Fed/TBTF banks? I am an honest gal. You must have me confused with someone else, sir.
Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month
- Thread starter THE-BEAKER
- Start date
I am not suggesting it's positive or negative. I am suggesting that it's a number that is a result of a very specific BLS adjustment. Have you noticed how HeroZedge is normally exceedingly eager to point out any and all one-off adjustments that the BLS does when it suits them? However, when it casts doubt on one of their conclusions, mum seems to be the word. A paradox, innit?
You are focusing on ZeroHedge. I am focusing on the Labor Participation statistic, and still waiting on your explanation of it being "positive", by any definition of that word used on this planet.
You said "today's release was very strong". I'm waiting for you to back that up with how less people employed in the population is very strong.
Maybe "very strong" compared to Spain? Is that what you meant to say?
not everybody is a citizen in america
there are millions of people actively searching for jobs but they only have working permit, like green card holders
I know many people who left US for their home country because they lost their jobs
Some of them will return if economy starts growing again
That partially explains the drop of $1.2MM
Back in the 90's in Boston, I met people in cafe shops around Harvard Sq who were on a tourist visa but actively looking for programmer jobs in IT. Back then you could change tourist visa to H1B easily. But thank god they changed that in 2001.
there are millions of people actively searching for jobs but they only have working permit, like green card holders
I know many people who left US for their home country because they lost their jobs
Some of them will return if economy starts growing again
That partially explains the drop of $1.2MM
Back in the 90's in Boston, I met people in cafe shops around Harvard Sq who were on a tourist visa but actively looking for programmer jobs in IT. Back then you could change tourist visa to H1B easily. But thank god they changed that in 2001.
What you have to understand is Democrats and liberals don't care about the truth: they only care about perceptions. If the liberals can convince the American electorate that it's morning in America when the economy is the worse it's been in decades, what do they care. These people backstabbed troops to win Senate seats. These are people who considered 5% unemployment under Bush to be a depression. These are people who if Komen cuts funding to Planned Parenthood, it's a start of a jihad. They're nuts. The only thing I fear is that the American electorate really is dumb and will reelect him.
I remember going back and forth with Marting for weeks about the bogus inflation stats a year or so ago. Regardless of what he or she says, just about every talking point is a defense of central banks...I know that Martinghoul gets very defensive about that, but just about everybody on this thread has come to the same conclusion.
I don't recall saying that the change in the participation rate was a positive. IIRC, I said that the number is suspect because it was the result of a one-off adjustment performed by the BLS. This applies to both "positive" (unemployment rate) and "negative" (participation rate) results that have come out of the household survey. In fact, if you adjust for the one-off January population controls, the labor force participation rate would have remained unchanged. The establishment survey data, on the other hand, was all positive, i.e. all the revisions were upwards; temp help services, which is normally a leading indicator, continued going up; gains in employment were broad-based, even with the courier strike and govt employment falling; etc etc. So, on balance, taking the household survey statistics with a grain of salt or adjusting it in a way that HeroZedge is so fond of, this was an undoubtedly positive report, which is what I said.
So that's for today's release. As to my general views on the labor participation rate, would you like me to comment?
Not sure I see the logic there... Why is the BLS "smoothing" not mentioned in the HZ article on the labor participation rate? It's the "journalistic license" to claim "smoothing" when it suits the argument, but not when it doesn't. Moreover, when Ole Bill Gross jumps on the bandwagon, that's when I really having problems w/the argument.
Well, I'll be damned. Everyone on this thread disagrees with me! Whatever shall poor ole me do now, faced with such overwhelming odds? Clearly, if lots of people disagree with me, I shirly must be wrong.
As to me defending central banks. Here I thought in this case I was only having a beef with HeroZedge, rather than defending anyone. Even if I was defending anyone, it would have to be the US economy or maybe the BLS. Not really sure what this has to do w/the Fed, but then again, I must be missing stuff (see above).