Job report, unmployment falls to 9.5%!

[IanMacQuaide]

Quote from MKTrader:

Exactly. Next thing someone will say it's due to the number of jobs Obama saved in imaginary districts. Oh wait...they tried to pull that one already.

That's funny! But the arrogance of the current administration trying that shit is a bit unsettling.

 

[krazykarl]

Quote from Ivanovich:

Ok, so now we're talking about improving the metric itself by adding - wait for it... accurate data and methodologies.

And gee, that was precisely my point in the original post.

Really? It looked like your point was to take whatever numbers were provided and rip on how they we're going to be spun....

 

[krazykarl]

Quote from IanMacQuaide:

That's funny! But the arrogance of the current administration trying that shit is a bit unsettling.

Trying? It seems like the current administration just plain doesn't give a shit about creating jobs. As long as there is something in the ether they can point to and tell people they are doing something it doesn't matter to them.

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from IanMacQuaide:

That's funny! But the arrogance of the current administration trying that shit is a bit unsettling.

Too bad the average Obama voter is so clueless that they will gullibly fall for anything he spews...

 

[Ivanovich]

Quote from krazykarl:

Really? It looked like your point was to take whatever numbers were provided and rip on how they we're going to be spun....

Yeah, duh! And why would I rip on them? Because they aren't accurate! The methodology is crap and they're all BS.

For crying out loud, next time I'm make the original comment in a pop-up book for easy reading.

 

[nickdes]

I think most people do not believe the 9.5!!!!! I sure don't...in fact I believe little from this socialist tyrant we have in office now, obama!!!

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Ivanovich:

Yeah, because over 650,000 people dropped out of the work force. What a farce these numbers are!

Hourly earnings - down.

Jobs lost, 125,000 and that's WITH the hilarious "Birth/Death" model showing an increase of 147,000.

Green shoots? Obamanomics? I'm sure CNBC will spin this the appropriate way.

Does the BLS subtract the previous months birth-death estimate from the current month, so as not to double count?

For instance, last month, the birth-death estimate was ~250,000 jobs. So in order not to double count, the BLS would have to subtract that estimate from this months numbers, or those birth-death jobs estimated last month, would get captured by this months survey, as they are now "mature" jobs. Hence a double count.

Good post, btw. These numbers are totally cooked.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Ivanovich:

How many people entered the workforce for the first time? Enough to nullify that? That's not discussed either, is it?

You got to be kidding...

 

[Ivanovich]

Quote from achilles28:

Does the BLS subtract the previous months birth-death estimate from the current month, so as not to double count?

For instance, last month, the birth-death estimate was ~250,000 jobs. So in order not to double count, the BLS would have to subtract that estimate from this months numbers, or those birth-death jobs estimated last month, would get captured by this months survey, as they are now "mature" jobs. Hence a double count.

Good post, btw. These numbers are totally cooked.

I am not sure. I can look into it later, but it is my understanding that the Birth/Death model does not count the previous month, as each month's "birth/death" are for that month only, and therefore has nothing to do with previous months.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Ivanovich:

I am not sure. I can look into it later, but it is my understanding that the Birth/Death model does not count the previous month, as each month's "birth/death" are for that month only, and therefore has nothing to do with previous months.

I need to check into it myself... From what I know, the birth-death is just an estimation of jobs created in that month by new business starts or dissolutions that are undetectable because they haven't registered with the IRS and filed payroll taxes. But after 1-2 months, new business would be registered with the IRS and file payroll taxes, hence, would be available for capture in the NFP survey. So, in order not to double count, after 1 or 2 months, old birth-death estimates must be subtracted from the current NFP because those old "estimates" would now get captured by the current months survey = double count.

I could be wrong, but that's my understanding of it.