Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-03-2018, 06:55 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
20,784 posts, read 9,417,330 times
Reputation: 15517

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tripleh View Post

I didnt ask, nor care for your characterization of the report.

stop dancing around the original question.

That WAS my reply to his question. Emphasized here in red for your convenience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
I would characterize the report as "OK", not necessarily "good."

3.9% is a good, low UE rate, but since it hit that level 4 months ago it wasn't particularly newsworthy.

 
Old 08-03-2018, 07:08 PM
 
30,000 posts, read 11,586,381 times
Reputation: 18512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
Not a good number, but oddly it will be celebrated as "awesome".

The 12 month average is 203,000, which is well below the average from past years.

Previous two months were adjusted upwards so this is just the preliminary numbers.
 
Old 08-04-2018, 07:44 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,800,954 times
Reputation: 14125
Let me just say those cheering the numbers didn't do that when Obama was in office making similar numbers. And yes at one point, I was one of them...
 
Old 08-04-2018, 07:46 AM
 
Location: Phoenix
30,018 posts, read 18,869,092 times
Reputation: 25966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
If being below average, and missing expectations is a good thing, then let us celebrate.
We're starting to run out of people to employ, that's a good thing. Trump already got over 4% gdp growth and Obama only did that once in 8 years and that was due to the Republican Congress.
 
Old 08-04-2018, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
20,784 posts, read 9,417,330 times
Reputation: 15517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler View Post
We're starting to run out of people to employ, that's a good thing. Trump already got over 4% gdp growth and Obama only did that once in 8 years and that was due to the Republican Congress.
He did not do it just once, he did it 4 times, and one of those times came before republicans took control of congress in 2010.

https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cf...&1906=q&1911=0

2009 Q4: 4.5%
2011 Q4: 4.7%
2014 Q2: 5.1%
2014 Q3: 4.9%

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RL1Q225SBEA

Last edited by James Bond 007; 08-04-2018 at 12:27 PM..
 
Old 08-04-2018, 12:24 PM
 
20,622 posts, read 19,277,825 times
Reputation: 8224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler View Post
We're starting to run out of people to employ, that's a good thing. Trump already got over 4% gdp growth and Obama only did that once in 8 years and that was due to the Republican Congress.
It had nothing to do with any of them . The only thing we can credit Republicans for is the drop in public workers in cash strapped states because they blocked Obama attempt to funnel money to them.
 
Old 08-04-2018, 04:34 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,092,469 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
The St Louis Fed keeps a database of ALL federal government economic (and other) data. If you are unaware of the existence of FRED, you should start educating yourself. The numbers you cited are the exact same ones available on FRED.
I was looking at FRED probably before you were born.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
As has been pointed out to you before, that data you think is "real hard physical data" is actually just as massaged as the seasonally adjusted data. ALL federal government economic data (except unemployment insurance claims) are based on sample surveys with margins of error. You act as if you're citing a 100% sample but what you're really citing is about a 3% sample extrapolated over the entire economy and over the entire population.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
I'm well aware of how the data is obtained, since I posted a copy of the Survey on the Economics Forum a few years ago, discussing the fact that different Administrations have ordered BLS to reduce or increase the size of the Survey sample. For example, the Clinton Administration directed that only 42,000 be surveyed, instead of 60,000.

The hard data is what it is, and it is not "massaged" no matter how much you protest. The seasonally adjusted data is massaged, with no rhyme or reason. Seasonally adjusted workers may or may not actually exist, which is a concept you're apparently unable to grasp.

Even if you rely on total private employment, the simple fact is 4,590,000 jobs have been created since January.

And while total private employment is useful in evaluating the economic situation, you apparently don't understand it's not bullet-proof either:

This measure accounts for approximately 80 percent of the workers who contribute to Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
 
Old 08-04-2018, 05:06 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
20,784 posts, read 9,417,330 times
Reputation: 15517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
I was looking at FRED probably before you were born.
I was born long, long before the internet even existed. By, like, 30 years. So, given that I posted a link to BLS data on FRED, you accusing me of posting Federal Reserve data, was blatantly in error.

Quote:
I'm well aware of how the data is obtained ....
You still didn't answer my question as to why you posted household survey data in response to a post about establishment survey data.

Quote:
Seasonally adjusted workers may or may not actually exist, which is a concept you're apparently unable to grasp.
It is clear it is you who do not grasp the concept of seasonal adjustments and seasonality. Anybody who did would know it's illegitimate to compare unadjusted data from month to month (or week to week, depending on the data set). The only way to compare unadjusted data is year-over-year. Any other comparison and you're deliberately introducing bias into your analysis (a bias created by the seasonality).

But then, perhaps I shouldn't expect much from someone who posts household survey data in response to a post about establishment survey data. Are you even aware that the household survey has a larger margin of error than the establishment survey? It appears not, since you're using that instead of the establishment survey data.
 
Old 08-04-2018, 05:36 PM
 
6,835 posts, read 2,385,031 times
Reputation: 2727
Good. I would be happy if I got 1 of those 157,000 jobs.
 
Old 08-04-2018, 06:35 PM
 
33,843 posts, read 16,875,949 times
Reputation: 17128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound View Post
Previous two months were adjusted upwards so this is just the preliminary numbers.
significantly upward.

A good report overall, as I always add adjustments to latest numbers, to view it as a net change report.

Plus wage and hours worked, plus LFPR, all pretty good again with this report.
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.


Closed Thread


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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top