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 03-13-2019, 06:56 AM
 
26 posts, read 2,312 times
Reputation: 17

Advertisements

This shows that there's a disconnect form the market and job growth. It could simply be a glitch. We'll see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-13-2019, 04:53 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
11,709 posts, read 12,065,175 times
Reputation: 18403
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I don't think anyone expected this!
No one but the weather gal on your local TV station. Nobody starts anything in a blizzard. New hires have to be able to get to work. Expect a rebound in March.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2019, 05:59 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
2,852 posts, read 1,524,037 times
Reputation: 3268
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
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.
Thanks for the correction and explanation James. Always enjoy your posts!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:45 PM
 
1,645 posts, read 434,264 times
Reputation: 2340
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
Half of the states in the country reported that 50 percent or more of births were financed by Medicaid, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report that requested the figures in 2016.
This is disastrous....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:47 PM
 
1,645 posts, read 434,264 times
Reputation: 2340
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfLiberty View Post
This shows that there's a disconnect form the market and job growth. It could simply be a glitch. We'll see.
There's been a disconnect since 2000 or so...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:43 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,959 posts, read 13,817,865 times
Reputation: 15128
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
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.
That's not why the Media doesn't cite them.

The Media is about profits, and analyzing labor data requires the Media hire someone and pay a salary, which cuts into their profits. It's just easier for the Media to report whatever the government says, regardless of the accuracy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
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.
That's a patently false statement.

January 2009 showed 140,436,000 employed, while February 2009 showed 140,105,000 employed, a loss of 331,000 jobs.

January 2008 data says 144,607,000 employed and February 2008 shows 144,550,000 employed, a loss of 57,000 jobs.

So, you were just proven wrong, as usual.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
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.
Trends are easily identified with unadjusted numbers, so seasonally adjusting numbers isn't necessary.

Contrary to popular belief, there's no relationship between jobs and recessions.

You can lose jobs during a recession or not, and you can lose jobs even when there is no recession.

Obviously, a recession caused by structural unemployed is going to have job losses, but recessions caused by Capital reallocation or liquidity issues do not necessarily result in job losses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
People like Miracea think they're making some sort of point by citing unadjusted numbers, but in reality, they aren't.
The point is seasonally adjusting numbers gives a false impression of what is really happening.

FICA payroll taxes collected in January were $62,552,000,000 and February $69,095,954,523.

The Wage Index for 2017 (data for 2018 won't be reported until late November or early December this year) is $50,321.89.

That works out to $4193.49/month and $519.99 in FICA payroll taxes.

The difference in FICA revenues collected for January and February is $6,543,954,523.

If only 20,000 jobs were created, then that would be $10,399,800 in additional FICA taxes.

$10.4 Million is far less than $6.54 Billion, so that proves a helluva lot more than 20,000 jobs were created.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
7,805 posts, read 2,314,838 times
Reputation: 6164
Quote:
That's not why the Media doesn't cite them.

The Media is about profits, and analyzing labor data requires the Media hire someone and pay a salary, which cuts into their profits. It's just easier for the Media to report whatever the government says, regardless of the accuracy.
No, the reason the media doesn't cite them is because not even the BLS cites them in their monthly reports. The only place you can find the unadjusted numbers is in the BLS tables. And the reason the BLS does not cite them in their own reports, is because it's more difficult to discern trends from the unadjusted numbers.

Quote:
That's a patently false statement.
You're looking at the household survey numbers, I cited the establishment survey numbers.

The fact you deliberately cited an entirely different survey than the one I was referring to tells me you have no interest in having an intelligent discussion.

Quote:
FICA payroll taxes collected in January were $62,552,000,000 and February $69,095,954,523.
Yeah, guess what? FICA numbers have seasonality as well. I actually used to follow tax withholding numbers and learned there are not only monthly tendencies, but there are also tendencies with certain days of the week. So if you have a month with, say, 5 Mondays, it's going to have a greater withholding amount than the same month a year ago, if that same month a year ago only had 4 Mondays.

You see, you're citing statistics without knowing a single thing about them.
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