U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment down

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

imyoda said:

And on what authority do you to say that............have any proof?............The items you mention have no relationship to the jobs created...........

Do you even know how BLS defines "jobs created" in its survey.................Have you ever been to the BLS web site?

Or are you just repeating something you heard on Faux et. al.

Please spare us the somebody else's BS you are repeating................Plus it makes you look silly to do so......

Click to expand...

 Another Phony Payroll Jobs Number    :  Information Clearing House - ICH
Another Phony Payroll Jobs Number
By Paul Craig Roberts
"What is wrong with these numbers? Just about everything. First of all, 145,000 of the jobs, or 54%, are jobs arbitrarily added to the number by the birth-death model. The birth-death model provides an estimate of the net amount of unreported jobs lost to business closings and the unreported jobs created by new business openings. The model is based on a normally functioning economy unlike the one of the past seven years and thus overestimates the number of jobs from new business and underestimates the losses from closures. If we eliminate the birth-death model’s contribution, new jobs were 126,000.

Next, consider who got the 271,000 reported jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, all of the new jobs plus some—378,000—went to those 55 years of age and older. However, males in the prime working age, 25 to 54 years of age, lost 119,000 jobs. What seems to have happened is that full time jobs were replaced with part time jobs for retirees. Multiple job holders increased by 109,000 in October, an indication that people who lost full time jobs had to take two or more part time jobs in order to make ends meet."....
"Now assume the 271,000 reported jobs in October is the real number, and not 126,000 or less, where are those jobs? According to the BLS not a single one is in manufacturing. The jobs are in personal services, mainly lowly paid jobs such as retail clerks, ambulatory health care service jobs, temporary help, and waitresses and bartenders.

For example, the BLS reports 44,000 new retail trade jobs, a questionable number in light of sluggish real retail sales. Possibly what is happening is that stores are turning a smaller number of full time jobs into a larger number of part time jobs in order to avoid benefit costs associated with full time workers. The new reported jobs are essentially Third World type of jobs that do not produce sufficient income to form a household and do not produce exportable goods and services to help to bring down the large US trade deficit resulting from jobs offshoring. The problem with the 5% unemployment rate is that it does not include any discoraged workers. When discouraged workers—those who have ceased looking for a job because there are no jobs to be found—are included the unemployment rate is about 23%. Another problem with the 5% number is that it suggests full employment. Yet the labor force participation rate remains at a low point. Normally during a real economic recovery, people enter the labor force and the participation rate rises."

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

pinqy said:

BLS contracts out with Census and State agencies for collection for some surveys. mmi works for another government agency collecting data for BLS.

Click to expand...

Well how the heck would I know that from what he said?

Either way, he is a bureaucrat, he obviously has access to the info and you still have not answered my question...would it kill him to include links with his data? You often do, why can he not?

And where is unbiased proof I asked you for you back up your matter-of-fact statement that in terms of BLS accuracy that there is 'nothing more accurate'?

And finally, are you seriously suggesting that there is no pressure whatsoever exerted onto the BLS from the Whote House to massage the stats to make the government look better?

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DaveFagan said:

I'm not all that confident that those numbers give real meaning. Huge numbers of people not looking for work. 42% of the USA on food stamps. These are service oriented low wage jobs that are not going to add to the tax base. Show me breakout infrastructure and I will be impressed. Otherwise, I just see it as gov't fudge, same irregardless of which party is in office.

Click to expand...

The job growth number and unemployment rate and number of Americans employed have the exact same meaning that they have had for decades.

Where did you get the information that 42% of Americans are on food stamps? I seriously doubt that's accurate.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DaveFagan said:

*Another Phony Payroll Jobs Number*** :* Information Clearing House - ICH
Another Phony Payroll Jobs Number
By Paul Craig Roberts
"What is wrong with these numbers? Just about everything. First of all, 145,000 of the jobs, or 54%, are jobs arbitrarily added to the number by the birth-death model. The birth-death model provides an estimate of the net amount of unreported jobs lost to business closings and the unreported jobs created by new business openings. The model is based on a normally functioning economy unlike the one of the past seven years and thus overestimates the number of jobs from new business and underestimates the losses from closures. If we eliminate the birth-death model’s contribution, new jobs were 126,000.

Next, consider who got the 271,000 reported jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, all of the new jobs plus some—378,000—went to those 55 years of age and older. However, males in the prime working age, 25 to 54 years of age, lost 119,000 jobs. What seems to have happened is that full time jobs were replaced with part time jobs for retirees. Multiple job holders increased by 109,000 in October, an indication that people who lost full time jobs had to take two or more part time jobs in order to make ends meet."....
"Now assume the 271,000 reported jobs in October is the real number, and not 126,000 or less, where are those jobs? According to the BLS not a single one is in manufacturing. The jobs are in personal services, mainly lowly paid jobs such as retail clerks, ambulatory health care service jobs, temporary help, and waitresses and bartenders.

For example, the BLS reports 44,000 new retail trade jobs, a questionable number in light of sluggish real retail sales. Possibly what is happening is that stores are turning a smaller number of full time jobs into a larger number of part time jobs in order to avoid benefit costs associated with full time workers. The new reported jobs are essentially Third World type of jobs that do not produce sufficient income to form a household and do not produce exportable goods and services to help to bring down the large US trade deficit resulting from jobs offshoring. The problem with the 5% unemployment rate is that it does not include any discoraged workers. When discouraged workers—those who have ceased looking for a job because there are no jobs to be found—are included the unemployment rate is about 23%. Another problem with the 5% number is that it suggests full employment. Yet the labor force participation rate remains at a low point. Normally during a real economic recovery, people enter the labor force and the participation rate rises."

Click to expand...

That's a political hit piece. Statement by statement is is conjecture and not fact based.

An example of this is that it's easy to say that the "5% rate doesn't include discouraged workers", but the reality is the U3 has never included discouraged workers, and there are always discouraged workers under every president. It also ignores the fact that the number of discouraged workers has been declining.

This article is taking advantage of a combination of bias and ignorance of it's readers to create a negative picture. I could take this same article, update the figures to any of the figures under Reagan or any other potus, and it would paint just as bleak of a picture.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DA60 said:

...
And finally, are you seriously suggesting that there is no pressure whatsoever exerted onto the BLS from the Whote House to massage the stats to make the government look better?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. It would likely take about 15 seconds to make it to the media if the White House was doing that. The reality is that you just don't want there to be any good numbers under this potus.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

imagep said:

The job growth number and unemployment rate and number of Americans employed have the exact same meaning that they have had for decades.

Where did you get the information that 42% of Americans are on food stamps? I seriously doubt that's accurate.

Click to expand...

You are correct on the 42% of Americans on food stamps. The real number is 46,000,000. My mistake and thanks for bringing my attention to it.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...months&usg=AFQjCNEDNPpyvituaQwbXmqtt1xvOtdPZw

"The 46,674,364 people on food stamps in the United States also exceeded the total .... I"

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DaveFagan said:

You are correct on the 42% of Americans on food stamps. The real number is 46,000,000. My mistake and thanks for bringing my attention to it.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...months&usg=AFQjCNEDNPpyvituaQwbXmqtt1xvOtdPZw

"The 46,674,364 people on food stamps in the United States also exceeded the total .... I"

Click to expand...

There's the problem. You read CNS News. You don't realize that's a political hack site?
e
Seriously, everything they report is slanted to a degree that it's almost a lie. You dont see the truth when you rely on such sites for information. Those sites don't want you to know the truth.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

imagep said:

Absolutely. It would likely take about 15 seconds to make it to the media if the White House was doing that. The reality is that you just don't want there to be any good numbers under this potus.

Click to expand...

1) Is your name pinqy? Do you work/worked at the BLS? I am asking him.

2) It IS a government agency with it's Commissioner nominated by the President. Can you really be so spectacularly naive as to believe that someone whom is nominated by a POTUS is under ZERO pressure, 100% of the time to not legally come up with statistical models/surveys/calculations that put the government/economy in a better light?
The Fed itself has publicly abandoned using the U-3 'official unemployment rate' as an accurate measure of the employment situation. If that by itself does not show what a joke of a stat it is...I am not sure what does.

3) You do not know me and do not know what I think, so you have ZERO possible way of knowing what I want on ANY subject unless I state those desires. Which in this case...I have not.
The fact is I VERY much want Obama to do the right thing. Just as I want every POTUS to do so. To believe otherwise is ridiculous, IMO. That he keeps messing up (as GW Bush did before him) is not my fault.

BTW, is there anything else that I am feeling - which you have ZERO personal knowledge of - that you would like to inform me of? Perhaps what I think about turtles? Chicken soup? The Columbus Blue Jackets. Pepsi? Hmmm....?

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

MTAtech said:

Funny how the private sector job creation under this "job-killing" president has far outpaced anything that happened under Bush.

Click to expand...

The unemployment rate during the entirety of the Bush years averaged around 5%.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DaveFagan said:

You are correct on the 42% of Americans on food stamps. The real number is 46,000,000. My mistake and thanks for bringing my attention to it.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...months&usg=AFQjCNEDNPpyvituaQwbXmqtt1xvOtdPZw

"The 46,674,364 people on food stamps in the United States also exceeded the total .... I"

Click to expand...

BTW, since the END of the Great Recession, food stamp usage has risen almost 30%.

And food stamp usage is actually higher now then it was in April (though it dropped from last month).

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/34SNAPmonthly.pdf

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DA60 said:

Fine...prove it.

Where are your links to unbiased sources that provides statistical/factual proof of your statement?

You made the matter-of-fact statement...then you should have facts to back it up.

Click to expand...

The problem is that if I cite anything from BLS or Census about their sample size, or accuracy, you'll dismiss it as biased.

But, for unemployment data, only BLS and Gallup do extensive surveys. Both detail their methods and the BLS survey is many times larger, covers a wider range of people, and is designed to be more representative of the population. Gallup states their margin of error for unemployment rate is +/- 0.7 and BLS is +/-0.2

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

pinqy said:

The problem is that if I cite anything from BLS or Census about their sample size, or accuracy, you'll dismiss it as biased.

But, for unemployment data, only BLS and Gallup do extensive surveys. Both detail their methods and the BLS survey is many times larger, covers a wider range of people, and is designed to be more representative of the population. Gallup states their margin of error for unemployment rate is +/- 0.7 and BLS is +/-0.2

Click to expand...

Well, thanks for the effort and the data...but the correct answer is 'there is no way to prove it'. Your statement was virtually impossible to prove.

Btw, a larger sample size means nothing as there are many things the BLS could (and does) do to alter the raw data (like the Birth Death model, for example).
Plus, since no independent and unbiased, non-governmental organization monitors every aspect of the BLS data taking at all times, it is not possible to know how accurate their statistics even are...though I doubt they are dumb enough to do anything illegal.

I have said it before, the BLS, IMO, is instructed (covertly) by the White House (not just his one...probably all of them in recent history) to legally present the statistics and the surveys that feed them in such a way so as to alter the true economic picture in a manner that makes the economy look healthier then it is. Sometimes massively so, sometimes only slightly so and sometimes not at all. And sometimes fundamentally so such as the definition of U-3 and using it as the official unemployment rate (which many - including the Federal Reserve - have dismissed as an inaccurate means of determining the employment situation).

A) can you factually prove they don't (your answer is 'no').
B) you should know very well that one can garner almost any result one wants from a poll depending on the way it is carried out/asked.
C) the BLS does NOT produce raw data very often. Even by it's own admission it alters that data based on it's own models/assumptions (again...the Birth Death number is just one of many examples).
D) to assume that when the BLS commissioner is nominated by the POTUS (not just Obama...all of them) that that person is not expected to 'play ball' on occasion is so ridiculously naive in 2015 it simply defies rational logic. Again, please prove that this situation NEVER happens (your answer, btw, is 'I cannot').



Btw, what you should have began your earlier statement with was 'I believe....'as your matter-of-fact statement formation was virtually impossible to prove.

Hey...if you are going to nit pick others' posts then I am going to nit pick yours.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DA60 said:

Well, thanks for the effort and the data...but the correct answer is 'there is no way to prove it'. Your statement was virtually impossible to prove.

Btw, a larger sample size means nothing as there are many things the BLS could (and does) do to alter the raw data (like the Birth Death model, for example).
Plus, since no independent and unbiased, non-governmental organization monitors every aspect of the BLS data taking at all times, it is not possible to know how accurate their statistics even are...though I doubt they are dumb enough to do anything illegal.

I have said it before, the BLS, IMO, is instructed (covertly) by the White House (not just his one...probably all of them in recent history) to legally present the statistics and the surveys that feed them in such a way so as to alter the true economic picture in a way that makes the economy look healthier then it is. Sometimes massively so, sometimes only slightly so and sometimes not at all. And sometimes fundamentally so such as the definition of U-3.

A) can you prove they don't (your answer is 'no').
B) you should know very well that one can garner almost any result one wants from a poll depending on the way it is carried out/asked.
C) the BLS does NOT produce raw data very often. Even by it's own admission it alters that data based on it's own models/assumptions (again...the Birth Death number is just one of many examples).
D) to assume that when the BLS commissioner is nominated by the POTUS (not just Obama...all of them) that that person is not expected to 'play ball' on occasion is so ridiculously naive in 2015 it simply defies rational logic. Again, please prove that this situation NEVER happens (your answer, btw, is 'I cannot').



Btw, what you should have began your earlier statement with was 'I believe....'as your matter-of-fact statement formation was virtually impossible to prove.

Hey...if you are going to nit pick others' posts then I am going to nit pick yours.

Click to expand...

The information put out by the private sector company ADP correlates to the federal governments figures very closely over time. I have no reason to believe that Obummer is influencing ADP.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DA60 said:

pinqy said:

BLS contracts out with Census and State agencies for collection for some surveys. mmi works for another government agency collecting data for BLS.

Click to expand...

Well how the heck would I know that from what he said?

Click to expand...

What difference does it make who I work/worked for?

>>he obviously has access to the info

As do we all.

>>would it kill him to include links with his data? You often do, why can he not?

First, as I've said before, try and find ANY information I've posted that isn't accurate.

Secondly, only occasionally do I post data without a source indicated.

Let's use the example of the data I've posted in this thread. It's two graphs. The first one says right on it that it's based on BLS data and that it's published by the St. Louis Fed. Check the title they gave to the graph. If you search on "not in labor force" "want a job now" stfred, there it is at the top of the return:https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/NILFWJN

The second graph is from BLS. If yer familiar with the site, you should recognize that. That one's entitled LNS12032194. A search on that term brings up Bureau of Labor Statistics Data at #1.

Readers should have no problem checking on what I post. I can't account for yer difficulty.

>>And finally, are you seriously suggesting that there is no pressure whatsoever exerted onto the BLS from the Whote House to massage the stats to make the government look better?

I'll go further than "suggesting" it. I'll dismiss it out-of-hand. I can't fully describe my reaction to a lot of what you post without violating the rules of this forum regarding civility.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

imagep said:

The information put out by the private sector company ADP correlates to the federal governments figures very closely over time. I have no reason to believe that Obummer is influencing ADP.

Click to expand...

I would suggest to you that the ADP labor reports usually do NOT correlate with the BLS's.



ADP: A Big Disappointment For BLS Employment Report



BUT, a) I am not familiar with how ADP tabulates their numbers so I cannot verify their accuracy.

B) I am not saying the BLS lies...they are (probably) not that dumb. And I am not saying they are saying there were 271,000 more jobs when there were really only 21 new jobs (or some such wild difference).
What I am saying is that the BLS takes the raw data and presents it in a manner that makes the economy appear healthier then it is.
Not by lying, but by their methods of assumptions, modelling, tabulation and presentation.

You disagree...fine.

But you cannot factually prove I am wrong...you can only believe it.


Later.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DA60 said:

I would suggest to you that the ADP labor reports usually do NOT correlate with the BLS's.

ADP: A Big Disappointment For BLS Employment Report



BUT, a) I am not familiar with how ADP tabulates their numbers so I cannot verify their accuracy.

B) I am not saying the BLS lies...they are (probably) not that dumb. And I am not saying they are saying there were 271,000 more jobs when there were really only 21 new jobs (or some such wild difference).
What I am saying is that the BLS takes the raw data and presents it in a manner that makes the economy appear healthier then it is.
Not by lying, but by their methods of assumptions, modelling, tabulation and presentation.

You disagree...fine.

But you cannot factually prove I am wrong...you can only believe it.

Click to expand...

The curve is very close, as is a three or four month moving average.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

imagep said:

The curve is very close, as is a three or four month moving average.

Click to expand...

I could care less about the 'curve'...I care about month-to-month accuracy.

And by my quick count, the two were not even within 20% of each other approximately 20 of the 28 months in question.

You (and others) want to call that 'correlation'...fine. Not me.

I do not know about you, but I am not satisfied with a government agency making blanket statements about the economy that are usually (potentially) off by at least 20%.

All I want the BLS to do is stop altering the raw data when they present it to the public (which they freely admit they often do). Just do the survey, forget the 'seasonal adjustments' and the 'Birth/Death' models (and ALL models) and ALL of their assumptions/definitions and just present the RAW DATA AS IS to the public and let the public (and ALL the economists) decide what it means.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DaveFagan said:

*Another Phony Payroll Jobs Number*** :* Information Clearing House - ICH
Another Phony Payroll Jobs Number
By Paul Craig Roberts
"What is wrong with these numbers? Just about everything. First of all, 145,000 of the jobs, or 54%, are jobs arbitrarily added to the number by the birth-death model. The birth-death model provides an estimate of the net amount of unreported jobs lost to business closings and the unreported jobs created by new business openings. The model is based on a normally functioning economy unlike the one of the past seven years and thus overestimates the number of jobs from new business and underestimates the losses from closures. If we eliminate the birth-death model’s contribution, new jobs were 126,000.

Next, consider who got the 271,000 reported jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, all of the new jobs plus some—378,000—went to those 55 years of age and older. However, males in the prime working age, 25 to 54 years of age, lost 119,000 jobs. What seems to have happened is that full time jobs were replaced with part time jobs for retirees. Multiple job holders increased by 109,000 in October, an indication that people who lost full time jobs had to take two or more part time jobs in order to make ends meet."....
"Now assume the 271,000 reported jobs in October is the real number, and not 126,000 or less, where are those jobs? According to the BLS not a single one is in manufacturing. The jobs are in personal services, mainly lowly paid jobs such as retail clerks, ambulatory health care service jobs, temporary help, and waitresses and bartenders.

For example, the BLS reports 44,000 new retail trade jobs, a questionable number in light of sluggish real retail sales. Possibly what is happening is that stores are turning a smaller number of full time jobs into a larger number of part time jobs in order to avoid benefit costs associated with full time workers. The new reported jobs are essentially Third World type of jobs that do not produce sufficient income to form a household and do not produce exportable goods and services to help to bring down the large US trade deficit resulting from jobs offshoring. The problem with the 5% unemployment rate is that it does not include any discoraged workers. When discouraged workers—those who have ceased looking for a job because there are no jobs to be found—are included the unemployment rate is about 23%. Another problem with the 5% number is that it suggests full employment. Yet the labor force participation rate remains at a low point. Normally during a real economic recovery, people enter the labor force and the participation rate rises."

Click to expand...

What you post is goggledegook designed to confuse............BLS job figures are a measure of growth and a market indicator of the economy used by the financial community to gauge economic health

Were there exactly 271,000 jobs created...........maybe........... maybe not

But what is a fact is there has been job growth higher than was predicted............

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DA60 said:

All I want the BLS to do is stop altering the raw data when they present it to the public (which they freely admit they often do). Just do the survey, forget the 'seasonal adjustments' and the 'Birth/Death' models (and ALL models) and ALL of their assumptions/definitions and just present the RAW DATA AS IS to the public and let the public (and ALL the economists) decide what it means.

Click to expand...

Besides being illegal, as it would reveal identifying information about individuals and companies, the raw data would be useless, No one could know what it meant until they ran models. I mean if you can just look at a sample of 60,000 households without knowing what the total population was or how many like households each household represented and figure out total employment and unemployment, well....I'd call you a liar if you said you could do that. And 80,000 cells for the CPI?

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

pinqy said:

Besides being illegal, as it would reveal identifying information about individuals and companies, the raw data would be useless, No one could know what it meant until they ran models. I mean if you can just look at a sample of 60,000 households without knowing what the total population was or how many like households each household represented and figure out total employment and unemployment, well....I'd call you a liar if you said you could do that. And 80,000 cells for the CPI?

Click to expand...

I am not talking about THAT raw...come on now.

I am talking about just posting the numbers WITHOUT any modelling or assumptions AT ALL. Obviously they would do totals and breakdowns. But nothing like that Birth Death nonsense or the seasonal adjustment crap. And do not even get me started on the absolutely PATHETIC job the BLS does with the 'inflation calculation' (though Congress is partly to blame there).

But none of this U-3 is the official unemployemnt rate and it includes this and that but should not include this or that.

The BLS should NEVER be making decisions like that. They should just do what good little trained minions should do...compile the stats, tabulate them, present them and keep quiet otherwise (no offense)...but NEVER interpret them or make ANY assumptions on them. NEVER.
That is for economists/the public to do..not bureaucrats...no matter how well 'trained' they are.


But there is no point in talking to you about this as you are clearly (imo) STAGGERINGLY biased about how wonderful the BLS is just the way it is.



BTW, you never answered my question...tell me why mmi cannot include links to his stats? NOT why he does not, why he can not. You often do it. I always try and do it. He has the link right in front of his face when he brings up the data..why can he not include the link to them?

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

imyoda said:

What you post is goggledegook designed to confuse............BLS job figures are a measure of growth and a market indicator of the economy used by the financial community to gauge economic health

Were there exactly 271,000 jobs created...........maybe........... maybe not

But what is a fact is there has been job growth higher than was predicted............

Click to expand...

What gobbledegook?

It looks to me like he simply posted numbers that were past the headline numbers that the BLS posted.

I see nothing wrong with delving into the numbers in more detail. That is what investors/economists are supposed to do.


And the story behind the headline is NOT so good. The under 55 age group actually had less people employed. The backbone of the economy - the 25-54 age group (the group with the most dependants and who buy the most big ticket items) actually had 35,000 LESS people employed. That is a bad number. How can less people employed in the age group that is by far the most important to the economy equal a good jobs report?

Almost ALL the new employment went to people over 55...hardly the best jobs in the world.

Finally, the average employment growth (according to the household survey, seasonally adjusted) in the last 5 months is under 80,000 per month. That is probably NOT what most people expected.

Table A-9. Selected employment indicators

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

delve if you must.........But the rest of the real world has accepted it and has moved on,,,,,,,,

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

imyoda said:

delve if you must.........But the rest of the real world has accepted it and has moved on,,,,,,,,

Click to expand...

The rest of the real world knows next to nothing about macroeconomics and blindly trusts almost any number that the government puts out as a headline.

You want to be one of those...go right ahead. But calling the posting of statistical facts as 'gobbledegook' and designed 'to confuse' is just silly. Talk about burying your head in the sand? If he made them up...fine. But he did not...he just posted facts from the government's own BLS website. How can one government stat be good but another one is gobbledegook? Or do you just want to hear good news?

I like to be informed about how America's economy is REALLY doing.

And I am neither dem nor rep.


Good day.

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

DA60 said:

The rest of the real world knows next to nothing about macroeconomics and blindly trusts almost any number that the government puts out as a headline.

You want to be one of those...go right ahead. But calling the posting of statistical facts as 'gobbledegook' and designed 'to confuse' is just silly. Talk about burying your head in the sand?

I like to be informed about how America's economy is REALLY doing.

And I am neither dem nor rep.


Good day.

Click to expand...

Well then.......what does the informed self have to say about job growth?

Re: U.S. economy added 271,000 jobs in October and strong hiring drove unemployment d

imyoda said:

Well then.......what does the informed self have to say about job growth?

Click to expand...

First, with respect, I said I 'like to be informed'. I am not as informed as I wish I were.

Second, considering that the most important demographic (25-54) had less employed last month and that the under 55's had a net employment loss...I would personally call it a 'worrying' report.

It's not terrible. But it is is not good either...and the American economy cannot thrive forever so long as the under 55's show a net employment loss.


My overall point is just that I think people should look past the headline numbers and should not automatically trust them as they can often be deceptive (deliberately or not) - as this one was, imo.