Businesses added 230,000 jobs in October

poweRob · Nov 5, 2014

Good news folks. I think we are headed into an impressive Christmas season economically speaking.

Businesses added 230,000 jobs in October

Businesses added 230,000 jobs in October, payroll processor ADP said Wednesday, possibly foreshadowing another strong month of employment gains in the government's closely watched report due Friday.

Economists had estimated ADP would report 220,000 new private sector jobs, according to the median forecast in Action Economics' survey. Ahead of the ADP report, they predicted the Labor Department's survey this Friday to show 230,000 payroll gains by businesses, as well as federal, state and local governments.

The two reports reflect similar hiring trends, but ADP's tally has differed from Labor's private-sector job tally by an average 35,000 since Moody's Analytics began helping ADP compile the data two years ago, according to High Frequency Economics. ADP said businesses added 230,000 jobs in September while Labor's preliminary estimate was 236,000 and, for the economy overall, 248,000.

In October, mid-size businesses added 122,000 jobs, small businesses, 102,000 and large companies, 5,000, ADP said.

Professional and business services led job gains, with 53,000. Trade, transportation and utilities added 47,000 and construction, 28,000. Manufacturers added a solid 15,000 jobs.

"The job market is steadily picking up pace," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, which helps ADP compile the report. "Job growth is strong and broad-based across industries and company sizes."

DA60 · Nov 5, 2014

Without the breakdown of part time/full time and what was the age breakdown, the number does not mean much to me.
Since Obama took office, there are over (if I recall) 3.5 million more Americans employed BUT over 4.5 million are over 55 and the under 55's have lost over a million employed...so the initial number means little without the details.

I think the BLS skews the numbers for the benefit of the government, but at least they give great detail on those numbers.

I will wait until this Friday's BLS numbers to judge October.

pinqy · Nov 5, 2014

DA60 said:
Without the breakdown of part time/full time, the number does not mean much to me.

For the BLS payroll numbers (ADP only reports private sector while BLS reports total nonfarm payroll as the main number with private sector separately) there's no breakdown of full or part time either. For both ADP and the BLS Current Employment Statistics Survey they just take total number of people on payrolls. BLS also gets average hours, overtime, and average pay.

I think the BLS skews the numbers for the benefit of the government, but at least they give great detail on those numbers.

I will wait until this Friday's BLS numbers to judge October.

There's no real way to skew the numbers that I can think of, though it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on how it could be done. But in any case the details of "usually works full time", "usually works part time," and "worked part time for economic reasons" comes from a household survey (the Current Population Survey conducted by the Census). It is a much smaller sample but is not limited to payrolls (so it includes agriculture, self employed, unpaid family workers, private employment, those working off the books etc) and gives demographic details.

poweRob · Nov 5, 2014

DA60 said:
Without the breakdown of part time/full time and what was the age breakdown, the number does not mean much to me.
Since Obama took office, there are over (if I recall) 3.5 million more Americans employed BUT over 4.5 million are over 55 and the under 55's have lost over a million employed...so the initial number means little without the details.

I think the BLS skews the numbers for the benefit of the government, but at least they give great detail on those numbers.

I will wait until this Friday's BLS numbers to judge October.

I'm glad to see those over 55 employment numbers down. It's mostly going to be a reflection of retirement where seven years ago these people couldn't retire due to the crash. Obamacare has a lot to do with it in that people didn't have to have a job to have healthcare and they dropped out. This opens room for the younger generations to get jobs. The more jobs we get especially for the younger generation, the less idol hands we have breaking into houses.

Fishstyx · Nov 5, 2014

poweRob said:
I'm glad to see those over 55 employment numbers down. It's mostly going to be a reflection of retirement where seven years ago these people couldn't retire due to the crash.

Yeah, that definitely slowed down retirements. Pushed my Pops back about 5 years, he just hung it up last month.

poweRob · Nov 5, 2014

Fishstyx said:
Yeah, that definitely slowed down retirements. Pushed my Pops back about 5 years, he just hung it up last month.

Man I got down in the dumps back then. I was so depressed because I had to empty my retirement for a second time (other during the early 2000's dotcom crash). I was just constantly thinking, "I will be working 'till I'm dead." It's a sad feeling to not have a light at the end of the tunnel like that.

I couldn't help but feel crushed for those much nearer retirement.

Fishstyx · Nov 5, 2014

poweRob said:
Man I got down in the dumps back then. I was so depressed because I had to empty my retirement for a second time (other during the early 2000's dotcom crash). I was just constantly thinking, "I will be working 'till I'm dead." It's a sad feeling to not have a light at the end of the tunnel like that.

I couldn't help but feel crushed for those much nearer retirement.

Unfortunately, think it will be a redux relatively soon. Current market levels just don't jive with the economic data out there. Once inflation revs up and the Fed takes action, think the market is due for a correction. Starting to see some signs of it now. Noticed in FL with property values. A lot of investors are back in the game down here, boosted values significantly in 2013. From what I've read, pretty similar all over too. Fortunately they're not over doing it and it appears to be stabilizing. Says to me that some are beginning to divest a bit a out of the market for more stable options.

Hopefully many of learned from the last one and have diversified their portfolios to be able to sustain a correction with manageable losses.

poweRob · Nov 5, 2014

Fishstyx said:
Unfortunately, think it will be a redux relatively soon. Current market levels just don't jive with the economic data out there. Once inflation revs up and the Fed takes action, think the market is due for a correction. Starting to see some signs of it now. Noticed in FL with property values. A lot of investors are back in the game down here, boosted values significantly in 2013. From what I've read, pretty similar all over too. Fortunately they're not over doing it and it appears to be stabilizing. Says to me that some are beginning to divest a bit a out of the market for more stable options.

Hopefully many of learned from the last one and have diversified their portfolios to be able to sustain a correction with manageable losses.

I've heard predictions of 2016 being the year to watch for possible economic instability should a housing bubble return. I don't think it could be as bad as the last one. The whole fraud perpetrated by the big banks with false signatures and mortgage buyouts to shift and hide losses... I think a housing adjustment could happen but not as horrifying as that.

Fishstyx · Nov 5, 2014

poweRob said:
I've heard predictions of 2016 being the year to watch for possible economic instability should a housing bubble return. I don't think it could be as bad as the last one. The whole fraud perpetrated by the big banks with false signatures and mortgage buyouts to shift and hide losses... I think a housing adjustment could happen but not as horrifying as that.

I think the instability will be in the finance world. Mortgage backed securities aren't even remotely as popular as they were prior to 2008, actually kind of toxic. Think there are some highly over inflated stocks out there. Amazon, Google, Tesla, Oil, etc all come to mind. Big money players were looking for safe havens after 2008. Actually view their shift back to property as a good sign as its being viewed as a stable option.

Fenton · Nov 5, 2014

poweRob said:
I've heard predictions of 2016 being the year to watch for possible economic instability should a housing bubble return. I don't think it could be as bad as the last one. The whole fraud perpetrated by the big banks with false signatures and mortgage buyouts to shift and hide losses... I think a housing adjustment could happen but not as horrifying as that.

Oh Bull.

Had the GSEs not been buying up everything that came their way, had they simply TOLD THE TRUTH when they reported their quarterly financial statements to the SEC in 2007 ( for the first time EVER ) instead of HIDING 9/10 of their worthless debt, there would have been ZERO market for those loans let alone all of the worthless derivatives.

They were Country Wides primary consumer of their trash loans going back to the late 90s.

Out of all the banks, lenders and investment companies involved in the Subprime mortgage crisis only two major Financial institutions were investigated by the SEC for their actions in the run up to the 2008 Financial crisis.

You want to guess who ?

poweRob · Nov 5, 2014

Fishstyx said:
I think the instability will be in the finance world. Mortgage backed securities aren't even remotely as popular as they were prior to 2008, actually kind of toxic. Think there are some highly over inflated stocks out there. Amazon, Google, Tesla, Oil, etc all come to mind. Big money players were looking for safe havens after 2008. Actually view their shift back to property as a good sign as its being viewed as a stable option.

There's far too much cash on the corporate side. I mean look at this:

Facebook to Buy Messaging App WhatsApp for $19 Billion

Then look at this:

Sony is one of Japan's largest corporations by revenue. It had revenues of ¥6.493 trillion in 2012. It also maintains large reserves of cash, with ¥895 billion on hand as of 2012. In May 2012, Sony shares were valued at about $15 billion.

You gonna tell me that one little ****ing app is worth more than Sony itself? It's too upside down and skewing actual market values. It's reminding me of the dotcom bubble where everyone was investing in websites that made nothing tangible.

Fenton · Nov 5, 2014

Fishstyx said:
I think the instability will be in the finance world. Mortgage backed securities aren't even remotely as popular as they were prior to 2008, actually kind of toxic. Think there are some highly over inflated stocks out there. Amazon, Google, Tesla, Oil, etc all come to mind. Big money players were looking for safe havens after 2008. Actually view their shift back to property as a good sign as its being viewed as a stable option.

The FED bought a massive block of toxic MBSs from the GSEs and will have to eat them eventually.

There's no getting rid of those things. They would have to divulge their actual value to try and sell them and they'll never do that .

poweRob · Nov 5, 2014

Fenton said:
Oh Bull.

Had the GSEs not been buying up everything that came their way, had they simply TOLD THE TRUTH when they reported their quarterly financial statements to the SEC in 2007 ( for the first time EVER ) instead of HIDING 9/10 of their worthless debt, there would have been ZERO market for those loans let alone all of the worthless derivatives.

That's kind of what I just said, yet you are acting like you are opposing me. hrrrmmmm..:doh

DA60 · Nov 5, 2014

pinqy said:
For the BLS payroll numbers (ADP only reports private sector while BLS reports total nonfarm payroll as the main number with private sector separately) there's no breakdown of full or part time either. For both ADP and the BLS Current Employment Statistics Survey they just take total number of people on payrolls. BLS also gets average hours, overtime, and average pay.

Come on now, surely you know I am talking about the BLS household survey...which does breakdown into full/part time, etc..

I could care less about the headline BLS number.

There's no real way to skew the numbers that I can think of, though it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on how it could be done. But in any case the details of "usually works full time", "usually works part time," and "worked part time for economic reasons" comes from a household survey (the Current Population Survey conducted by the Census). It is a much smaller sample but is not limited to payrolls (so it includes agriculture, self employed, unpaid family workers, private employment, those working off the books etc) and gives demographic details.

We have been over this ad nauseam...I have no intention of doing it again.

You wanna believe the BLS skews nothing...go ahead.

pinqy · Nov 5, 2014

DA60 said:
Come on now, surely you know I am talking about the BLS household survey...which does breakdown into full/part time, etc..

Yes, I knew you meant that. My point was that the ADP survey is not analogous to the household survey, but closer to the payroll survey. The household survey employment information doesn't tell anything close to the ADP survey.

We have been over this ad nauseam...I have no intention of doing it again.

You wanna believe the BLS skews nothing...go ahead.

It's not belief. I know of no way to do it. But you believe they can and do, yet you are unable to say how. So what is your belief based on except your own bias and prejudice?

DA60 · Nov 5, 2014

pinqy said:
Yes, I knew you meant that. My point was that the ADP survey is not analogous to the household survey, but closer to the payroll survey. The household survey employment information doesn't tell anything close to the ADP survey.

It's not belief. I know of no way to do it. But you believe they can and do, yet you are unable to say how. So what is your belief based on except your own bias and prejudice?

I have told you MANY times.

You want more...read Marc Faber, Jim Rogers, Silexx Market Preview, zerohedge, Peter Schiff, Ron Paul...they can explain it far better then I can.

Good day.

Fenton · Nov 5, 2014

poweRob said:
That's kind of what I just said, yet you are acting like you are opposing me. hrrrmmmm..:doh

You said " Banks ".

There's a major distinction between the two.

The GSEs were poorly regulated, were exempt from paying Federal and Local taxes, had a 4 Billion dollar line of credit straight from the Treasury that no one could touch and were exempt from SEC reporting requirements all the way up to 2006 ( when they did submit a quarterly statement it was nothing but lies ) and were defended down to the day they were declared insolvent by the Democrats.

poweRob · Nov 5, 2014

Fenton said:
You said " Banks ".

There's a major distinction between the two.

The GSEs were poorly regulated, were exempt from paying Federal and Local taxes, had a 4 Billion dollar line of credit straight from the Treasury that no one could touch and were exempt from SEC reporting requirements all the way up to 2006 ( when they did submit a quarterly statement it was nothing but lies ) and were defended down to the day they were declared insolvent by the Democrats.

Perhaps you'll be happy about this then:

The Final Rule: Fed Issues Regulation to Stop 'Too Big to Fail'

The U.S. Federal Reserve unveiled a final rule on Wednesday designed to prevent large financial firms from becoming so big that their failure could shake the core of the U.S. financial market.

The final rule, required by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law, prohibits banks and certain large financial firms from acquiring another company if that merger would cause their liabilities to exceed 10 percent of the total consolidated liabilities for all financial firms.

The Fed said on Wednesday that its final rule is "substantially similar" to the one it proposed in May, but contains a few changes.

Wednesday's rule applies to banks and to large financial firms who are designated as "systemic" by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), a federal government panel of regulators that polices for emerging market threats.

The FSOC has already designated General Electric Co's GE Capital, American International Group Inc and Prudential Financial Inc as systemic. It has also proposed designating Metlife Inc , although the company has hired a lawyer to fight the proposal.

Fenton · Nov 5, 2014

poweRob said:
Perhaps you'll be happy about this then:

The Final Rule: Fed Issues Regulation to Stop 'Too Big to Fail'

The U.S. Federal Reserve unveiled a final rule on Wednesday designed to prevent large financial firms from becoming so big that their failure could shake the core of the U.S. financial market.

The final rule, required by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law, prohibits banks and certain large financial firms from acquiring another company if that merger would cause their liabilities to exceed 10 percent of the total consolidated liabilities for all financial firms.

The Fed said on Wednesday that its final rule is "substantially similar" to the one it proposed in May, but contains a few changes.

Wednesday's rule applies to banks and to large financial firms who are designated as "systemic" by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), a federal government panel of regulators that polices for emerging market threats.

The FSOC has already designated General Electric Co's GE Capital, American International Group Inc and Prudential Financial Inc as systemic. It has also proposed designating Metlife Inc , although the company has hired a lawyer to fight the proposal.

The GSEs were exempted from the Dodd Frank Wall street reforms.

The two most corrupt Financial entities involved in the Subprime mortgage crisis were given a pass by two low life Politicians that were instrumental in their insolvency.

poweRob · Nov 5, 2014

Fenton said:
The GSEs were exempted from the Dodd Frank Wall street reforms.

The two most corrupt Financial entities involved in the Subprime mortgage crisis were given a pass by two low life Politicians that were instrumental in their insolvency.

So you are going to pin the whole 2007 economic fall on fannie and freddie are ya?

Fenton · Nov 6, 2014

poweRob said:
So you are going to pin the whole 2007 economic fall on fannie and freddie are ya?

Not exactly.

But remove them from the equation early on and we wouldn't be talking about the 2008 Financial crisis.

They manipulated the value of securities and derivatives by being the primary consumer of MBSs backed by Subprime loans.

Government subsidies via Fannie and Freddie artificially created value for a product that without Government intervention would have been worthless. ( Technically they were worthless )

And the entire time they were buying up 10s of Billions in securities and Subprime loans they were exempt from SEC reporting requirements.

Finally in 2006 they submitted their first quarterly financial statements to the SEC.

Problem was they only reported 1/10 of their worthless debt.

Think about it. Thats Securities fraud on a unprecedented scale.

Had a investment bank done that their executives would be cooling their heals in Federal prison right now.

By NOT offering up full disclosure on their losses going back to the early 90s or even counting their losses the market was fooled into believing that these securities were more valuable than they actually were.

And the GSEs debt came with a " AAA " status. Not because some ratings agency screwed up. Because the GSEs were backed by the US Government who's debt also had a " AAA " status.

tres borrachos · Nov 6, 2014

poweRob said:
I'm glad to see those over 55 employment numbers down. It's mostly going to be a reflection of retirement where seven years ago these people couldn't retire due to the crash. Obamacare has a lot to do with it in that people didn't have to have a job to have healthcare and they dropped out. This opens room for the younger generations to get jobs. The more jobs we get especially for the younger generation, the less idol hands we have breaking into houses.

I think you meant "idle hands". :mrgreen:

I always hoped to retire at 55, in spite of knowing I'd have 2 kids in college and 1 on his way at that time. Dare to dream. I'm probably not going to be able to retire until I'm 65....my husband too.

Kushinator · Nov 6, 2014

Fenton said:
Oh Bull.

Had the GSEs not been buying up everything that came their way, had they simply TOLD THE TRUTH when they reported their quarterly financial statements to the SEC in 2007 ( for the first time EVER ) instead of HIDING 9/10 of their worthless debt, there would have been ZERO market for those loans let alone all of the worthless derivatives.

They were Country Wides primary consumer of their trash loans going back to the late 90s.

Out of all the banks, lenders and investment companies involved in the Subprime mortgage crisis only two major Financial institutions were investigated by the SEC for their actions in the run up to the 2008 Financial crisis.

You want to guess who ?

Why do you continue to spew the same false narrative?

Kushinator · Nov 6, 2014

Fenton said:
But remove them from the equation early on and we wouldn't be talking about the 2008 Financial crisis.

Not exactly. It is invalid to make claims on the basis of an alternate reality without somewhat/somehow identifying the assumptions used to come to such a conclusion.

They manipulated the value of securities and derivatives by being the primary consumer of MBSs backed by Subprime loans.

They were a market maker as it is in their charter.

Government subsidies via Fannie and Freddie artificially created value for a product that without Government intervention would have been worthless. ( Technically they were worthless )

Yet banks did not feel the same way. Not a single banking institution spoke out against the common mentality on Wall Street, COL, Mong Kok, etc.... Reason being, the private sector had the most skeletons in the closet, by a considerable margin (pun intended).

And the entire time they were buying up 10s of Billions in securities and Subprime loans they were exempt from SEC reporting requirements.

Why does the private sector get a pass? Because they used technicalities to shield their regulated exposure?

Finally in 2006 they submitted their first quarterly financial statements to the SEC.

Problem was they only reported 1/10 of their worthless debt.

Where did they get these loans for securitization?

Think about it. Thats Securities fraud on a unprecedented scale.

You don't understand the legalities surrounding securitization.

And the GSEs debt came with a " AAA " status. Not because some ratings agency screwed up. Because the GSEs were backed by the US Government who's debt also had a " AAA " status.

Ah hah! Why were these securities, much of which originated in various financial capitals around the globe, given AAA ratings?

DA60 · Nov 6, 2014

Kushinator said:
You don't understand the legalities surrounding securitization.

What an utterly ridiculous statement.

It is not possible for you to have a complete knowledge of what Fenton does or does not know about ANY subject.

So, for you to actually make a matter-of-fact judgement on the extent of Fenton's knowledge of the subject in question is nonsensical in the extremis.

One would think you would know this...apparently not.

Noted.

Ah hah! Why were these securities, much of which originated in various financial capitals around the globe, given AAA ratings?

Ah hah?

:rofl:

That's our Kushinator.

Good day.

Businesses added 230,000 jobs in October

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996

DA60

pinqy

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996

Fishstyx

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996

Fishstyx

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996

Fishstyx

Fenton

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996

Fenton

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996

DA60

pinqy

DA60

Fenton

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996

Fenton

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996

Fenton

tres borrachos

HoHoHo

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

DA60