(06-08-2015 04:57 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  There are a lot of college graduates in jobs not requiring a college degree. I don't see that as a horrible thing. My own job actually doesn't require a degree, but 98% of the people who do what I do have a degree, so to be competitive you really need one.

I don't generally disagree until you note that a 4yr college degree these days costs a minimum of 50k and often a multiple of that. I don't see that wages are rising for this sort of job commensurate with the new cost of 'being competitive'. In many ways, this is arguably a new form of 'class warfare' where those who can't afford college are increasingly priced out of the job market. Actually as I support 2 kids in college on my own, it creates another 'middle class hole' where a single parent or a poor person is actually better off than a middle class family... and of course the rich can do whatever they choose to.

(06-09-2015 01:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:Remember our early example when the economy added 175,000 new jobs but the unemployment rate went up? That's a very possible scenario, and it is due, in large part, to the second criteria in the definition of unemployment: they are looking for jobs. That means if someone doesn't have a job, they are able to work, but they just aren't looking for a job right now - they are not considered unemployed. But, if they change their mind and start looking for a job, now they are counted in the unemployment numbers.

When we see changes in unemployment, we often assume those changes are due to the number of people that are unemployed, or in the formula for the unemployment rate, the numerator, or the top number in a fraction. But remember, in the unemployment calculation, the denominator, the bottom number of a fraction, is the total labor market, which can also change each month. So, changes to the unemployment rate can be due to changes to the number of people working, or it can be due to the number of people that say they are looking for work.

Why the Unemployment Rate Decreases and Increases

Actually Tom, this is precisely why reporting things like this is so misleading. There are all sorts of jobs that are seasonal that can tend to create the impression of a BOLDLY expanding economy or a boldly contracting one... and the unemployment rate, which the administration has been hanging its hat on for years (arguing with the labor participation rate people) has similarly been touted by many of you on here.

The very reason why we have little wage pressure despite supposedly low unemployment and supposedly significant job creation is related to the labor participation rate and the quality of the jobs being created... PLUS the competition by the government for unemployment.

I mean, if we doubled the amount that someone on welfare could get, I suspect that large numbers of people would quit their jobs and stop looking for work. It would actually potentially cause a REDUCTION in the unemployment rate... yet I doubt anyone with a brain would see that as a positive (for the economic outlook)

(06-09-2015 05:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 01:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:Remember our early example when the economy added 175,000 new jobs but the unemployment rate went up? That's a very possible scenario, and it is due, in large part, to the second criteria in the definition of unemployment: they are looking for jobs. That means if someone doesn't have a job, they are able to work, but they just aren't looking for a job right now - they are not considered unemployed. But, if they change their mind and start looking for a job, now they are counted in the unemployment numbers.

When we see changes in unemployment, we often assume those changes are due to the number of people that are unemployed, or in the formula for the unemployment rate, the numerator, or the top number in a fraction. But remember, in the unemployment calculation, the denominator, the bottom number of a fraction, is the total labor market, which can also change each month. So, changes to the unemployment rate can be due to changes to the number of people working, or it can be due to the number of people that say they are looking for work.

Why the Unemployment Rate Decreases and Increases

Actually Tom, this is precisely why reporting things like this is so misleading. There are all sorts of jobs that are seasonal that can tend to create the impression of a BOLDLY expanding economy or a boldly contracting one... and the unemployment rate, which the administration has been hanging its hat on for years (arguing with the labor participation rate people) has similarly been touted by many of you on here.

The very reason why we have little wage pressure despite supposedly low unemployment and supposedly significant job creation is related to the labor participation rate and the quality of the jobs being created... PLUS the competition by the government for unemployment.

I mean, if we doubled the amount that someone on welfare could get, I suspect that large numbers of people would quit their jobs and stop looking for work. It would actually potentially cause a REDUCTION in the unemployment rate... yet I doubt anyone with a brain would see that as a positive (for the economic outlook)

But of course all of the things you bring up are factored in and most anyone that pays any attention to the topic is aware of the affect the different variables have on the the numbers.

(06-09-2015 05:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  But of course all of the things you bring up are factored in and most anyone that pays any attention to the topic is aware of the affect the different variables have on the the numbers.

Really?

Show me where the labor participation rate is factored into the unemployment rate? And while yes, many of us KNOW how meaningless these numbers really are... obviously SOME people think they are meaningful enough to post or a meaningful description of 'how full the glass is'.

As for job growth... having spent more than 2 decades 'trading' on announcements like this, I am well aware that economists attempt to factor those things into the measure... but here we are in June and we are still making large adjustments to the data reported more than 2 months ago. The point being, you can TRY and factor those things in all you want.... but it is virtually impossible to do with much accuracy. Adjustments from original estimates of 126k to 85k back to 119k are HUGE percentage moves. If it weren't so difficult and unreliable, there wouldn't be millions and even billions made or lost every time the number gets announced.

Oh, and FTR, PART of the way these 'estimates' come in is that the date actually exists well prior to the announcement. Jobs is a weekly survey. Now the survey isn't an actual number, but obviously they've had decades to streamline that process.

(06-09-2015 05:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 05:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  But of course all of the things you bring up are factored in and most anyone that pays any attention to the topic is aware of the affect the different variables have on the the numbers.

Really?

Show me where the labor participation rate is factored into the unemployment rate? And while yes, many of us KNOW how meaningless these numbers really are... obviously SOME people think they are meaningful enough to post or a meaningful description of 'how full the glass is'.

As for job growth... having spent more than 2 decades 'trading' on announcements like this, I am well aware that economists attempt to factor those things into the measure... but here we are in June and we are still making large adjustments to the data reported more than 2 months ago. The point being, you can TRY and factor those things in all you want.... but it is virtually impossible to do with much accuracy. Adjustments from original estimates of 126k to 85k back to 119k are HUGE percentage moves. If it weren't so difficult and unreliable, there wouldn't be millions and even billions made or lost every time the number gets announced.

Oh, and FTR, PART of the way these 'estimates' come in is that the date actually exists well prior to the announcement. Jobs is a weekly survey.

It isn't factored in, it is noted, i.e. people take that into consideration (factor in) when looking at these numbers. They aren't meaningless. They compare apples to apples. You look at job participation rates, unemployment rates. additional jobs created etc. etc. Can you play Mannish Boy?

(06-09-2015 05:58 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 05:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 05:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  But of course all of the things you bring up are factored in and most anyone that pays any attention to the topic is aware of the affect the different variables have on the the numbers.

Really?

Show me where the labor participation rate is factored into the unemployment rate? And while yes, many of us KNOW how meaningless these numbers really are... obviously SOME people think they are meaningful enough to post or a meaningful description of 'how full the glass is'.

As for job growth... having spent more than 2 decades 'trading' on announcements like this, I am well aware that economists attempt to factor those things into the measure... but here we are in June and we are still making large adjustments to the data reported more than 2 months ago. The point being, you can TRY and factor those things in all you want.... but it is virtually impossible to do with much accuracy. Adjustments from original estimates of 126k to 85k back to 119k are HUGE percentage moves. If it weren't so difficult and unreliable, there wouldn't be millions and even billions made or lost every time the number gets announced.

Oh, and FTR, PART of the way these 'estimates' come in is that the date actually exists well prior to the announcement. Jobs is a weekly survey.

It isn't factored in, it is noted, i.e. people take that into consideration (factor in) when looking at these numbers. They aren't meaningless. They compare apples to apples. You look at job participation rates, unemployment rates. additional jobs created etc. etc. Can you play Mannish Boy?

You know dawg, MAYBE the problem is that you talk out of both sides of your mouth because it doesn't matter to you, blithely unaware that it matters to others.

All you had to say is that you were 100% wrong when you claimed that they were factored in.

Obviously you now agree that they aren't... AND you apparently agree that these numbers, by themselves (without all of the other etc etc factors you note) aren't very meaningful.

Let me help you out...
If the labor participation rate remains stable, a rise or fall in the unemployment rate is more meaningful than if the lpr rises or falls... so it's NOT apples:apples.

Similarly, if this month's jobs number is 100k over the estimate but last month's is adjusted down by 100k, is that meaningful? I suppose it depends on how this month's number is adjusted NEXT month... in other words again, not apples:apples and why anyone doing any sort of economic analysis on jobs would take some sort of 3+month average rather than any individual number. Just look at march. 126 was only good or bad relative to the expectation. When it was revised down to 85, while that was worse, it may have STILL been better than the expectation. 119 might be better than 95, but it's still less than 126... and with a moving average of perhaps over 215k, that's still a relatively low number.

Like the ACA enrollments... you want to celebrate figures that either you don't understand or don't say what you seem to think they do.

These numbers, in and of themselves are only minute contributors to our 'economic condition'. If you want to celebrate them, fine... but someone else who wants to dismiss them is JUST as factually accurate as you are. It's all about perception and expectations.

350k jobs would be a hugely positive number, unless we were already priced (as an economy) expecting 550k.

(06-09-2015 06:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 05:58 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 05:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 05:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  But of course all of the things you bring up are factored in and most anyone that pays any attention to the topic is aware of the affect the different variables have on the the numbers.

Really?

Show me where the labor participation rate is factored into the unemployment rate? And while yes, many of us KNOW how meaningless these numbers really are... obviously SOME people think they are meaningful enough to post or a meaningful description of 'how full the glass is'.

As for job growth... having spent more than 2 decades 'trading' on announcements like this, I am well aware that economists attempt to factor those things into the measure... but here we are in June and we are still making large adjustments to the data reported more than 2 months ago. The point being, you can TRY and factor those things in all you want.... but it is virtually impossible to do with much accuracy. Adjustments from original estimates of 126k to 85k back to 119k are HUGE percentage moves. If it weren't so difficult and unreliable, there wouldn't be millions and even billions made or lost every time the number gets announced.

Oh, and FTR, PART of the way these 'estimates' come in is that the date actually exists well prior to the announcement. Jobs is a weekly survey.

It isn't factored in, it is noted, i.e. people take that into consideration (factor in) when looking at these numbers. They aren't meaningless. They compare apples to apples. You look at job participation rates, unemployment rates. additional jobs created etc. etc. Can you play Mannish Boy?

You know dawg, MAYBE the problem is that you talk out of both sides of your mouth because it doesn't matter to you, blithely unaware that it matters to others.

All you had to say is that you were 100% wrong when you claimed that they were factored in.

Obviously you now agree that they aren't... AND you apparently agree that these numbers, by themselves (without all of the other etc etc factors you note) aren't very meaningful.

Let me help you out...
If the labor participation rate remains stable, a rise or fall in the unemployment rate is more meaningful than if the lpr rises or falls... so it's NOT apples:apples.

Similarly, if this month's jobs number is 100k over the estimate but last month's is adjusted down by 100k, is that meaningful? I suppose it depends on how this month's number is adjusted NEXT month... in other words again, not apples:apples and why anyone doing any sort of economic analysis on jobs would take some sort of 3+month average rather than any individual number. Just look at march. 126 was only good or bad relative to the expectation. When it was revised down to 85, while that was worse, it may have STILL been better than the expectation. 119 might be better than 95, but it's still less than 126... and with a moving average of perhaps over 215k, that's still a relatively low number.

Like the ACA enrollments... you want to celebrate figures that either you don't understand or don't say what you seem to think they do.

These numbers, in and of themselves are only minute contributors to our 'economic condition'. If you want to celebrate them, fine... but someone else who wants to dismiss them is JUST as factually accurate as you are. It's all about perception and expectations.

350k jobs would be a hugely positive number, unless we were already priced (as an economy) expecting 550k.

You continue to twist words. If you will honestly read what I wrote you will realize that I was talking about people factoring in all the various aspects of employment and not blindly looking at any one aspect, not the technical process of calculating the numbers.

(06-09-2015 06:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You continue to twist words.

what words have I twisted?

I've spoken the truth.

Quote:If you will honestly read what I wrote you will realize that I was talking about people factoring in all the various aspects of employment and not blindly looking at any one aspect, not the technical process of calculating the numbers.

Yet oddly, you and those on any given side of a table only mention those aspects that tend to show an arguably 'one sided'

It's the same thing you do with ACA enrollment numbers...

and I do the same exact thing there. Because while people (like me) who actually do or DID follow those numbers know exactly what they mean and factor all of the other aspects, hence individually their relative lack of importance, just as I said... and you denied

but the TRUTH is that far more than half of the population don't have a clue about all of these other aspects... and people who post threads or write articles with such misleading and partial information wrongly and deceitfully mislead people into impressions. It happens every day in every paper and on every tv or radio station.

If you really meant what you said, then you wouldn't have a problem with someone noting all of the pertinent details that the OP leaves out. Instead, you try and dismiss them.

You may be used to talking to fools, but I'm not one of them.

(06-10-2015 10:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-09-2015 06:39 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You continue to twist words.

what words have I twisted?

I've spoken the truth.

Quote:If you will honestly read what I wrote you will realize that I was talking about people factoring in all the various aspects of employment and not blindly looking at any one aspect, not the technical process of calculating the numbers.

Yet oddly, you and those on any given side of a table only mention those aspects that tend to show an arguably 'one sided'

It's the same thing you do with ACA enrollment numbers...

and I do the same exact thing there. Because while people (like me) who actually do or DID follow those numbers know exactly what they mean and factor all of the other aspects, hence individually their relative lack of importance, just as I said... and you denied

but the TRUTH is that far more than half of the population don't have a clue about all of these other aspects... and people who post threads or write articles with such misleading and partial information wrongly and deceitfully mislead people into impressions. It happens every day in every paper and on every tv or radio station.

If you really meant what you said, then you wouldn't have a problem with someone noting all of the pertinent details that the OP leaves out. Instead, you try and dismiss them.

You may be used to talking to fools, but I'm not one of them.

Your real name is McKinley Morganfield.