City-Data Forum Payrolls Rise 164,000 as Labor Force Sets a Record High
 User Name Remember Me Password [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.

08-03-2019, 12:20 PM
 Location: Russia 157 posts, read 20,133 times Reputation: 87

a lot of posters are trying to hijack this thread

back on topic: 160k job additions in the context of under 4% unemployment is indeed, great news.
More people employed now than in our history is also good news.

08-03-2019, 01:33 PM
 Location: Florida/Tennessee 2,646 posts, read 4,358,753 times Reputation: 1475
Remember good news for the country is bad news for dems. Let that sink in a bit and think about Baltimore.

08-03-2019, 03:14 PM
 Location: Ohio 20,076 posts, read 14,325,698 times Reputation: 16236
Quote:
 Originally Posted by James Bond 007 As usual, Mircea has to mislead by citing unadjusted numbers when everyone else is talking about the seasonally adjusted numbers.
The unadjusted data is the true and correct data.

The seasonally adjusted numbers are distortions of the true and correct.

If seasonally adjusted data is so good, then why don't we use it for traffic accident fatalities?

Suppose the true and correct data for traffic fatalities in July 2019 was 1,923 deaths.

We enter 1,923 into the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program then enter extraneous weighting factors like temperature, weather conditions and the number of birds in that tree over yon.

Then we come up with a seasonally adjusted number of 1,114 fatalities. Or maybe 1,656 fatalities or maybe even 2,271 fatalities.

If we wanted, we could skew the numbers using weighting factors so that only 500 people died.

Wouldn't that be great? Not as many people died as actually did die!

Is that making any sense?

Do you want seasonally adjusted traffic fatalities?

If 2,487 people died by firearms in May 2019, we could just enter 2,487 into the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program and add extraneous weighting factors like temperature, and whether it was sunny or rainy and the number of cars parked in front of 21 Baker Street.

Then we can say the number of seasonally adjusted firearm deaths was 1,989 or 2,661 or 2,113 or whatever.

If we shouldn't do it for traffic fatalities and firearm deaths, then why do it for employment?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by James Bond 007 And he/she always seems to forget to include January, when his/her unadjusted numbers ALWAYS take a big hit.
Which part of "1 : Data affected by changes in population controls" do you not understand?

The changes in population controls affects the data for Januray.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by James Bond 007 But since he/she likes to cite such things, here they are, from the BLS: Employed and unemployed persons by occupation, not seasonally adjusted # employed July 2018: 157,004,000 # employed July 2019: 158,385,000 ----------------------------------------- A paltry gain of 115K per month, on average

Your attempt at deception is noted:

The January data is changed to reflect changes in population controls, which is what makes for an apparent discrepancy, not an actual discrepancy.

Any person seeking Truth would take the changes in population controls into consideration, thus:

July 2018-December 2018 = -523,000 jobs
Jan 2019-July 2019 = 3,420,000 jobs

3,420,000 + (-523,000) = 2,897,000 jobs

2,897,000 / 13 = 222,846 jobs and not the 115K you claimed.

(July to July is 13 months)

You've been debunked.

Congratulations!
Attached Thumbnails

08-03-2019, 03:51 PM
 Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI 9,055 posts, read 2,785,732 times Reputation: 6989
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mircea The unadjusted data is the true and correct data. The seasonally adjusted numbers are distortions of the true and correct. The true and correct unadjusted data is inserted into the X-13ARIMA-SEATS software program that you can download for free at the US Census Bureau website, which is something you've never done, so you don't even know how to use the program.
You don't seem to be aware that these entire data sets - seasonally adjusted as well as unadjusted - are extrapolations based on sample surveys and are revised many times over many years. Saying that something that is based on sample surveys and continually adjusted over many years (and even decades) is "true and correct" is a gross exaggeration of reality.

Quote:
 If seasonally adjusted data is so good, then why don't we use it for traffic accident fatalities?
Actually, yes that would be a perfectly legitimate use of seasonal adjustments if someone was interested in monthly patterns. Of course, over the course of a year seasonality is irrelevant and we don't need adjusted numbers for yearly totals.

Quote:
 Which part of "1 : Data affected by changes in population controls" do you not understand? The changes in population controls affects the data for Januray.
I was citing the PAYROLL numbers, not the household survey. The payroll numbers have nothing to do with population changes.

But the fact that you just noted that "population controls" affect the unadjusted household survey every January is just more evidence that you, yourself, are aware that what you are citing as the "true and correct" data is not really that. It is nothing more than another statistical adjustment, just like the seasonal ones you're ridiculing.

08-03-2019, 05:58 PM
 Location: Unperson Everyman Land 30,573 posts, read 20,197,655 times Reputation: 8437
Quote:
 Originally Posted by moneill Obama is the foundation for that economy. This is the longest economic recovery ever -- 10 years -- Trump has been in for 25% of that time. And let's be clear -- if a Democrat is chosen for President next year -- if things continue as is - -he (or she?) will be fortunate to inherit a good economy. Obama inherited a horrible economy. Just saying.

Yes, Obama came into office as the recession was bottoming.

That means the economy was going to grow (rebound) and lots of people that just lost their jobs were going to find new ones.

This is what always happens after a recession.

Nothing needs to be done to make the economy rebound.

It does that all by itself.

The recovery we experienced was the most anemic in US history.

That's Obama's legacy.

As for inheriting a good economy, from a political point of view that isn't really a good thing.

The reason for that is any downturn will be blamed on the current office holder.

We are currently experiencing much higher growth than expected, and this with lower unemployment than we have seen since LBJ was in office.

That will be Trump's legacy.

08-03-2019, 06:35 PM
 Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D 19,924 posts, read 22,858,450 times Reputation: 7216
Quote:
 Originally Posted by momonkey Yes, Obama came into office as the recession was bottoming. That means the economy was going to grow (rebound) and lots of people that just lost their jobs were going to find new ones. This is what always happens after a recession. Nothing needs to be done to make the economy rebound. It does that all by itself. The recovery we experienced was the most anemic in US history. That's Obama's legacy. As for inheriting a good economy, from a political point of view that isn't really a good thing. The reason for that is any downturn will be blamed on the current office holder. We are currently experiencing much higher growth than expected, and this with lower unemployment than we have seen since LBJ was in office. That will be Trump's legacy.
Complete lies.
Obama did NOT come into office as the recession was "bottoming". He took office as the recession was accelerating - with job losses picking up and the GDP growth rate plummeting.
Obama took office in Jan of 2009
The recession didn't bottom until the 2nd quarter of 2009 - nearly half a year after he took office.
And monthly job losses were still in excess of HALF A MILLION a month at that time.
Stop with lies.

https://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth...ble/by-quarter

https://www.investing.com/economic-c...m-payrolls-227

If you think Obama took office as the Great Recession as "bottoming", why don't you explain how it was bottoming? "Bottoming" based on what? It certainly wasn't "bottoming" based on the number of monthly job losses - and it wasn't "bottoming" based on the quarterly GDP. So HOW was it "botttoming" when Obama came into office in Jan of 2009? Show us the proof it was "bottoming" in Jan of 2009.

As far as us "currently experiencing much higher growth than expected" - "expected" by WHO. Certainly not higher than "expected" by Trump. He claimed we'd have 5% GDP annual growth rate, and we haven't even hit 3% annual growth rate.

Ken

08-04-2019, 11:42 AM
 Location: Florida/Tennessee 2,646 posts, read 4,358,753 times Reputation: 1475
Well, growth is only sustainable by 2.5 to 3.5% of GDP. I believe if you listen you'll see "exactly" what he said in 2017. What ever you want to believe is fine, but who doesn't know the president Trump haters are the great deniers too? I get it, you love Obama and hate president Trump, but hating him or disliking him has nothing to do with the economy.

Number are the science of logic. To my fellow math people you can't get to a correct answer without all the numbers, can not do it with just the ones that add up for you, gotta use "all" of them and sometimes use subtraction.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...6_percent.html

Last edited by Dave_n_Tenn; 08-04-2019 at 12:01 PM..

08-04-2019, 11:51 AM
 Location: Charlotte NC 11,898 posts, read 9,444,011 times Reputation: 5328
Quote:
 Originally Posted by momonkey Yes, Obama came into office as the recession was bottoming. That means the economy was going to grow (rebound) and lots of people that just lost their jobs were going to find new ones. This is what always happens after a recession. Nothing needs to be done to make the economy rebound. It does that all by itself. The recovery we experienced was the most anemic in US history. That's Obama's legacy. As for inheriting a good economy, from a political point of view that isn't really a good thing. The reason for that is any downturn will be blamed on the current office holder. We are currently experiencing much higher growth than expected, and this with lower unemployment than we have seen since LBJ was in office. That will be Trump's legacy.
His legacy will be lies.. like your backwards post.

08-04-2019, 06:35 PM
 Location: Near Falls Lake 2,847 posts, read 1,937,602 times Reputation: 2685
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber No, it is not. There are tens of millions of Americans out of jobs. Labor Force Participation Rate is still very bad. We had 4% unemployment under Clinton, and kept adding 300-400K jobs per month.
I believe there are more jobs than Americans to fill them! Did you complain about the LFPR under the previous administration? I'm betting you did not!

08-04-2019, 06:57 PM
 Location: Buckeye, AZ 27,548 posts, read 15,907,165 times Reputation: 9943
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn China is going to interfere BIG time in our election in ways never imagined. They're sneaky you know and liars too. Now class, who do you think they'll be rooting for? do I need to make it multiple choice? China is retracting and is playing games with the global economy. What they intend to do is beyond our control, but be ready and aware.
Like Russia did for the Republicans in 2016? Sorry I had to.
 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.