JOBS DISASTER

New York Post ^ | January 10, 2004 | PAUL THARP

[The Duke]

I'm no Alan Greenspan mind you, but wasn't there a big and "surprising" SURGE in jobs going into the Christmas season, and now just after Christmas (when all the shoppers have gone home) we're equally "surprised" by a corresponding lapse in employment?

It sounds like some folks in DC must have flunked outta "Common Sense 101"!

[ovrtaxt]

All Bush needs to do to fix this is import millions more mexicans. That cheap labor will snap us right back into shape!

[sarcasm]

Have you ever heard of seasonal adjustment?

[Ed_in_NJ]

As in "election season?"

There were some elections this year (November) - makes me wonder if these predictions were to help.

[sarcasm]

Enjoying the cold?

[sawyer]

This guy worked under Reagan so he must be a Republican and he has sure put out some interesting items. Paul Craig Roberts. Really makes one think about this subject.I have said for years we are living in the middle of a world wide revolution and do not even know it.Since no one seems to know what to do on this job business his take is pretty interesting to read.To be an interesting read does not make him right, I am sure, but still worth the read.

[trebb]

Hopeful headline from the NY Compost

Yes - still waiting for the disaster that will give the Dims the upper hand. Funny how all their claims of doom and gloom aren't being portrayed as self-fulfilling prophesying as was the case when President Bush (while campaigning against Gore) made the factual statement that we were heading into a recession.

[FLAUSA]

Does anyone know how newly retired people are figured into the survey? Since the first of the baby boomers reach early retireent age of 58, could it be that some of those people who are no longer looking for jobs might be doing so because they have just retired?

I also noticed while reading the details of the report that the BLS has changed the way it figures "seasonal adjustment" from revising it semi-annually to revising it monthly. This is the first month that it has done that. Could it be that thier adjustment factors might be a little off? (especially if they factored in the November numbers which were high)

Finally, how does the illegal immigrant play into the numbers? If an illegal goes to work, does that count as a new job or is it just ignored? What happens to the jobs data when all those illegals become legal? Does our employment numbers suddenly rise by 5 million?

[Leisler]

I think what you are asking questions about, gets' to the fundamental nature of these reports and the number attributed to them. We keep hearing that jobs are 2.3 percent, or 0.1 percent and so forth. But I suspect that if you had a few moments to talk to the people who are, and who have in the past, produced these numbers, that they would say that there are great unknowns and that these numbers are logical attempt to describe economic activity, over a long period of time, and that any one number in its self isn't all that useful. Couple this with what is being said with this number usually reported every three months or so, and now every month. As an example, picture a speedometer with a failing cable to the transmission. If you ever had an old klunker, you would of seen that sometimes the needle wouldn't get off zero, until you were doing 15mph. So, somewhere out there is the reality. What is reported is the sticky, floppy speedometer needle, accurate to plus or minus 15mph. They really should put these numbers out with a reasonable =/- error range.

I doubt, other than academic, there are any useful numbers on illegals and retired persons.

[Ed_in_NJ]

As long as I don't have to go outside, yup!

[Leisler]

What field? Just from buzz, seems like nanotec is starting to take off with small manufactures, pharmaceuticals, material companies. I don't know much about it, but it reminds me of the beginnings of the PC industry.

[Maceman]

Hopeful headline from the NY Compost.

The NY Post is pretty consistently conservative as main stream newspapers go.

[zook]

Markets will continue to rise. Additional reports will adjust or correct this one that just came out. Employment will continue to rise. There are simply not increasing numbers of people who have "given up" looking for work.

[mathluv]

Fox said they do not count people who start their own businesses, or self-employed.

[Biblebelter]

During impeachment the airwaves were crowded with political spin trying to keep a criminal in office, but during the past couple of months there has been just as much spin trying to sell this economy as healthy and robust. My money is on the sidelines waiting to short this market, when it starts to fall based on the fact the government must become a very large borrower again due to the deficit, and because of the weakness of the dollar international investors will not be as eager to buy our treasuries. I say this because low interest rates is about that only thing that is sustaining this economy besides the great faith and optimism of the millions of legal citizens who are working harder than ever and have the productivity figures to prove it.

[sarcasm]

Couple this with what is being said with this number usually reported every three months or so

It has always been reported monthly - they only changed the way it is adjusted.

[sarcasm]

This news seems to be so negative that it could affect the very financial security of the U.S. That makes this unemployment data important to our security and therefore classifiable. Bush should stop the government from publishing figures this bad.

Are you serious?

[sarcasm]

Check this out:

The participation rate in the economy dropped from 66.2 to 66 per cent. "Given that the trend participation rate should be around 67 per cent, the true unemployment rate is more like 7 per cent," said Ian Morris, US economist at HSBC

[whipitgood]

"..millions of legal citizens who are working harder than ever...."
You got that right.
And the government just keeps raising taxes on us. The law of diminishing returns- work harder, make less.