How many of you knew THIS about the last jobs report??

W

wheaties

"In the household survey, full-time jobs fell by 523,000, while part-time jobs rose by 799,000."

"...Izzo notes that, while 2.15 million people gained employment in June, 2.35 million dropped out of the labor force. "In all but two months since December 2008, more unemployed have dropped out than found jobs," writes Izzo."

So, buried in the fantastic jobs number is actually a good-sized LOSS in full time jobs!! Furthermore, the unemployment rate continues to shrink because people are leaving the labor force rather than finding jobs (this is old news but its persistence is still newsworthy IMO). The media, of course, is running around like the jobs number is the resurrection.
The reason I post this is because I look at economic news pretty regularly and I only stumbled upon this info in a link near the bottom of a long list of articles. I've seen lots of talking heads go on and on about the jobs number but none comment about the horrific loss of full time jobs. Has anyone seen this headlined or featured or discussed on major media?


Source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101813082
 
wheaties said:
The reason I post this is because I look at economic news pretty regularly and I only stumbled upon this info in a link near the bottom of a long list of articles. I've seen lots of talking heads go on and on about the jobs number but none comment about the horrific loss of full time jobs. Has anyone seen this headlined or featured or discussed on major media?
More...

Major media? No. But it's no secret that unemployment is about twice what's reported, and inflation is much higher than the reported number as well. These numbers have been fudged for years to make the government look good, or at least better, and the "major media" goes along with it since for the most part they've stopped fulfilling their function as watchdogs.

Fortunately, with the internet, there are many more sources than the "major media" to get other points of view.
 
There's nothing exciting about the part-time/full-time swing in the household survey numbers. Since the household survey uses a much smaller sample, the monthly numbers it produces are very volatile. If you look at these historically (both standalone and spread), they don't appear significantly outsized. Most importantly, the 6m moving averages for both full- and part-time figures in the household survey are in very positive territory. If the full-time number falls again next month and the moving avg falls below 0, there may be cause for alarm.
 
wheaties said:
"In the household survey, full-time jobs fell by 523,000, while part-time jobs rose by 799,000."

"...Izzo notes that, while 2.15 million people gained employment in June, 2.35 million dropped out of the labor force. "In all but two months since December 2008, more unemployed have dropped out than found jobs," writes Izzo."

So, buried in the fantastic jobs number is actually a good-sized LOSS in full time jobs!! Furthermore, the unemployment rate continues to shrink because people are leaving the labor force rather than finding jobs (this is old news but its persistence is still newsworthy IMO). The media, of course, is running around like the jobs number is the resurrection.
The reason I post this is because I look at economic news pretty regularly and I only stumbled upon this info in a link near the bottom of a long list of articles. I've seen lots of talking heads go on and on about the jobs number but none comment about the horrific loss of full time jobs. Has anyone seen this headlined or featured or discussed on major media?


Source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101813082
More...
You can thank Ronald Reagan. From the start of the jobs report up to the end of Carter's term, a part-time job was counted as half of a full-time job, which made sense. It was the Reagan administration that decided to start counting pt jobs and ft jobs as interchangeable.
 
Martinghoul said:
If you look at these historically (both standalone and spread), they don't appear significantly outsized. Most importantly, the 6m moving averages for both full- and part-time figures in the household survey are in very positive territory. If the full-time number falls again next month and the moving avg falls below 0, there may be cause for alarm.
More...


Good info, thanks very much. Where might I find the info you cite?
 
Consumer confidence is high and consumer spending is ok.
I think the wealth effect due to stock gains for the middle and upper class is underestimated in terms of supporting consumer confidence and spending.

Although most middle class benefit from paper gains in 401k/IRA (real gains for retirees) one may be more comfortable in reducing savings, increasing revolving debt,
feeling more confident, and even borrowing retirement funds.

The fed supporters would want to point more to strength in the economic data rather
than the wealth effect for upper class as reason for comsumer stability.
Fed bashers would want to dismiss the wealth effect as well.
Both sides do not seem to want to acknowlege a wealth effect.

If not the wealth effect , how can one account for the stability in the consumer numbers if full time high paying jobs with benefits are replaced with part time jobs.
Also, where is the impact of those who have dropped out of the work force.

Seems like a conservation problem in physics. Where is that stable consumer
spending coming from?
 
Knew about it. Whenever the new jobs reports come out. Then one can check
RT.com, Peter Schiff, or zerohedge. They'll usually report the numbers that are hidden in the AP news.

The labor participation rate also stayed the same or slightly worse. More people not counted as "officially" unemployed.

Or wait for Santelli on CNBC to get to speak about it, while his coworkers quickly try to end his spot or shut him up.
 
this would be a trend for a very long time. specially as obamacare kicks in.i was actually applied on few positions and witnessed as those good full time positions with benefits been split into two shitty part time positions w/o any benefits. add rise of minimum wage. same outcome
 
from same article-


A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by UCLA economics professor Lee Ohanian and Nobelist Edward C. Prescott points to the large decline in the creation of new start-up businesses as a major factor
More...

i'm not an economist and have no education in finance,but i've been saying this for a very long time,using same exact words. no need to be a genius,just count US based companies listed on exchanges. the number keeps falling since i start tracking it. there is no single uptick in 10+ years. why? i've pointed on that too(again-using same words)

It's not hard to guess that this corporate caution stems in large part from tax and regulatory uncertainties, and frankly, a White House that is anti-business.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top