Replies

It needs to be generally understood that employment numbers are not accurate indicators of the status of the employment market.

The benefits numbers are no longer valid because benefits have run out for a large percentage of the unemployed--perhaps eighty percent of the total.

The rest of the data is based on surveys--telephone calls; semi-anecdotal interview information; no hard numbers anywhere in the series.

Apparently intentional on the part of the government statistic managers. Companies that intend to lay off employees are required to give 60 days notice; the notice must be filed with a government agency in Department of Labor. The aggregate layoff numbers were hard data giving informative guidence about the employment market.

Since adoption of the law requiring the notice and filing, such notices have been published. Last year, Dept of Labor has terminated the publication of the layoff numbers, making the aggregate numbers essentially not available anywhere. Why would they do that? Difficult to conceive of any reason other than management of unfavorable statistical employment data.

Forget Bush--what is the true state of the economy? Most of us who study these numbers believe they are being massaged to demonstrate that employment is better than the actual state of the jobs and employment markets. Certainly there is no reason for Dept of Labor to stop publishing lay off data other than to conceal layoffs and thereby make things appear better than they are in fact.

Certainly there is no reason for Dept of Labor to stop publishing lay off data other than to conceal layoffs and thereby make things appear better than they are in fact.

Now now...we all know that only dems would do that. And it would certainly be attacked by the party lowalists here if a dem administration did it.

Most of us who study these numbers believe they are being massaged to demonstrate that employment is better than the actual state of the jobs and employment markets.

That NEVER happend under Clinton. </sarcasm>

Hey back ping.

1,000 jobs added in December. When will January figures be out?

Anyway job-promising economists are like the guy who sat on the wedding bed all night and told his wife how good it was going to be.

I look not at statistical figures, but newspaper reports. All I see are thousands laid off. I don't see reports of thousands hired [at least not by private industry in this country]. No good jobs = no good recovery for the W-2 crowd.

Companies that intend to lay off employees are required to give 60 days notice; the notice must be filed with a government agency in Department of Labor.

I believe that only applies to a company of a certain size, and then of a certain layoff size. So it a) probably doesn't apply to a lot of small businesses, and b) it doesn't apply to large businesses that constantly bleed off jobs at a slow rate.

It all makes for comparisons of today's economy and that of 20 years ago very difficult.

Companies have to notify local and state authorities if the layoff will be 50 or more under the "plant closing" law, originally passed in the late 80s, I believe, and sponsored by Ohio arch-liberal Howie Metzenbaum. I don't know that the feds have to be notified too, but wouldn't be surprised.

As to "layoff" numbers not being published, since it's only a "50 or more" number, it doesn't tell me nearly as much as the new claims for unemployment report does, so I don't really miss it.

Forget Bush--what is the true state of the economy? Most of us who study these numbers believe they are being massaged to demonstrate that employment is better than the actual state of the jobs and employment markets. Certainly there is no reason for Dept of Labor to stop publishing lay off data other than to conceal layoffs and thereby make things appear better than they are in fact.

I think the question as to which direction the manipulation, if any, is going is wide open at this point. It's just as likely to be that Clintonista holdovers are playing with the numbers as Bushies. Or it could simply be that the whole thing is FUBAR, which for the gubmint wouldn't exactly be unheard of.

Last year, Dept of Labor has terminated the publication of the layoff numbers, making the aggregate numbers essentially not available anywhere.

I hadn't heard that...do you have a link??

Not to challenge you, but doesn't (no pun intended) Challenger, Gray and Christmas, the Outplacement firm track these, just as a few years ago a private individual, whose name escapes me, did until he met an untimely death from a sudden Heart Attack?!?