Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Martinghoul:

Huh? I really don't understand the logic here. This report is positive and yet the employment picture is not improving? The BLS data is grossly misleading and yet, if you bother to look at the details the BLS releases, it's all there? I am sorry, but I just don't understand the point you're making.

Once again, the BLS's U3 stat is conveniently managed to maintain the "illusion" that unemployment is much better than it actually is. It's not a coincidence that the media picks up on the U3 and only discusses it. I apologize, but I just don't know how to make that any clearer.

Quote from Martinghoul:


Huh? Yet again, I don't get it. HZ is media, no? HZ goes into detail normally, right? Why is HZ not reporting on the smoothing that the BLS is engaging in here? Could it be, gasp, because the "smoothing" actually casts into doubt the nice sensationalist headline?

You know perfectly well the difference between the main stream media and the blogosphere. If you "don't get it" then there isn't anything I can do to assist you in this.

Quote from Martinghoul:


As to the claims, I haven't explored this issue properly, but, as I understand it, main reason for the revisions is some states reporting the number of claims late. Given the current state of the economy, I imagine the result is that revisions are upwards. Glancing at the old 2004-05 numbers, it seems plausible.

So the revisions in those late reporting states always go up, then? Or the BLS doesn't include them at all when it reports the first time? That would certainly help the number print each and every time. I have an idea, let's delay half of the states, and we'll kill the number each time! Then next week when there's a 50% revision, no one will notice. It's old news.

Quote from Martinghoul:


Ah, I see... So, basically, this is a case of one grand super-conspiracy? The MSM, all the govt agencies, bloggers, like Ritholtz and CalculatedRisk, and, finally, yours truly, we're all on the same team, trying to further our nefarious "agenda"? What can I say? Yes, it's true, all true!! You can call me Dr. Evil!

If you would like, I shall call you such. But there are clearly two sides to the coin - without calling one right and the other wrong. There are those that believe that what the Fed is doing, and in government statistics, and there are those that believe the Fed is harming the country (and the world) and the statistics are not to be trusted. If that is a grand conspiracy, as you claim, then who am I to argue. I will go and get my foil hat at once.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from trefoil:

The BLS is an extremely honest organization. They ain't the Fed, by a long shot.
And the ISM wasn't brought up to change the subject: it's supporting evidence. As in, if the BLS numbers were made up, the ISM would contradict them. But the ISM doesn't; it's consistent with what the BLS is reporting.
Of course, it does take a small amount of actual logical thought to connect the two. Truly, you're a dunce. I had thought you had at least some intelligence before, but I'm revising that opinion. You're right up there with Grand Supercycle and bwolinsky when it comes to soaring stupidity.

Ah, here come the personal insults. You've run out of ammo, have you?

The best defense you have is that the BLS is an extremely honest organization, eh? And you've got this from a friend of a friend...or...wait, a relative works there? Your neighbor?

I'm not making an economical argument, which is why I said stop with the ISM. I'm focusing solely on the BLS's employment report, which I claim as misleading. If you are unwilling (or unable) to address my comments in that topic, meet me in the P+R forum and you and I can throw mud and feces properly.

 

[trefoil]

More supporting evidence from the markets:

source: http://finance.yahoo.com/marketupdate/overview?u

Despite such positive sentiment this session, shares of utilities stocks are having a hard time attracting buying interest. In fact, the defensive-oriented sector is currently dancing along the neutral line while the broad market boasts a gain greater than 1%. The relatively weak performance by utilities stocks has been a recurring theme in recent weeks. As a result, the Utilities sector is actually down nearly 4% year to date, but the S&P 500 is actually up almost 7% since the start of the year. The sector's weakness comes after it climbed about 15% in 2011 to outperform every other sector.

But you can ignore it, 'cause you know, it's changing the subject.

 

[trefoil]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Ah, here come the personal insults. You've run out of ammo, have you?

The best defense you have is that the BLS is an extremely honest organization, eh? And you've got this from a friend of a friend...or...wait, a relative works there? Your neighbor?

I'm not making an economical argument, which is why I said stop with the ISM. I'm focusing solely on the BLS's employment report, which I claim as misleading. If you are unwilling (or unable) to address my comments in that topic, meet me in the P+R forum and you and I can throw mud and feces properly.

I don't have time to waste on yet another conspiracy stupe. Take it to someone who cares about your opinion. I can't imagine who would, but whatever. The world is full of suckers.
As for running out of ammo, this weekend I'll give this report the analysis it requires, and shred your argument properly. There's quite a bit more in that report, stuff people with real money look for to see if what's being reported is real. It's all there.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from trefoil:

More supporting evidence from the markets:



But you can ignore it, 'cause you know, it's changing the subject. [/B]

I'll ignore it because it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion here, which, for your short attention span, is the misleading statistics in the BLS numbers.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from trefoil:

I don't have time to waste on yet another conspiracy stupe. Take it to someone who cares about your opinion. I can't imagine who would, but whatever. The world is full of suckers.
As for running out of ammo, this weekend I'll give this report the analysis it requires, and shred your argument properly. There's quite a bit more in that report, stuff people with real money look for to see if what's being reported is real. It's all there.

So you "don't have time to waste on yet another conspiracy "stupe" (whatever the hell that word is). But you'll have time this weekend. Sorry to hear you have such a boring weekend ahead. But I shall wait with baited breath.

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from Tsing Tao:
Once again, the BLS's U3 stat is conveniently managed to maintain the "illusion" that unemployment is much better than it actually is. It's not a coincidence that the media picks up on the U3 and only discusses it. I apologize, but I just don't know how to make that any clearer.

You don't have to apologize. I am not defending the media. I just don't see how it's the fault of the BLS or anyone who actually looks at the details that people and the media fixate on a particular number, while a whole plethora of other numbers are reported. Surely, given that all this data is released and widely available (and reported ad nauseam by the likes of HZ), the BLS is doing a really sh1t job of "managing" the data to maintain the "illusion". What sort of an "illusion" is it when journalists can see right through it?

You know perfectly well the difference between the main stream media and the blogosphere. If you "don't get it" then there isn't anything I can do to assist you in this.

I do know the difference, but what does that have to do with my point? Who's dancing arnd the issue now?

So the revisions in those late reporting states always go up, then? Or the BLS doesn't include them at all when it reports the first time? That would certainly help the number print each and every time. I have an idea, let's delay half of the states, and we'll kill the number each time! Then next week when there's a 50% revision, no one will notice. It's old news.

There is no need for exaggeration. If you read what I said carefully, I am sure you would see my point. Moreover, as you're aware, I'm sure, revisions that we're talking about are on the order of a few thousands and don't affect the 4-week moving average (which is what matters) in a significant manner.

If you would like, I shall call you such. But there are clearly two sides to the coin - without calling one right and the other wrong. There are those that believe that what the Fed is doing, and in government statistics, and there are those that believe the Fed is harming the country (and the world) and the statistics are not to be trusted. If that is a grand conspiracy, as you claim, then who am I to argue. I will go and get my foil hat at once.

Call me whatever you like, just don't call me Shirley. And yes, a grand conspiracy it is and tin foil hats 'r us!

BTW, as if on cue: http://www.businessinsider.com/here...spike-in-people-not-in-the-labor-force-2012-2

 

[atticus]

It was a strong report. You gotta be a bit quixotic to make a bear-play based upon the supposition of massaged data. There really isn't a clear trade here as vol will continue to erode into Spring. So I guess the play is slightly short delta and short vol.

If nothing else it puts a floor under the market until the ECB drops another Tsar Bomba.

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from atticus:
It was a strong report. You gotta be a bit quixotic to make a bear-play based upon the supposition of massaged data. There really isn't a clear trade here as vol will continue to erode into Spring. So I guess the play is slightly short delta and short vol.

If nothing else it puts a floor under the market until the ECB drops another Tsar Bomba.

Yep, agreed... In rates, ironically, vol is already so low that the trade might almost to be long vol, in hopes that all sorts of fun stuff will happen (e.g. Fed raising rates early or smth like that). Other than that, it's not entirely clear, given it's already moved a lot. Maybe stuff like blues - golds steepeners in Eurodollars has more juice, but it's a bit problematic here.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Martinghoul:

You don't have to apologize. I am not defending the media. I just don't see how it's the fault of the BLS or anyone who actually looks at the details that people and the media fixate on a particular number, while a whole plethora of other numbers are reported. Surely, given that all this data is released and widely available (and reported ad nauseam by the likes of HZ), the BLS is doing a really sh1t job of "managing" the data to maintain the "illusion". What sort of an "illusion" is it when journalists can see right through it?

I do know the difference, but what does that have to do with my point? Who's dancing arnd the issue now?

There is no need for exaggeration. If you read what I said carefully, I am sure you would see my point. Moreover, as you're aware, I'm sure, revisions that we're talking about are on the order of a few thousands and don't affect the 4-week moving average (which is what matters) in a significant manner.

Call me whatever you like, just don't call me Shirley. And yes, a grand conspiracy it is and tin foil hats 'r us!

BTW, as if on cue: http://www.businessinsider.com/here...spike-in-people-not-in-the-labor-force-2012-2

Ok, MG - you've exhausted me with your death from a thousand cuts. I yield.

My only point in this entire thread was, is and will continue to be that the BLS's much famed monthly release of Non-Farmed Payrolls is all about a number (the U3) which is the least accurate of the employment situation (since it excludes just about anyone except the generic "unemployed looking for work" category). And for a report that is supposed to be the pinnacle of employment reports, it is the most misleading. Whether that is due to the BLS and their emphasis on it (revising the U3 to it's current state) or the media, or the tooth fairy, is irrelevant.

Oh, and you're still a Fed apologist!