Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 189

Thread: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

  1. #21
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,581

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    What DA60 is saying about part time jobs may be true, but as long as the average workweek is increasing, I think that we are headed in the right track.

    From today's report:

    In November, the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose
    by 0.1 hour to 34.6 hours. The manufacturing workweek rose by 0.2 hour to 41.1 hours,
    and factory overtime edged up by 0.1 hour to 3.5 hours.
    The average workweek has been shrinking for over a hundred years, I see no reason why anyone would expect that this trend would change now. Today's forty hour a week job would have been considered "part time" a hundred years ago, when the average workweek was 70 hours.
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    ...I'm not interested in debating someone who is trolling for an argument....
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I see a big problem with the idea that whatever the majority wants is OK.

  2. #22
    Educator WallStreetVixen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York City/London
    Last Seen
    06-04-15 @ 11:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    715

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    The CES is considered more accurate, but it has its flaws, which is why we have CPS.

    For example, the CES counts one person holding two jobs as two different payroll prints. The CPS counts the same person as one employed person. This is why I tend to look at multiple job holders, which has had an upward spike as of recently, the most growth since 2010.



    Not really a significant portion of the labour force, but noteworthy when determine the type of jobs being created in the economy.

  3. #23
    Educator WallStreetVixen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    New York City/London
    Last Seen
    06-04-15 @ 11:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    715

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    I'll just this, regardless of the report this last election, the voters didn't look at all the rosy reports or buy into the economy is improving. What they did was look around, at themselves, their families, their neighbors and friends and assessed their own situation and voted accordingly.

    45% of those who voted said the economy was their number one issue. 78% of those who voted said they were worried about their and this nation's financial future. Now those are how the people look at these things, how they feel. Not how a statistical report said or was spun if it was. This last election was decided upon each individuals own pocket book and how they saw the future, their own and friends and family financial future.
    Wages were considered the most important issue in the economy, not job growth. This is why many states held referendums in favor of minimum wage increases.



    Despite the job gains, average hourly wages haven't budged, which gives you an idea of the types of jobs the economy has created within the last 6 years.

    Quality, not quantity.

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    No it's not impossible to prove. The Household survey samples approximately 0.05% of the population. the Establishment survey samples approximately 32% of employed people. There is no doubt that that much larger a sample is going to be more accurate. That's basic math. Standard error for Household Survey employment is about +/- 300,000 and for the Establishment survey it's +/- 74,000 While statistics is not an exact science, it is a science, and that large a difference in sample size is inarguabley more accurate.


    And that's not even including non-sample error, which will be more prevelant in the Household Survey.



    It's not a question. It IS more accurate. But go ahead, and show your math that a sample of .05% of the universe is not for sure less accurate than a sample of 32% of the universe. Or that the standard errors are wrong.
    I will say this one final time because you seem a decent chap and you are usually polite.

    It is impossible to know how accurate a measurement of a number is compared to another measurement of the same number is unless you know what that number you are measuring actually is.

    Since it is presently impossible to determine the actual number of unemployed persons in America with a 100% certainty, then it is impossible to determine how accurate a measurement is compared to another measurement.

    You can guess, estimate or even hope...but you cannot know.

    It's like if I think of a number and you come up with two methods to estimate what that number is. Then you say that method 'a' is more accurate then method 'b'...even though you have absolutely no idea what the number is.
    It is impossible to know which method is more accurate since you do not even know the number you are trying to determine.


    I am guessing you still don't agree.

    Hey, I tried.


    Now, if you will excuse me, there are a TON of things I should/would rather do then this...no offense.


    Good day.

  5. #25
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,369

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    I will say this one final time because you seem a decent chap and you are usually polite.

    It is impossible to know how accurate a measurement of a number is compared to another measurement of the same number is unless you know what that number you are measuring actually is.
    That is untrue. A larger sample size has a smaller margin of error than a smaller sample size (up to a certain point). This is true regardless of anything else.

    [quote]Since it is presently impossible to determine the actual number of unemployed persons in America with a 100% certainty, then it is impossible to determine how accurate a measurement is compared to another measurement.[/qutoe] First, you're changing the topic from Employed to Unemployed. Second you are again ignoring the issue of different sample sizes. Third, you're ignoring that, for the Establishment survey we do have a near exact count from the QCEW.

    It's like if I think of a number and you come up with two methods to estimate what that number is. Then you say that method 'a' is more accurate then method 'b'...even though you have absolutely no idea what the number is.
    It is impossible to know which method is more accurate since you do not even know the number you are trying to determine.
    No, it is nothing like that. It's like there is a giant jar with about 1 million marbles in it of red, white, and blue. You pick a sample of 500 marbles, count the number of each color, and use the percent of your sample to estimate the total number of each color (for example, out of the 500 you pick, there are 100 white, which is 20%....20% of of 1 million is 200,000 so that's your estimate). I pick a sample of 320,000 marbles and get a count of 48,000 white marbles (15%) giving me an estimate of 150,000 white marbles.
    Whose estimate is more likely to be closer to the true number?
    Do you really want to claim sample size doesn't matter and we could go with a sample of 100 households and get the same accuracy as the current 60,000 households?
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  6. #26
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,928
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by WallStreetVixen View Post
    Wages were considered the most important issue in the economy, not job growth. This is why many states held referendums in favor of minimum wage increases.



    Despite the job gains, average hourly wages haven't budged, which gives you an idea of the types of jobs the economy has created within the last 6 years.

    Quality, not quantity.
    I understand. What you posted falls right in line with what I said. Each individual voter took their own stock in how the economy and financial situation was effecting them and then decide whom to vote for. If they saw no improvement themselves, their friends and familieis and in their neighborhood, all the rosy stats didn't mean a thing.

    That chart is most interesting.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  7. #27
    Quantum sufficit

    Threegoofs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The birthplace of Italian Beef
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,556

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by WallStreetVixen View Post
    Wages were considered the most important issue in the economy, not job growth. This is why many states held referendums in favor of minimum wage increases.



    Despite the job gains, average hourly wages haven't budged, which gives you an idea of the types of jobs the economy has created within the last 6 years.

    Quality, not quantity.
    So why didn't you bother to mention that WEEKLY wages seem to have gone up by 2.6%, a significant increase?
    Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.

  8. #28
    Sage

    Mason66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,444

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Is it really that amazing to see jobs increase at Christmas time?

  9. #29
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,369

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    IIt is impossible to know how accurate a measurement of a number is compared to another measurement of the same number is unless you know what that number you are measuring actually is.
    .
    Ah. I think I figured out the disconnect. Since for any sample estimation, there is a margin of error, it is possible that the estimate from a smaller sample is closer to the true number than the estimate from a larger sample. So, no, we cannot know 100% for sure which is closer.

    However....the majority of the time the estimate from the larger sample will be closer to the true number than that from a smaller sample. That's simple math.

    And that's why the larger sample is more accurate: The margin of error is smaller and therefore it is more likely to be closer to the true number. That's the sense of "absolutely more accurate" I meant.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Payroll employment increases by 321,000 in November; unemployment rate unchanged

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Btw, according to the NOT seasonally adjusted household survey, there were actually 270,000 FEWER Americans employed in November compared to October.

    Plus a whopping (again NOT seasonally adjusted) 735,000(!) less Americans employed full time in November compared to October.

    Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

    This report just gets uglier and uglier.
    The highlighted part is what I failed to include in my original post.

Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •