are two separate surveys.

One is the unemployment survey:

Unemployment unexpectedly fell to 7.8% in September, down from 8.1%, as a survey of U.S. households showed 873,000 more Americans had jobs compared to a month earlier.

And the other is the jobs-added survey:

A separate survey of employers, considered the key metric that Wall Street watches, showed businesses added 114,000 jobs in September. It marked a slowdown in hiring, after July and August were revised significantly higher.

Yet somehow you are saying that both those surveys are wrong, unemployment dropped instead of 873,000 people getting jobs they really just stopped looking for work. And instead of 114,000 jobs added they added 873,000?

So both studies are contradicting? One is saying there were 873,000 new jobs? Thats higher than anything since 1st Qtr 1942.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Wait, what?

The article has these fact in it, one of which is the 873,000 jobs. And I was talking about it.

I'm confused?

Here is the exact quote from the article, exactly like I posted it:

Unemployment unexpectedly fell to 7.8% in September, down from 8.1%, as a survey of U.S. households showed 873,000 more Americans had jobs compared to a month earlier.

You then somehow turned than into this:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It means 873,000 more jobs were added compared to last month,

The added jobs were a completely separate number, included in the article. An article which by your own admission you have not read but somehow continue to argue against.

They can't be a separate number. Either new jobs were added or there weren't. Were does the 873,000 come from?

And you obviously arn't getting my point.

Which is that the Unemployment number and Jobs added numbers don't tell the whole story. I'm not arguing against the article.

 Frazzled wrote:
They can't be a separate number. Either new jobs were added or there weren't. Were does the 873,000 come from?

People saying that they are working now?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And you obviously arn't getting my point.

Which is that the Unemployment number and Jobs added numbers don't tell the whole story. I'm not arguing against the article.

Then what is your proof that the reason the number fell is that people stopped looking for work?

From the article Frazzled posted:

The number of unemployed Americans is now 12.1 million, the fewest since January 2009.

The Labor Department said employers added 114,000 jobs in September. It also said 86,000 more jobs were added in July and August than the department had initially estimated.
Still, many of the jobs the economy added last month were part time. The number of people with part-time jobs who wanted full-time work rose 7.5 percent to 8.6 million, the most since February 2009.

But overall, Friday's report dispelled some fears about the job market. Average wages rose. And more people started looking for work.

One number is a measurement of how many more people say they are employed.

The other number is a measurement of how many new positions are available.

Why would they need to be the same?

If I'm reading these right... Here’s the net-net:

net 114,000 new full-time jobs
net 456,000 people who left the unemployed list — discouraged or whatever
net 600,000 people added to part-time workers.
What distinguishes part-time workers from full-time? In general, part-time workers don’t get benefits — like health insurance.


What these numbers seem to be telling us is that it’s too expensive to pay for benefits.

I'll be curious what's the split differential in hirings between full timers with benefits vs. part times w/o benefits?

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
They can't be a separate number. Either new jobs were added or there weren't. Were does the 873,000 come from?

People saying that they are working now?

So its worthless because either this oen or the months before were wrong, and the only that matters is the one that shows only 114,000 jobs were created?

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
They can't be a separate number. Either new jobs were added or there weren't. Were does the 873,000 come from?

People saying that they are working now?

So its worthless because either this oen or the months before were wrong, and the only that matters is the one that shows only 114,000 jobs were created?

I am sure that the unemployed who enjoy their welfare got together and decided to lie to the people who do the survey so that Obama could have better numbers and get reelected and give them more handouts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
If I'm reading these right... Here’s the net-net:

net 114,000 new full-time jobs
net 456,000 people who left the unemployed list — discouraged or whatever
net 600,000 people added to part-time workers.
What distinguishes part-time workers from full-time? In general, part-time workers don’t get benefits — like health insurance.


What these numbers seem to be telling us is that it’s too expensive to pay for benefits.

I'll be curious what's the split differential in hirings between full timers with benefits vs. part times w/o benefits?

Any source for these numbers? Because they don't match either article posted, and none of them give any number of people who left the unemployment list for whatever reason. They only give 873,000 who are not working.

 Manchu wrote:
One number is a measurement of how many more people say they are employed.

The other number is a measurement of how many new positions are available.

Why would they need to be the same?

Because one is saying that 873,000 more people are employed now than a month ago. The other is saying something quite differently. You have to have apples to apples comparison or its just a convenient storyline.

873,000 would be a huge number to get jobs in a single month.

 whembly wrote:
If I'm reading these right... Here’s the net-net:

net 114,000 new full-time jobs
net 456,000 people who left the unemployed list — discouraged or whatever
net 600,000 people added to part-time workers.
What distinguishes part-time workers from full-time? In general, part-time workers don’t get benefits — like health insurance.


What these numbers seem to be telling us is that it’s too expensive to pay for benefits.

I'll be curious what's the split differential in hirings between full timers with benefits vs. part times w/o benefits?

A trend towards temp and seasonal work has been visible for more than a decade as older career business and manufacturing jobs become temp. It could well be linked to healthcare costs, but it's hardly new.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
One number is a measurement of how many more people say they are employed.

The other number is a measurement of how many new positions are available.

Why would they need to be the same?

Because one is saying that 873,000 more people are employed now than a month ago. The other is saying something quite differently. You have to have apples to apples comparison or its just a convenient storyline.

You have apple to apple by comparing all the "jobs added" reports form month to month.

You have apple to apple by comparing all the "I am working / not working" reports from month to month.

They don't have to be the same.

Here is a crazy wild idea. Maybe the people that did the survey work for companies or small businesses that didn't get a phone call from the other survey asking if they added jobs?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
One number is a measurement of how many more people say they are employed.

The other number is a measurement of how many new positions are available.

Why would they need to be the same?

Because one is saying that 873,000 more people are employed now than a month ago. The other is saying something quite differently.

Yes ... that's kind of the point.

 Frazzled wrote:
You have to have apples to apples comparison or its just a convenient storyline.

But of course, only you are comparing the 873k against the 114k ... for some unknown reason.

Some stuff does seem fishy here.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
They can't be a separate number. Either new jobs were added or there weren't. Were does the 873,000 come from?

People saying that they are working now?

So its worthless because either this oen or the months before were wrong, and the only that matters is the one that shows only 114,000 jobs were created?

I am sure that the unemployed who enjoy their welfare got together and decided to lie to the people who do the survey so that Obama could have better numbers and get reelected and give them more handouts.

Don't be snippy. Its a simple math thing. If you are comparing results then you have to compare results. I can see the latter report (which sucks actually) but the former is effectively someone trying to slough a sampling glitch (in a big a way). In essence their methodology is unsound. Must be some sort of survey.

If 873,000 jobs were added, I'd be dancing in the streets and change my affiliation to Democrat, because thats like the higest rate of growth in generations.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Some stuff does seem fishy here.

They did a survey of some random businesses, they said they added 114K jobs.

They did a survey of some random households, they said they got 873K new jobs.

The only way that would be fishy is if for some reason they only randomly called households that would only work for the random businesses they called.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
One number is a measurement of how many more people say they are employed.

The other number is a measurement of how many new positions are available.

Why would they need to be the same?

Because one is saying that 873,000 more people are employed now than a month ago. The other is saying something quite differently.

Yes ... that's kind of the point.

 Frazzled wrote:
You have to have apples to apples comparison or its just a convenient storyline.

But of course, only you are comparing the 873k against the 114k ... for some unknown reason.

Mathmatical analysis. If you are testing something you have to have the same baseline from period to period other than the variable being tested, else your test is gibberish (and something only a marketer would use heh heh).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Some stuff does seem fishy here.

They did a survey of some random businesses, they said they added 114K jobs.

They did a survey of some random households, they said they got 873K new jobs.

The only way that would be fishy is if for some reason they only randomly called households that would only work for the random businesses they called.

Thats extremely fishy in that its just a poll at that point. You can't say new jobs amounted to X if your baseline changes from period to period. Its two variables at once.

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Some stuff does seem fishy here.

They did a survey of some random businesses, they said they added 114K jobs.

They did a survey of some random households, they said they got 873K new jobs.

The only way that would be fishy is if for some reason they only randomly called households that would only work for the random businesses they called.

Survey results give estimates,

Obviously 873k jobs is way too high, so the survey for that obviously was flawed.

 Frazzled wrote:
Mathmatical analysis. If you are testing something you have to have the same baseline from period to period other than the variable being tested, else your test is gibberish (and something only a marketer would use heh heh).

LOL, all the comparisons are made from the same baselines. The different figures come from different questions. You'll break your spine if you bend over any further backwards!

 d-usa wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
If I'm reading these right... Here’s the net-net:

net 114,000 new full-time jobs
net 456,000 people who left the unemployed list — discouraged or whatever
net 600,000 people added to part-time workers.
What distinguishes part-time workers from full-time? In general, part-time workers don’t get benefits — like health insurance.


What these numbers seem to be telling us is that it’s too expensive to pay for benefits.

I'll be curious what's the split differential in hirings between full timers with benefits vs. part times w/o benefits?

Any source for these numbers? Because they don't match either article posted, and none of them give any number of people who left the unemployment list for whatever reason. They only give 873,000 who are not working.

That's why I prefaced it with "if I'm reading this right"... Here's the source:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Folks, please please please read: the figure isn't 873k new jobs, the figure is 873k more people employed. By contrast there are 114k new jobs.

Are they counting self employed?

Maybe some charts would be illuminating:


Labor participation chart:

The terms are "total employment" (873k more in September) and "total payroll employment" (114k more in September).

 Manchu wrote:
The terms are "total employment" (873k more in September) and "total payroll employment" (114k more in September).

Ah... thanks... that's clearer to me now.

 whembly wrote:
Maybe some charts would be illuminating:

They must be charting economic indicators in Narnia. "Unemployment Rate Without Recovery Plan"? Lolwut? And I didn't know the recession ended in mid-2009. That's great news!

 Manchu wrote:
Folks, please please please read: the figure isn't 873k new jobs, the figure is 873k more people employed. By contrast there are 114k new jobs.

More employed equals more jobs than previously surveyed. So either their methodology is dog gak or suddenly there are 873,000 new jobs.

 Frazzled wrote:
suddenly there are 873,000 new jobs.

You'd better go ahead and call the local election board. You'll be voting Democrat come November.

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Maybe some charts would be illuminating:

They must be charting economic indicators in Narnia. "Unemployment Rate Without Recovery Plan"? Lolwut? And I didn't know the recession ended in mid-2009. That's great news!

The "Recovery Plan" were the Stimulate package...

We're technically not in a recession... doesn't the GDP need to decline for at least two consecutive months to be technically called a recession? Or, am I thinking of something else?

 whembly wrote:
We're technically not in a recession...

This is true. So why isn't everything exactly like it was in 2000??? It would take some kind of tactical genius -- Obamaaaaaa!

 d-usa wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Anyone hear about the guy that tweeted this was a product of the Chicago machine? I loled.
But yeah this is the product of more long term unemployed and discouraged workers dropping off than actual employment risig. The timing would be suspicious if it hadn't been coming for awhile.

Second time that commend has been made, and again, did you guys read the article?

No, I read the primary document @bls.gov.

Unemployment unexpectedly fell to 7.8% in September, down from 8.1%, as a survey of U.S. households showed 873,000 more Americans had jobs compared to a month earlier.

So not quite a million people got jobs, but the reason the number dropped is because people stopped looking for work?

I and oddly enough Paul fething Krugman, look at the Employment to Population ratio. I out of laziness just use the EP as reported by BLS, PK uses prime age EP. I are not economist.
The report shows an EP of 58.7 % with an U of 7.8 Lets compare that to the last time the EP was @ 58.7%: May 2010 the unemployment rate? 9.6 how about the two times before that Apr 2010 and Sep 09: 9.9 and 9.8 respectively.
The EP is unaffected by workers dropping out of the labor force or reentering it, part time employment, or any of the number of distorting factors in the calculation of the unemployment rate. Why am I not jumping for joy that the unemployment rate has dipped to 7.8? Because the inverse relationship of EP and U has been broken by longterm unemployment and discouraged workers. Or as my pet liberal economist says.

Pet liberal economist wrote: A plunge and a stabilization at a depressed level, which has now gone on for almost three years. Everything else is just noise.

800,000 jobs and 7.8% unemployment are talking points, The amount of Americans out of work is a pretty flat line represented by the EP.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So not quite a million people got jobs, but the reason the number dropped is because people stopped looking for work?

@d-usa: If you want to understand the Republican perspective on this figure, you'll need to squeeze your eyes tightly shut, put your fingers in your ears, and yell "Obama will destroy civilization" at the very top of your lungs.

Yeah, we'll be over here in the real world when you pull your head out of the sand and want to talk about the economy.

Lol have you even read Krugman today?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/democrat-derangement-syndrome/

Everything sucks, and if you think stuff is getting better then you are pro-Obama and cheating.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/05/news/economy/welch-unemployment-rate/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 d-usa wrote:
Everything sucks, and if you think stuff is getting better then you are pro-Obama and cheating.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/05/news/economy/welch-unemployment-rate/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

meh...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157871/unadjusted-unemployment-rate-september.aspx

It'll go down again due to Christmas season coming up...

The bigger news is that labor participation is shrinking still...

snippit:

Despite the slight decline in unemployment in September, unadjusted U.S. unemployment has remained relatively stagnant since May, and has shown little variation from May's 8.0% unadjusted rate. Greater change will be needed before unemployed and underemployed Americans begin to feel relief, which is likely reflected in their diminished levels of hope. Stagnant unemployment rates may be leading to feelings that there will not be an improvement in the near future.

 Frazzled wrote:

Aren't they also saying 800,000 joined the employed or something? I'm seriously not getting it, unless its bs shenanigans.

I was wrong, this...

The rate declined from 8.1 percent because the number of people who said they were employed soared by 873,000 — an encouraging sign for an economy that's been struggling to create enough jobs.

....is correct. Somehow Yahoo stumbled upon the right answer.

 Frazzled wrote:

More employed equals more jobs than previously surveyed. So either their methodology is dog gak or suddenly there are 873,000 new jobs.

No, you're conflating "employment" with "job creation".

Employment involves whether or not a person is employed, job creation involves whether or not there a new call for an employee.

Those 873,000 didn't magically become employed without a new job. Its either statistical glitch or they screwed up in their previous reports.

 Frazzled wrote:
Those 873,000 didn't magically become employed without a new job. Its either statistical glitch or they screwed up in their previous reports.

The job may have been new to them, but not new in general.

A major issue with the present employment environment is connecting the unemployed with employers. The saying goes that most jobs aren't advertised, this is a problem.

Manchu wrote:Lol have you even read Krugman today?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/democrat-derangement-syndrome/

Paul Krugman wrote:Everything else is just noise

And also no. I don't need a liberal conscience, I had mine aborted.

I have no idea what this "Labor Department" nonsense is, but it smells like a scam. Probably more just bloated government, nanny state socialism. Whatever, I don't care about it or it's sources. I know a number I like when I see one, and this isn't one. 7.8% that's fishy, it doesn't feel right. Ok and it doesn't check with the real sources. If you wanna know what the "President" is really doing, check out the actual story the graph says it all.

Please don't post images of that nature again. Thanks. AOE

That's right america. They're hiring mexicans to kill your grandma. You better act before they take your guns so the mexicans can shoot her with them.

Chongra...

/thread

 whembly wrote:
Chongra...

/thread

Well then, I guess I'm just glad that I was too lazy to make the graph showing the vigorous state romney would leave the economy in, with rising prosperity and powerful economic growth.

And that is why we can't have nice things.

 d-usa wrote:
And that is why we can't have nice things.

?? Rothman Furniture out in Oklahoma?

 Chongara wrote:
Well then, I guess I'm just glad that I was too lazy to make the graph showing the vigorous state romney would leave the economy in, with rising prosperity and powerful economic growth.

Yeah, but Romney would create lots of new jobs and economic growth.




(So what if it's all in China, it's a global economy, right?)

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/05/966381/meet-the-conservatives-who-think-todays-job-numbers-are-a-conspiracy/

I don't think BLS cooked numbers. I think a bunch of Dems lied about getting jobs. That would have same effect

Is there no end to the perfidiousness of the electorate !

 reds8n wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/05/966381/meet-the-conservatives-who-think-todays-job-numbers-are-a-conspiracy/

I don't think BLS cooked numbers. I think a bunch of Dems lied about getting jobs. That would have same effect

Is there no end to the perfidiousness of the electorate !

I have to admit I fall into the camp that thinks there's some sort of anomaly with this report. It's...impressive, to say the least.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/former-bush-appointed-bls-head-its-impossible-to-manipulate-labor-survey-data/

The most recent head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, who was appointed by President Bush and left office at the end of his term earlier this year, is pushing back on the claims of Jack Welch and others that today’s jobs report numbers were manipulated somehow:
Keith Hall, who served as Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 2008 until 2012, said in an interview Friday that there is no way someone at the agency could change any of the data from its two monthly employment surveys. The significant improvement in the unemployment rate may reflect normal statistical errors in the sampling process, he said, but that has nothing to do with manipulation.
“There’s nothing wrong with the numbers,” said Mr. Hall. “The only issue is the interpretation of the numbers. The numbers are what they are.”
For September, the politically important unemployment rate fell to 7.8% in September from 8.1% the prior month, according to the Labor Department. That was the lowest level since January 2009 and well below the 8.1% forecast of economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires. The unemployment rate estimate is derived from a survey of households, which came up with an estimate that 863,000 jobs were added for the month.
But the separate establishment survey from which the official payrolls number is derived reported a more modest seasonally adjusted gain of 114,000 jobs in September. That was below the consensus forecast of 118,000, though the previous two months were revised higher.
Mr. Hall said the inconsistent reports reflect the different samples used in the two surveys, one focused on households the other on businesses. The establishment survey has a huge sample size of 141,000 business and agencies covering 486,000 worksites, whereas the household survey covers just 60,000 homes.
“The household survey is much smaller. When you look at something like labor force and employment levels, the uncertainty of those numbers is much larger,” said Mr. Hall. “Within two months, the household survey could show the unemployment rate eking back up.”
The fact that we’re even arguing over a nonsense theory like this just shows how idiotic our politics has become, and yes in this case it is a certain wing of the Republican Party that is at fault. Is it possible that the BLS reports may not be correctly measuring the state of the Labor Market? I would say that it is and that we probably ought to do what we can to make sure those statistics are accurate. The argument that this month’s report was politically manipulated, though, is the equivalent of 9/11 Trutherism, Birtherism, and last week’s conspiracy of the week, Poll Denialism.

I give that statement about two and a half minutes to stand unmolested on the interwebs before a conservative points out Bush was no true Republican and probably appointed someone he knew would cook the numbers for the next guy.

It seems impossible that the numbers are right - unless that was indeed a squadron of pigs that buzzed my house earlier - but I don't attribute it to malice aforethought, just a statistical blip.

800,000+ jobs is extremely impressive, considering the last couple months the "new jobs" rate has been around 1/4 of that I think it's reasonable for someone to ask questions. Especially in an election as nasty as this one.

If they were going to alter numbers I really doubt they'd go to 800k.

1st tip of faking numbers: make them something that people are not going to question.

Amazing that people think that folks are smart enough to cook numbers, but dumb enough to get caught.

Oh no, I'm not calling fake here. Human error somewhere in data land? There's a possibility.

If we are thinking data error, couldn't it be just as likely that last months survey was off and should have been 8.0 instead of 8.1%, which would make this months drop a good bit smaller and less of a statistical bump?

Anything could have caused this messup, there could have been error this month or the previous. Although I am inclined to think its this months error, given the high profile of this sort of monitoring I think even a small error would have been noticed.

It's entirely possible. That's the fun of data errors, there's unlimited potential to create them. Especially in a bureaucratic environment.

Still very odd to quadruple growth in a month.

Which is a good indicator of an Error.

Being off by a couple points is forgivable and within the margin of error thats always present, but to have an increase this big is just impossable.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which is a good indicator of an Error.

Being off by a couple points is forgivable and within the margin of error thats always present, but to have an increase this big is just impossable.

But if last month and this month are on opposite sides of the margin of error, then they could be perfectly viable. If last month was 0.1% too high, then we would only have a 0.2% drop. If this month is 0.1% too low, then it would only be a 0.1% drop.

Maybe Obama is just as good as Reagan...

 Grey Templar wrote:

Being off by a couple points is forgivable and within the margin of error thats always present, but to have an increase this big is just impossable.

The standard confidence interval for any particular statistical study is 95%, this means that the margin of error is 2.5% across the entire sample. That might not seem like much, but with samples as large as CPS and CES the relevant variation is easy to account for.

For anyone interested here is the BLS methodology.

This seems erroneous to me too. I don't buy the whole conspiracy angle; I'm thinking just plain error, no malice or shadiness needed.

But I don't understand how these sorts of numbers are generated so have to rely on the judgement of those whom I trust here who say they do, and what they think.

Erm...
http://pointsandfigures.com/2012/10/06/some-quick-thoughts-on-unemployment/

I always discount the headline number anyway. U-6 didn’t budge. The headline number probably can be explained by technicalities over counting part time workers. But what worries me is the macro situation we have. 114K of non-farm jobs is pitiful. America needs to create over 300k jobs per month to really dent our employment problems. Additionally, GDP is more pitiful than the employment statistics. America needs 3-3.5% growth to keep moving ahead, creating wealth and more importantly, being ahead of inflation. At lower than 2% growth we are gradually becoming a nation of paupers.

Using accounting logic allows a candidate to say, if you lower taxes by x%, revenue will drop.”. It’s a stupid statement economically because it doesn’t account for a change in incentives.

No, that's nonsense. While the author is correct that such a claim doesn't account for a change in incentives, it is nonsense to claim such a statement is stupid "economically." If you lower taxes by a particular percentage revenue will drop over the short term, it might rise in the long term but whether or not it will is an open question that depends on more than the tax rate. This is why there is a difference between economics as studied, and economics as applied in the form of policy.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Being off by a couple points is forgivable and within the margin of error thats always present, but to have an increase this big is just impossable.

The standard confidence interval for any particular statistical study is 95%, this means that the margin of error is 2.5% across the entire sample. That might not seem like much, but with samples as large as CPS and CES the relevant variation is easy to account for.

For anyone interested here is the BLS methodology.

Thats the weakest standard. 1% deviation is more prudent for anything worthwhile.

.3 is not a major change considering the season.

We are in that special season when more people are hired to pick crops, more people are hired for vegetable cannery positions, and then more retail jobs and postal workers are being hired on before the Christmas rush.

The majority of those jobs last no longer than 3 months.

Also as I have understood it, the official unemployment rates do not count much of anyone other than those collecting an unemployment check.

There are a lot of people who never collect a check, either because thy can not, or do not want to.

Then as peoples unemployment benefits run out, if they still have not found work, they are taking off the count of unemployed people. Even though they are still unemployed.

The numbers are a combination of the fact that our Government is not the all seeing big brother, so can only use numbers immediately available to them ie: the stats from the state run employment agencies, and the seasonal workers added at this time of the year, which the Government gets info on through increased filings from employers on taxes.

They have no way of telling how many are temp seasonal jobs, or permanent hires. So they have a formula for calculating a %. That's where your term "seasonally adjusted" comes from.

It is an imperfect metric. The best indicator is to look around yourself locally, see how many people are out of work, losing their houses, etc. Some places are better or worse than others.

Areas in North Dakota, Texas doing fairly well. Employment rates of around 95%.

Areas in Oregon, Washington doing terrible. Some counties with employment rates barely at 50%.

In my own personal circle of friends, I count 25% who are either completely without work, or working such minimal hours and wanting more.

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't see how new jobs are less than 120,000 yet the unemployment rate suddenly falls .3%. Must be that new math.

It was 120,000 new full time positions. About half a million part time positions were created, moving people out of unemployment, but not into full time work. It's why underemployment is still really high.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its because Unemployment rates don't count discouraged workers, which is defined as anyone thats been out of work for a certain period of time(can't remember what the exact time is, 6 months maybe?) or stops looking for a job.

There was no significant change in participation in this month. The actual story is that part time work increased greatly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Probably pretty minimal. I could be wrong, but I doubt most Americans truly follow economic indicators. It's more a case of waiting for the experts to say, "Amazing news! We're so far out of the woods we're on the beach sipping mai tais!"

It isn't about people voting based on economic indicators. It's about what those economic indicators say about the economy, and how much a healthy economy helps an incumbent president. When someone gets a job, that person is a lot more likely to vote for the incumbent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
So when they say that the numbers are seasonally adjusted, that's what they mean? Huh, I figured that part was in the basic unemployment statistic and seasonal adjustments were just adjustments based on historical trends to account for short term changes. I suppose seasonal temp work is a short term change.

Gray Templar is wrong. Seasonally adjusted basically means to add or subtract a number to account for seasonal variation. So, for instance, in a given month it might be typical for the economy to gain 50,000 jobs more than normal because of greater seasonal activity. If the economy then created 150,000 jobs that'd look like a good result, but they'd cut that number by 50,000 to account for the seasonal variation, and then you'd have a 100,000 result that's not so good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
its because if you include seasonal fluctuations it can give a false picture of the economy.

So we have college students getting part time jobs over the summer. If we included these numbers it could give a false picture that the economy is improving because more people are getting work. Likewise we would register a false economic dip when these students went back to school.

Similer fluctuations would also register for seasonal jobs such as Fishing, Crop harvesting, or Tourist based jobs.


By eliminating these variables we get a picture of whats really going on.

Sure, but they don't account for those variables by just not including them (as if fishing was creating more jobs than normal that'd be worth knowing, similarly if summer retail jobs were way down on normal years it'd be worth knowing). So instead they include those numbers, but then adjust for their impact relative to other months.

So in November, for instance, which might normally create a lot of jobs in the South due to the cotton harvest, they might see 25,000 jobs created in North Carolina, but they'd say 'normally there's a 30,000 job spike in North Carolina in November, so it's actually a loss of 5,000 jobs in the state overall'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Aren't they also saying 800,000 joined the employed or something? I'm seriously not getting it, unless its bs shenanigans.

Just read the article. It's the creation of part time jobs, which is a mixed result, same as most economic indicators have been for the US for a while now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
From articles like this? This is why I'm confused.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-unemployment-falls-7-8-pct-44-month-155317944--finance.html

How did "the employed" jump 873,000 here were only 114,000 net new jobs? I think Dogma's right. The definition's been changed which means people are playing with the numbers.

Why would you just start guessing, instead of reading the article?

"In the most recent household survey, the biggest hiring gains came in the form of 582,000 new part-time jobs in September."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

The article doesn't actually state that. It gives two sentences to underemployment at all and mostly just states it's current rate. Looking at other articles it doesn't appear that the undermployment rate has increased as the actual labor pool itself increased (something that doesn't occur with a significant increase in underemployment).

The article says 582,000 people gained new part time positions. That will drop unemployment, because those people aren't unemployed anymore, but won't shift them out of underemployment, because it's likely almost all of them probably want more work hours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
So both studies are contradicting? One is saying there were 873,000 new jobs? Thats higher than anything since 1st Qtr 1942.

There was a mass of part time and seasonal jobs created, meaning lots of people who were unemployed aren't unemployed anymore. But they don't have new full time jobs, because it's only part time and seasonal work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
They can't be a separate number. Either new jobs were added or there weren't. Were does the 873,000 come from?

It's the people who didn't have jobs, but now do.

In comparison to a survey of businesses that asks 'did you create any new full time job last month?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
If I'm reading these right... Here’s the net-net:

net 114,000 new full-time jobs
net 456,000 people who left the unemployed list — discouraged or whatever
net 600,000 people added to part-time workers.
What distinguishes part-time workers from full-time? In general, part-time workers don’t get benefits — like health insurance.

That's a really political lurch to a conclusion.

It's more that the sectors that are recovering - like retail, tend to offer part time positions, while manufacturing, in which jobs are almost all full time, continues to struggle. What you're seeing here is a more in the general trend of the end of a cyclical depression - the most variable and fragile sectors of the economy are recovering the jobs lost in the crash post GFC. Meanwhile the underlying systemic problems with the US economy continue, and so manufacturing continues to stagnate.

One of those problems is the cost of healthcare (driven by the cost of medical services in the US), for sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
873,000 would be a huge number to get jobs in a single month.

It isn't the number of jobs. It's the number of people who are working, who weren't working before. They could be working 10 hours a week at Walmart. It isn't a proper job, but they're not unemployed anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Some stuff does seem fishy here.

"I don't understand how this works" does not equal "some stuff is fishy here"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Don't be snippy. Its a simple math thing. If you are comparing results then you have to compare results. I can see the latter report (which sucks actually) but the former is effectively someone trying to slough a sampling glitch (in a big a way). In essence their methodology is unsound. Must be some sort of survey.

If 873,000 jobs were added, I'd be dancing in the streets and change my affiliation to Democrat, because thats like the higest rate of growth in generations.

The story here is that a lot of gakky, part time jobs were created, meaning that people were no longer unemployed, but certainly can't be counted as being in a good job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Survey results give estimates,

Obviously 873k jobs is way too high, so the survey for that obviously was flawed.

You cannot call a survey flawed because you think the number it produced is weird. I mean, at this point you're saying 'oh I know there's dozens of economists working in the Bureau of Labor who've steadily built this economic indicator over years and work with it daily, but they're all wrong because I saw the number and thought it was weird.'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Those 873,000 didn't magically become employed without a new job. Its either statistical glitch or they screwed up in their previous reports.

Or you don't understand what a number means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:
Well then, I guess I'm just glad that I was too lazy to make the graph showing the vigorous state romney would leave the economy in, with rising prosperity and powerful economic growth.

Hey, Romney pledged to create 12 million new jobs, and he didn't bother to explain how. Turns out that's okay, because under present circumstances the economy is predicted to grow 12 million jobs in the next four years as it is.

So vote Romney, because he'll just keep doing what is already happening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats the weakest standard. 1% deviation is more prudent for anything worthwhile.

It's the only standard practical in a wide variety of economics measures, given the cost of producing data points, and the scale and diversity of the economy.

Gray Templar is wrong. Seasonally adjusted basically means to add or subtract a number to account for seasonal variation. So, for instance, in a given month it might be typical for the economy to gain 50,000 jobs more than normal because of greater seasonal activity. If the economy then created 150,000 jobs that'd look like a good result, but they'd cut that number by 50,000 to account for the seasonal variation, and then you'd have a 100,000 result that's not so good.

Yeah, that's what I thought it meant. People tryin' to trick me.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Yeah, that's what I thought it meant. People tryin' to trick me.

Yeah. I mean there are some things that are ignored, like major disasters, because there's no way to guess how many jobs Katrina cost with any sensible level of accuracy, so they just put a line through it, but for seasonal stuff they include it and then adjust for the seasonal average variation.

I think what we're arguing about here really comes down to loaded terms now that I think about it. It's not the facts that are different it's how those facts are presented.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I think what we're arguing about here really comes down to loaded terms now that I think about it. It's not the facts that are different it's how those facts are presented.

I think the bigger problem is that these numbers are released, as they are every month, with an assumption of some level of political knowledge on the part of the reader. They are, afterall, there primarily for the use by economists at various banks and investment houses.

Except this month, because we're nearing an election, there's a lot of interest from political pundits and people like us on dakka. So when the survey throws up some unusual numbers, you have a lot of people with little knowledge of how these figures are calculated trying to declare they know why the figure doesn't tell them the truth their political ideology was telling them to expect.

To be honest, 'it's a political conspiracy' seems only slightly more ridiculous than 'that number is broken because it seems higher than I would think, given my extensive experience as some guy on the internet'.

Very true. The political pundits goes back to loaded terms. Give me any set of numbers and depending on how you present it it can create an entirely different reaction. This is especially true for politics.

Best explanation so far as to why Obama's unemployment figures are improving:


COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good subject, terrible times; it's 9%.


COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.


COSTELLO: You just said 9%.

ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.


COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.


COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that's 9%...


COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE!!! Is it 9% or 16%?

ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed; 16% are out of work.


COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, you can't count the Out of Work as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.


COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!

ABBOTT: No, you miss my point.


COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.


COSTELLO: To who?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.


COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work stopped looking. They gave up and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.


COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down, absolutely!


COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down and that's how you get to 9%. Otherwise it would be 16%. Who wants to read about 16% unemployment?


COSTELLO: That would be frightening.

ABBOTT: Absolutely.


COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you, that means they're two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.


COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.


COSTELLO: And unemployment goes down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.


COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to just stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an economist.


COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!

Wall of text that has nothing to do with the topic on hand, congrats.

And again: the reports made it pretty clear that the reason the number went down is because people got part-time jobs, and not because they gave up looking.

Now please continue with your scheduled programming of ignoring the facts.

 d-usa wrote:
Now please continue with your scheduled programming of ignoring the facts.

Can we do it without insulting the good work of Abbott and Costello?

Not if you are using their good name to try to make a stupid point that ignores the facts and then not even make a funny joke in the process.

They deserve better than that.

But that bit was undoubtedly taken right from the GOP's distributed talking points.

Are you telling me that the Republicans' daily talking points AREN'T funny? I beg to differ, sir.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which is a good indicator of an Error.

Especially if you hate Obama and Democrats!

 d-usa wrote:
Not if you are using their good name to try to make a stupid point that ignores the facts and then not even make a funny joke in the process.

They deserve better than that.

Erhm... take a breath dude...

It was my attempt to make this situation funny.

Also, I suspect that the Unemployment would be driven lower due to the holiday season coming up.

But the real question is, do we really believe that things are getting better?

The Abbott and Costello skit was largely correct in its factual presentation of how employed vs. unemployed vs. real unemployment are tabulated.

If everyone without a job simply stopped looking for one, unemployment would drop to zero.

The reason that there's a difference between 'unemployment' and 'without a job' is because people retire, could 'opt out' of the workforce to be a stay at home parent, could go on a religious sabbatical, etc. In this case, 'etc' includes 'I haven't been able to find a suitable job and gave up'.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Not if you are using their good name to try to make a stupid point that ignores the facts and then not even make a funny joke in the process.

They deserve better than that.

Erhm... take a breath dude...

It was my attempt to make this situation funny.

Also, I suspect that the Unemployment would be driven lower due to the holiday season coming up.

But the real question is, do we really believe that things are getting better?

There are various economic indicators for several months that things are recovering a bit in the US.

There are two worries with them.

First, historically the US tends to boast (overestimate) about its economic performance, and it gets downgraded later. (The opposite to UK stats.)

Second, with globalisation, the US economy's recovery could easily be upset by the Euro zone or China slipping back, even if it is starting to post some genuine good results.

 whembly wrote:
Best explanation so far as to why Obama's unemployment figures are improving:

We've just had a whole thread pointing out that the participation hasn't changed, and that these figures are driven by the difference between full time and part time work.

Did you read any of this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
Can we do it without insulting the good work of Abbott and Costello?

In Australian politics, two of the most prominent members of our last conservative government were Peter Costello and Tony Abbott. There were rumours at one point that the two were going to combine to force a leadership change, with Costello as Prime Minister and Abbott as his deputy, but that it never got going because, well it'd be the Abbott and Costello government. Also they hated each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Erhm... take a breath dude...

It was my attempt to make this situation funny.

But for the joke to work, this month's figures would have to be due to a change in the participation rate, and they weren't.

A few month's back, last time we had a drop in unemployment, that was the case. The joke would have worked then, but now it's just silly.

Also, I suspect that the Unemployment would be driven lower due to the holiday season coming up.

The figures are seasonally adjusted. Did you not read any of this?

But the real question is, do we really believe that things are getting better?

More to the point, does anyone really believe that the President can impact long term job growth?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sourclams wrote:
The Abbott and Costello skit was largely correct in its factual presentation of how employed vs. unemployed vs. real unemployment are tabulated.

If everyone without a job simply stopped looking for one, unemployment would drop to zero.

The reason that there's a difference between 'unemployment' and 'without a job' is because people retire, could 'opt out' of the workforce to be a stay at home parent, could go on a religious sabbatical, etc. In this case, 'etc' includes 'I haven't been able to find a suitable job and gave up'.

Absolutely. But it isn't the reason for this month's drop in unemployment, so it doesn't work as political commentary or as a joke.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There are various economic indicators for several months that things are recovering a bit in the US.

There are two worries with them.

First, historically the US tends to boast (overestimate) about its economic performance, and it gets downgraded later. (The opposite to UK stats.)

Second, with globalisation, the US economy's recovery could easily be upset by the Euro zone or China slipping back, even if it is starting to post some genuine good results.

IMF report this morning talked about two issues - Europe sliding back, or the US hitting the fiscal cliff and having to slash spending/raise taxes too drastically. Either will kill growth across the world, and by the IMF it's likely at least one of the two will happen.

 sebster wrote:
The figures are seasonally adjusted.

Something that I found interesting reading market analysis and commentaries recently was that the seasonal adjustment for Sep job loss (as a result of seasonals) for the last 3 years was 564k part-time workers. This year the adjustment was only 314k.

Quoting Gartman of the eponymous The Gartman Letter, "Had the same "adjustment" been used as was used previously the unemployment rate would have been 8.0% rather than the "optically" better 7.8% number reported out."

 sourclams wrote:

 sebster wrote:
The figures are seasonally adjusted.

Something that I found interesting reading market analysis and commentaries recently was that the seasonal adjustment for Sep job loss (as a result of seasonals) for the last 3 years was 564k part-time workers. This year the adjustment was only 314k.

Quoting Gartman of the eponymous The Gartman Letter, "Had the same "adjustment" been used as was used previously the unemployment rate would have been 8.0% rather than the "optically" better 7.8% number reported out."

He just hates Obama.
Jobs for Everyone!

 sourclams wrote:

 sebster wrote:
The figures are seasonally adjusted.

Something that I found interesting reading market analysis and commentaries recently was that the seasonal adjustment for Sep job loss (as a result of seasonals) for the last 3 years was 564k part-time workers. This year the adjustment was only 314k.

Quoting Gartman of the eponymous The Gartman Letter, "Had the same "adjustment" been used as was used previously the unemployment rate would have been 8.0% rather than the "optically" better 7.8% number reported out."

Would that have been an accurate adjustment? Wouldn't you take seasonal adjustments and alter those for the economic climate?

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

 sebster wrote:
The figures are seasonally adjusted.

Something that I found interesting reading market analysis and commentaries recently was that the seasonal adjustment for Sep job loss (as a result of seasonals) for the last 3 years was 564k part-time workers. This year the adjustment was only 314k.

Quoting Gartman of the eponymous The Gartman Letter, "Had the same "adjustment" been used as was used previously the unemployment rate would have been 8.0% rather than the "optically" better 7.8% number reported out."

Would that have been an accurate adjustment? Wouldn't you take seasonal adjustments and alter those for the economic climate?

given that the last 3 years weren't radically different to this year I don't think so.

If we had a gradual increase to this number it would make sense, but its a rather high jump.

The professionals - as indeed they are - at the BLS would know the intricacies better than I. 564k jobs in '09, '10, and '11 would include a recession year, a recovery year, and a flat year so I personally wouldn't think that the adjustment would/could be wildly different.

I'm sure that the reason for the 200k implied "increase" is a good one and based on unbiased/nonpartisan process, and as a professional market analyst myself I understand how "this time it's different' and a need to re-weight inputs into any model at any time.

It still makes for an interesting "thing that makes you go hrmm" when we just consider the timing, the optical impact of the number, and how divergent it seems at first glance when, as an example, Canadian unemployment (which had been leading the US) was actually worse at the same time that US unemployment was so much "better".

 sourclams wrote:
The professionals - as indeed they are - at the BLS would know the intricacies better than I. 564k jobs in '09, '10, and '11 would include a recession year, a recovery year, and a flat year so I personally wouldn't think that the adjustment would/could be wildly different.

I'm sure that the reason for the 200k implied "increase" is a good one and based on unbiased/nonpartisan process, and as a professional market analyst myself I understand how "this time it's different' and a need to re-weight inputs into any model at any time.

It still makes for an interesting "thing that makes you go hrmm" when we just consider the timing, the optical impact of the number, and how divergent it seems at first glance when, as an example, Canadian unemployment (which had been leading the US) was actually worse at the same time that US unemployment was so much "better".

Certainly does seem odd.

This link discusses the different unemployment rates and not just the sexy "U3" rate. The "U6"(need work, working age, not looking, part time only) rate is scary and above 14%.

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

Stay informed.

I'm not clicking on that....its like the link on how McD's Chicken McNuggets are made which I also didn't click on....

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm not clicking on that....its like the link on how McD's Chicken McNuggets are made which I also didn't click on....

Fair enough.

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm not clicking on that....its like the link on how McD's Chicken McNuggets are made which I also didn't click on....

Magic and happiness?

 sourclams wrote:
Something that I found interesting reading market analysis and commentaries recently was that the seasonal adjustment for Sep job loss (as a result of seasonals) for the last 3 years was 564k part-time workers. This year the adjustment was only 314k.

Quoting Gartman of the eponymous The Gartman Letter, "Had the same "adjustment" been used as was used previously the unemployment rate would have been 8.0% rather than the "optically" better 7.8% number reported out."

Interesting. Got a link?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sourclams wrote:
The professionals - as indeed they are - at the BLS would know the intricacies better than I. 564k jobs in '09, '10, and '11 would include a recession year, a recovery year, and a flat year so I personally wouldn't think that the adjustment would/could be wildly different.

I'm sure that the reason for the 200k implied "increase" is a good one and based on unbiased/nonpartisan process, and as a professional market analyst myself I understand how "this time it's different' and a need to re-weight inputs into any model at any time.

It still makes for an interesting "thing that makes you go hrmm" when we just consider the timing, the optical impact of the number, and how divergent it seems at first glance when, as an example, Canadian unemployment (which had been leading the US) was actually worse at the same time that US unemployment was so much "better".

I think that's a fair summary, it is a little odd.

 Frazzled wrote:

Thats the weakest standard. 1% deviation is more prudent for anything worthwhile.

Confidence intervals are just the result of statistical tests for significance, not for accuracy. If the BLS reported according to a CI of 99% the only possible difference would be that it found the change in unemployment to be insignificant (essentially, anomalous) with respect to previously reported data, accepting a margin of error in the sample of .5%.

The conclusion would therefore be that the BLS can't be 99% certain as to the current rate of unemployment, just as the present conclusion is that the BLS is 95% certain as to current rate of unemployment. That isn't to the say the data is inaccurate however, just that it may or may not be representative.

It would have a higher confidence at the 1% standard. Whats awesome is how I've totally forgotten what we were discussing. . .
So I'll change the subject. Am I the only one who loved statistics classes? Regression analysis was fun, but as a self taught calculus guy, always a bit twitchy.

I do not do math. (Period)

It's not true strictly speaking but beyond what I need for my job of hobbies I avoid.the evil numbers. Anything past trig is gibberish.

 Frazzled wrote:
Am I the only one who loved statistics classes? Regression analysis was fun, but as a self taught calculus guy, always a bit twitchy.

I was never a big fan of statistics class, but I do love actually working with statistics. Similarly, I was never a big fan of math class, but actually love math. I won't say I didn't learn anything in those courses, but I probably learned more doing my own research in order to understand some of the math and stats journals I was reading.

I remember my amazement that a floppy disk held an entire program that could do statistical runs. It seemed like a combination of rocket science and magic.

I liked statistics too. Especially as it applied to rolling dice

 AustonT wrote:
I do not do math. (Period)

It's not true strictly speaking but beyond what I need for my job of hobbies I avoid.the evil numbers. Anything past trig is gibberish.

This, I did weight and balances for my aircraft. That kind of thing. All else is the work of the devil.

Well, at least some people are doing good in this economy.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/10/investing/wall-street-pay/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

This is a great book about stats.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1593271891/?tag=hydra0b-21&hvadid=9556677789&ref=asc_df_1593271891

It covers all the basics in a fun and readable way.

If you want to go farther, a book on Quantitative Methods for Business would be a good introduction to the kinds of stats we are talking about here. It should also cover a good chunk of practical probability.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, at least some people are doing good in this economy.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/10/investing/wall-street-pay/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

They do good in ANY economy