You can’t rebut the record GNP increases and record low unemployment, can you (with any degree of credibility)?
61-69, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
The economy is neither as bad nor as good as it appears. Things aren't anywhere near as rosy as some folks would like to pretend. But it's starting to look like we'll get through this year without a recession, too.
For example:
[quote]The headline number in the Establishment Survey (ES) (also known as the Payroll Report) looked quite strong at 263k. Realize that 93k of this was a “plug” number from the BLS’s “birth/death” algorithm, a mathematical formula that simply plugs in about 100k/month because the ES does not contact any small businesses. So, the measured number was closer to 170k. Still, not too shabby. What wasn’t widely reported was that the workweek contracted 0.3% in April, and, has fallen in three of the past four months. In terms of income, the shorter workweek is equivalent to a loss of about -375k jobs. But, because that inconvenient fact doesn’t fit the Wall Street narrative, it was not discussed in the media.
What about the fall in the unemployment rate to 3.6%? Isn’t that the quintessential sign of great economy? The “other” employment report, the Household Survey (HS) done concurrently with the ES, produces the unemployment rate. That HS showed a decline of -103k jobs in April, the fourth month in a row that the two surveys have been at 180-degree odds. The fall in the unemployment rate from 3.8% to 3.6% was heralded by Wall Street as further proof that the economy remains on “solid” footings. The media failed to mention that the only reason the unemployment rate fell was because the labor force shrank by -490k (which followed a -224k drop in March and a -770k drop since last December). If not for the drop in the labor force, the unemployment rate would be somewhere north of 4%. When the labor force itself falls (rises), that generally means that job seekers have been discouraged (encouraged) by labor market conditions.[/quote]
But things are ticking over.
For example:
[quote]The headline number in the Establishment Survey (ES) (also known as the Payroll Report) looked quite strong at 263k. Realize that 93k of this was a “plug” number from the BLS’s “birth/death” algorithm, a mathematical formula that simply plugs in about 100k/month because the ES does not contact any small businesses. So, the measured number was closer to 170k. Still, not too shabby. What wasn’t widely reported was that the workweek contracted 0.3% in April, and, has fallen in three of the past four months. In terms of income, the shorter workweek is equivalent to a loss of about -375k jobs. But, because that inconvenient fact doesn’t fit the Wall Street narrative, it was not discussed in the media.
What about the fall in the unemployment rate to 3.6%? Isn’t that the quintessential sign of great economy? The “other” employment report, the Household Survey (HS) done concurrently with the ES, produces the unemployment rate. That HS showed a decline of -103k jobs in April, the fourth month in a row that the two surveys have been at 180-degree odds. The fall in the unemployment rate from 3.8% to 3.6% was heralded by Wall Street as further proof that the economy remains on “solid” footings. The media failed to mention that the only reason the unemployment rate fell was because the labor force shrank by -490k (which followed a -224k drop in March and a -770k drop since last December). If not for the drop in the labor force, the unemployment rate would be somewhere north of 4%. When the labor force itself falls (rises), that generally means that job seekers have been discouraged (encouraged) by labor market conditions.[/quote]
But things are ticking over.
eli1601 · 70-79, M
@QuixoticSoul You should really give credit when you post someone else's opinion.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
True however Q did give grudging approval despite himself 😂 @eli1601
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@eli1601 This is courtesy of Dr Barone. But all the data there is sourced from the recent reports.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
eg,
[quote]The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls decreased by 0.1 hour to 34.4 hours in April.[/quote]
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
eg,
[quote]The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls decreased by 0.1 hour to 34.4 hours in April.[/quote]
eli1601 · 70-79, M
@QuixoticSoul Never questioned the data, but the interpretation of what the data means can be someone's opinion.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@eli1601 What's the interpretation?
eli1601 · 70-79, M
@QuixoticSoul Ask the people who interpret. Are you saying everyone interprets the same info the same wsy?
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@eli1601 There is just not a lot of interpretation or opinion here, aside from complaints about the media not reporting the less glossy bits. The parts about people working fewer hours and unemployment numbers being affected by a shrinking labor force are simply parts of the report.
eli1601 · 70-79, M
@QuixoticSoul But you can dig down into why people work fewer hours, any companies on strike, etc. and why was the labor force shrinking. Baby boomers retiring or are people losing their jobs from downsizing. And are those things good or bad. That's interpretation.