U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-10-2019, 10:28 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
29,907 posts, read 12,708,711 times
Reputation: 21190

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
But the very purpose of the company is to benefit stockholders. Creating jobs and contributing to wage growth is nice, but only if it benefits the company.
Your "average employee" should help himself by making himself more valuable.

Still, I take serious issue with a publicly owned company who pays his CEO 10's of million a year. In fact, I would not invest in such a company, while I could not care less whether they expand the company or buy their own stock.
But profit is not and should not be the only motive of the corporation:

Quote:
There is a common belief that corporate directors have a legal duty to maximize corporate profits and “shareholder value” — even if this means skirting ethical rules, damaging the environment or harming employees. But this belief is utterly false. To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.” https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...ximize-profits
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-11-2019, 04:37 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,967 posts, read 13,817,865 times
Reputation: 15143
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
LNU02000000 measures civilian employment level,...
No, it is a measure of all employment, private and government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
...it isn't a calculation of jobs created.
Um, do try to follow along...

156,167,000 Americans are employed in February. 154,964,000 Americans were employed in January.

Logically, then, if we apply 2nd Grade Math:

156,167,000
154,964,000 minus
--------------
1,203,000

So, I omitted a zero, and actually 1.2 Million jobs were created, not 20,000.

See how that works?

There are 1,203,000 more Americans working in February than there were in January.

Why are there 1,203,000 more Americans working now?

Well, logically, it infers 1,203,000 jobs were created, otherwise, those 1,203,000 people would not be working.

If only 20,000 job were created, then only 154,984,000 Americans would be working, but the data shows 156,167,000 Americans are working in February.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I'm not sure why you are using that or how you are coming up with 101,203. or why every source on the internet agrees with the 20,000 jobs number except you
I explained that in great detail.

I showed you exactly how to retrieve the data from the BLS web-site, then told you to go the US Census Bureau web-site and download the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program.

BLS uses the Current Population Survey for LNU02000000 and the Current Population Survey says 156,167,000 Americans are working, which is 1,203,000 more than January.

BLS then uses the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program to "seasonally adjust" the 1,203,000 working Americans into 20,000 working Americans.

BLS then reports the "seasonally adjusted" number and all news services report what BLS reported, instead of undertaking their own investigation into the matter.

Again, go to this link:

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate

Copy and paste

LNU02000000
CEU0500000001

into the box at the link.

Click on "Next->"

Click on "Retrieve Data"

If you do exactly that, you will see exactly what I'm saying.

The number of jobs created according to LNU02000000 is 1,203,000 and the number of private sector jobs created not counting government jobs is 418,000.

The numbers don't lie, but "seasonally adjusting" does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
Still, I take serious issue with a publicly owned company who pays his CEO 10's of million a year.
Are you sure they're paid 10's of Millions a year?

Federal law requires the reporting of CEO compensation of publicly-traded corporations (but not private companies) to include both cash and non-cash compensation.

Media outlets do not break down the compensation into cash and non-cash compensation, rather they report the total compensation.

There are a handful of media that do break down the compensation. For example, it was reported that the CEO of Anthem Blue Cross received $23 Million and that $ 7 Million was cash and $16 Million was non-cash compensation, mostly in the form of certain classes of stock which are strictly governed by the SEC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2019, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
29,907 posts, read 12,708,711 times
Reputation: 21190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
No, it is a measure of all employment, private and government.
Um, do try to follow along...
156,167,000 Americans are employed in February. 154,964,000 Americans were employed in January.
Logically, then, if we apply 2nd Grade Math:
156,167,000
154,964,000 minus
--------------
1,203,000
So, I omitted a zero, and actually 1.2 Million jobs were created, not 20,000.
See how that works?
There are 1,203,000 more Americans working in February than there were in January.
Why are there 1,203,000 more Americans working now?
The figure of 20,000 refers to jobs created - You can't get there by saying that there are X number more people working this month than last unless there were no unfilled jobs for them to occupy. I'm surprised that you would reach such a bizarre conclusion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2019, 01:37 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
2,852 posts, read 1,524,037 times
Reputation: 3268
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
The figure of 20,000 refers to jobs created - You can't get there by saying that there are X number more people working this month than last unless there were no unfilled jobs for them to occupy. I'm surprised that you would reach such a bizarre conclusion.
That poster is trying a bait and switch and you are absolutely right to ignore.

The payroll survey is the preferred method of measuring job growth by most experts and that is one reason that data series gets the most attention for job growth. The household survey does have its uses but job growth isn't typically one of them.

From the BLS website is a key distinction between the two surveys:
"Employment estimates from both surveys are subject to sampling error. Household survey employment is subject to much greater sampling error than payroll survey employment, due to its smaller sample size."

https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_c...nds.htm#recent
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2019, 01:55 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,967 posts, read 13,817,865 times
Reputation: 15143
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
The figure of 20,000 refers to jobs created - You can't get there by saying that there are X number more people working this month than last unless there were no unfilled jobs for them to occupy. I'm surprised that you would reach such a bizarre conclusion.
What the hell people, which part of "seasonally adjusted" do you not understand?

You didn't even bother to go to the links, because you're deathly afraid of how wrong you'll look, so I'll bring the links to you.





What does that say?

It says 156,167,000 Americans are employed now, and 154,964,000 Americans were employed in January.

Subtraction is a 2nd Grade Math concept:

156,167,000
154,964,000 less
--------------
1,203,000 more Americans working than before.

What are those 1,203,000 Americans doing?

Working.

In jobs.

New jobs.

Jobs that didn't exist in January.

Now, take 1,203,000 and run it through the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program and you get "20,000."

That's how it works.

See?

If in March 465,000 jobs are created and you run it through the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program, it might come back with 220,000 jobs, or maybe 315,000 jobs or maybe 170,000 jobs or it might even say 60,000 jobs

"Seasonally adjusted" data is totally arbitrary data.

In March 2009 you actually only lost 272,000 jobs, but the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program seasonally adjusted that to 663,000 jobs lost.

In June 2009, you really gained 463,000 jobs, but the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program seasonally adjusted that to 467,000 jobs lost.

Seasonally adjusted data is all arbitrary and based on the idea of "seasonality."

It's not real, it just makes graphs look pretty for the anal retentive.

If you're unable to understand that, then you probably shouldn't be posting on the Economics Forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks View Post
That poster is trying a bait and switch and you are absolutely right to ignore.
There's no bait and switch. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks View Post
The payroll survey is the preferred method of measuring job growth by most experts and that is one reason that data series gets the most attention for job growth. The household survey does have its uses but job growth isn't typically one of them.
Um, the "payroll survey" says 418,000 jobs were created.

Read and weep:






Again, we'll apply 2nd Grade Math concepts:

126,363,000
125,945,000 -
--------------
418,000 more Americans working private sector jobs in February than in January.




Obviously, you both need to enroll in your local universities and take courses in labor statistics, like I did when I got my BA in Economics, so you can understand this stuff.
Attached Thumbnails
20,000 jobs added in February 180,000 expected-2019-03-12-15_22_41-bureau-labor   20,000 jobs added in February 180,000 expected-2019-03-12-15_23_59-bureau-labor  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2019, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Raleigh NC
8,596 posts, read 6,712,769 times
Reputation: 7650
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
Medicaid is state run, it gets matching federal subsidies. States tax anything to fill up their general funds. A poorer person cannot avoid paying state and local taxes. The rich most definitely do not pay full sticker price for this magnificent federal government serving them so well. It runs astronomical deficits only USA can run and nobody else. Take those deficit powered subsidies from the states and the system falls apart or rather de-evolves to something more African in appearance. The rich appropriate so much of output the system cannot regenerate itself without parasitizing on the rest of the world.
Quote:
I don't know where you get these ideas, but it's certainly interesting that your mind thinks that way.
bless your heart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2019, 05:22 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
7,806 posts, read 2,314,838 times
Reputation: 6170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
418,000 more Americans working private sector jobs in February than in January.
And there were 2.418 million fewer Americans working private sector jobs in January than there were in December.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2019, 06:17 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
29,907 posts, read 12,708,711 times
Reputation: 21190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
What the hell people, which part of "seasonally adjusted" do you not understand?
You didn't even bother to go to the links, because you're deathly afraid of how wrong you'll look, so I'll bring the links to you.
Obviously, you both need to enroll in your local universities and take courses in labor statistics, like I did when I got my BA in Economics, so you can understand this stuff.
What's peculiar is that NO SOURCE that I can find agrees with you, not one. So I'm guessing that CNBC, Forbes, Blloomberg, NY Times, and Fox Business are all just too stupid to understand your math.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2019, 06:38 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
7,806 posts, read 2,314,838 times
Reputation: 6170
Miracea's numbers are correct, but he/she uses the seasonally unadjusted numbers, which basically no media outlet cites. So you won't find it anywhere except the BLS's website.

There's a good reason why the media does not cite the unadjusted numbers, because using those for anything other than year-over-year comparisons is pretty stupid. EVERY February, for example, even while the economy is crashing, sees a gain in unadjusted jobs created. So what does that tell you by citing them? Not much. The only way to discern any trends or patterns would be to try to see if that unadjusted number is more or less than usual for that month ... in which case you're defacto doing a seasonal adjustment anyway. So you might as well just cite the seasonally adjusted numbers and get it over with.

People like Miracea think they're making some sort of point by citing unadjusted numbers, but in reality, they aren't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2019, 06:51 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
7,806 posts, read 2,314,838 times
Reputation: 6170
Just FYI, here is the difference between unadjusted and adjusted numbers.

Here are seasonally adjusted numbers for initial unemployment claims:



And here is the same data series, but not adjusted for seasonality:



A lot of economic data has a high degree of seasonality: Some months get natural spurts of hiring, and some get natural spurts of layoffs. Think of garden centers in the spring, retailers during Christmas, and then the latter lays off a bunch of people in January. The process of seasonally adjusted numbers like those smooths out the big seasonal bumps and valleys so that you can discern the overall trend easier.

Some economic data are not seasonally adjusted, but in those cases the only legitimate comparison would be for the year-earlier period - comparing Feb 2019 to Feb 2018, for instance. In that case, since they're both February they both have the same seasonality and so you don't need to adjust it.

A counter-argument to what I just said in the paragraph above is, sometimes the seasonality changes. For example, if retailers are hiring fewer temps during the holidays because of online sales, you will see a gradual decrease in the # of people hired in November and December. Applying a seasonal adjustment, which is usually some kind of moving average (say, a 5-year moving average), you can capture changes in seasonality that way, whereas just comparing year-over-year unadjusted numbers doesn't really tell you if something else is going on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top