Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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!