April Jobs report looks dismal, March numbers to be revised????

[itfitzme]

I see ed called me a liar
My opinion is simple
to create any jobs you have to go past the number of people in the work force %
We had 500,000 enter the not in column last month while losing over 300,000 in the labor force
That is simply put is creating only more people for the tax payer to support

If your going to look at things simply, why get complicated about it?

Mine is even simpler, to create jobs we have to employ more people.

Since March, we had 583,000 added.

Seems to me your skipping simple, getting only so complicated as to prove your a-priori position, then claiming simplicity.

Sounds like lying to me, if we are to see things simplistically. Your either lying about adding jobs are lying about being simple.

Date............EmpRatioNSA......UnempRateNSA......EmpLevelNSA......AddedJobs
4/1/2012......58.49%..................7.74%..................141995..................583
3/1/2012......58.29%..................8.36%..................141412..................728
2/1/2012......58.03%..................8.71%..................140684..................740
1/1/2012......57.76%..................8.82%..................139944..................-737
12/1/2011....58.47%..................8.28%..................140681..................-389
11/1/2011....58.67%..................8.21%..................141070....................83
10/1/2011....58.68%..................8.50%..................140987..................485
9/1/2011......58.53%..................8.78%..................140502..................167
8/1/2011......58.50%..................9.08%..................140335...................-49
7/1/2011......58.57%..................9.32%..................140384..................255
6/1/2011......58.51%..................9.32%..................140129..................101
5/1/2011......58.51%..................8.75%..................140028..................367
4/1/2011......58.40%..................8.66%..................139661

Again, I don't think going from 58.4% to 58.49% employment ratio is anything to get all excited about. And that 8.66% to 7.74% unemp rate is "squirrely". But as we are being all simple about it, there isn't much else to say.

great info
The reason it is falling is there is 3-1 leaving the work force (real close)
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

How do you figure that, "3-1 leaving the work force"?

April 2011, LFNSA = 152,898. April 2012, LFNSA = 153,905. That is LF increasing.

 

[JRK]

If your going to look at things simply, why get complicated about it?

Mine is even simpler, to create jobs we have to employ more people.

Since March, we had 583,000 added.

Seems to me your skipping simple, getting only so complicated as to prove your a-priori position, then claiming simplicity.

Sounds like lying to me, if we are to see things simplistically. Your either lying about adding jobs are lying about being simple.

Date............EmpRatioNSA......UnempRateNSA......EmpLevelNSA......AddedJobs
4/1/2012......58.49%..................7.74%..................141995..................583
3/1/2012......58.29%..................8.36%..................141412..................728
2/1/2012......58.03%..................8.71%..................140684..................740
1/1/2012......57.76%..................8.82%..................139944..................-737
12/1/2011....58.47%..................8.28%..................140681..................-389
11/1/2011....58.67%..................8.21%..................141070....................83
10/1/2011....58.68%..................8.50%..................140987..................485
9/1/2011......58.53%..................8.78%..................140502..................167
8/1/2011......58.50%..................9.08%..................140335...................-49
7/1/2011......58.57%..................9.32%..................140384..................255
6/1/2011......58.51%..................9.32%..................140129..................101
5/1/2011......58.51%..................8.75%..................140028..................367
4/1/2011......58.40%..................8.66%..................139661

Again, I don't think going from 58.4% to 58.49% employment ratio is anything to get all excited about. And that 8.66% to 7.74% unemp rate is "squirrely". But as we are being all simple about it, there isn't much else to say.

great info
The reason it is falling is there is 3-1 leaving the work force (real close)
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

How do you figure that, "3-1 leaving the work force"?

April 2011, LFNSA = 152,898. April 2012, LFNSA = 153,905. That is LF increasing.

The civilian went from 153.4 to 154.3
The not in went from 85.7 to 88.4

in millions that is close to 3 leaving to 1 entering
Think where the UE rate would be if that was 2 to 1 or even 1-1

 

[itfitzme]

great info
The reason it is falling is there is 3-1 leaving the work force (real close)
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

How do you figure that, "3-1 leaving the work force"?

April 2011, LFNSA = 152,898. April 2012, LFNSA = 153,905. That is LF increasing.

The civilian went from 153.4 to 154.3
The not in went from 85.7 to 88.4

in millions that is close to 3 leaving to 1 entering
Think where the UE rate would be if that was 2 to 1 or even 1-1

Again, why are you using pretend numbers? The seasonally adjusted numbers aren't really how many people. They are pretend, as in "pretend there was no season".

Is that the problem you're having, to many different numbers and you don't know what the difference are?

 

[JRK]

How do you figure that, "3-1 leaving the work force"?

April 2011, LFNSA = 152,898. April 2012, LFNSA = 153,905. That is LF increasing.

The civilian went from 153.4 to 154.3
The not in went from 85.7 to 88.4

in millions that is close to 3 leaving to 1 entering
Think where the UE rate would be if that was 2 to 1 or even 1-1

Again, why are you using pretend numbers? The seasonally adjusted numbers are really how many people. They are pretend, as in "pretend there was no season".

Is that the problem you're having, to many different numbers and you don't know what the difference are?

I am not sure why the insult
we end our debate here
I have provided this link many times
I am a mathematical genius
Again I do not understand the insult, I thought you better than that
What else are we suppose to use?
It is the numbers we are provided, the ones that agree with your opinion?
If there worthless than why does the BLS use them?

That made me sad that you would resort to an insult in stead of being an adult in the matter and state we agree to dis agree

 

[JRK]

using the not seasonly adjusted
labor force 152.9 to 153.9
not in 86.2 to 88.9
okay its 2.7-1
for those who think this is a huge diff
here you go with the very same link I have been using
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

 

[itfitzme]

The civilian went from 153.4 to 154.3
The not in went from 85.7 to 88.4

in millions that is close to 3 leaving to 1 entering
Think where the UE rate would be if that was 2 to 1 or even 1-1

Again, why are you using pretend numbers? The seasonally adjusted numbers are really how many people. They are pretend, as in "pretend there was no season".

Is that the problem you're having, to many different numbers and you don't know what the difference are?

I am not sure why the insult
we end our debate here
I have provided this link many times
I am a mathematical genius
Again I do not understand the insult, I thought you better than that
What else are we suppose to use?
It is the numbers we are provided, the ones that agree with your opinion?
If there worthless than why does the BLS use them?

That made me sad that you would resort to an insult in stead of being an adult in the matter and state we agree to dis agree

Sorry, I meant to be consilitory. I was asking, why you use the seasonally adjusted numbers as they are not actual population estimates, they are pretend.

One option is that there are to many numbers to look at and you don't know the difference. Hey, there is nothing wrong with that, nobody knows everything about everything from the start.

The other option is that you are intentionally using them to lie, that you know that seasonal adjusted is not real population numbers and you know that the NILF didn't really go up from April to April.

I wouldn't then, be "insulting" to call you a disengenous liar because you would be, in fact, lying.

But I don't know that because you might simply not know. Nobody knows everything and there is a first time to know anything.

So I asked, why are you using seasonally adjusted numbers, numbers that are not real population? Is the problem that there are just to many f'in numbers and you don't know what the difference is?

That is not an insult, it's a question.

 

[saveliberty]

You want simple, fine. I know many people who were working three years ago that still have no job.

 

[itfitzme]

using the not seasonly adjusted
labor force 152.9 to 153.9
not in 86.2 to 88.9
okay its 2.7-1
for those who think this is a huge diff
here you go with the very same link I have been using
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

Well, if the labor force went up, then it people leaving the labor force. it isn't, as you say, "that is close to 3 leaving to 1 entering". It isn't "2.7 leaving to 1 entering." It's people entering the not in the labor force, not leaving it. Not in any net terms.

(here is the thing, I notice you conveniently left out the "leaving to ..entering" part when you restated it. Could bring yourself to say "leaving the labor force"?)

And yes, it is pretty clear that the NILF got bigger.

Even then, for both the LF and the NILF, and everything else, it all gets bigger simply because population grows. From April to April, it all got bigger.

CPOP, Labor force, employment levels, not in labor force got bigger. The only one that didn't is unemployment level.

Alone, that LF, emp, and NILF got bigger doesn't mean anything because everything gets bigger. The only level that means anything is unemployment because April to April went down.

So the questions are, how are the ratios and, if NILF/POP is increasing, who entered the NILF.

But we did this one way back about ten pages ago when pingy found the flow report. (In gross terms, pingy's report shows that the leave and enter in gross terms, which only makes sense).

What is important really is who left and who entered. It would be better if employment rose more and NILF didn't. It would be better if EMP/POP rose instead of being flat and NILF/POP went down (unless it's people that really don't need to want to work, like retirees, house-spouses, college students, whatever.)

And it appears that the NILF has gotten bigger due to two groups, a) retirees leaving employment to the NILF and b) young adults, probably graduating high school and college.

And that is all consistent with the news reports about the bulging retirement age generation and young adults moving back home or not leaving.

A lack of "entry level" jobs would be a bitch of a problem, if that is, in fact it. Structural changes, structural unemployment is a bitch of a problem. And it's not "someone's fault". It's how the economy works.

But we are never going to get to the reality if your going to keep trying to prove something. That isn't how it works. It's not a debate.

Nature and the economy doesn't give a crap about what you, or I, want to believe. The nature of the economy isn't a debate. Nature doesn't debate. Nature and the economy just does what it wants. It's up to us to figure out what the fuck it's doing.

And what the numbers really are, what they really mean, is the nature of the economy.

 

[edthecynic]

great info
The reason it is falling is there is 3-1 leaving the work force (real close)
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

How do you figure that, "3-1 leaving the work force"?

April 2011, LFNSA = 152,898. April 2012, LFNSA = 153,905. That is LF increasing.

The civilian went from 153.4 to 154.3
The not in went from 85.7 to 88.4

in millions that is close to 3 leaving to 1 entering
Think where the UE rate would be if that was 2 to 1 or even 1-1

First of all, not every increase in the NILF is someone leaving the work force. Some are children turning 16 and deciding to stay in high school rather than quit school and join the labor force to give you something to bitch about.

The real numbers to use are the number employed, which went up 2.237 million from April 2011 to 2012. And the next number is the number of people NILF who want jobs, which went down during the same period.

You will use any numbers you can rationalize that the improving economy is not improving because you can't tolerate the fact that the unadjusted UE rate is 7.7% and not the 100% CON$ hoped for.

November 5, 2008
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.

October 31, 2008
RUSH:* Joe the Plumber.* Now, Joe the Plumber is an average citizen

 

[Trajan]

hummm,simple, I like that.

so how many people have we not employed who were new entrants, almost splitting the difference of opinions, between say 125 and 145K lets say 130, so, if we created 108k in a month, were are we really?

130 x12 = 1.560 M so, the net gain of that 2.237 is only 677k taken employed from our net pool....56K a month?

 

[itfitzme]

hummm,simple, I like that.

so how many people have we not employed who were new entrants, almost splitting the difference of opinions, between say 125 and 145K lets say 130, so, if we created 108k in a month, were are we really?

130 x12 = 1.560 M so, the net gain of that 2.237 is only 677k taken employed from our net pool....56K a month?

That is just making up shit.

 

[edthecynic]

hummm,simple, I like that.

so how many people have we not employed who were new entrants, almost splitting the difference of opinions, between say 125 and 145K lets say 130, so, if we created 108k in a month, were are we really?

130 x12 = 1.560 M so, the net gain of that 2.237 is only 677k taken employed from our net pool....56K a month?

That is just making up shit.

For CON$ it's always simpler to make up shit, especially when the facts never support their crap.

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

 

[itfitzme]

You want simple, fine. I know many people who were working three years ago that still have no job.

I don't want simple. Someone else wanted simple. And in attempting to do so, he was making shit up.

I want detailed, precise, accurate, comprehensive, and correct.

How old are they, these many people?
What is their marital status?
So they have kids?
How are they managing?
What were they doing before they got laid off?
What is their education level?
Trade school?
House under water?
Male or female?
Where do they live?

More importantly;

What is it that they are finding to be the problem with getting hired?

What is their story?

Simplistic aggregate numbers don't tell us what is going on, only where to look.

Here we got this amazing technology, where people from across the country can tell the story. Here we have educations that would land us a management job in 1920. Here we have encyclopedias full of information that exceeds our local libraries when we were in high school. Here we have all this computing power, sitting on our laps, that would have run the entire city payroll system in the '70s. And all we get on this forum is what we can already get by going to the BLS and BEA website.

Try telling us something we don't already know.

 

[Trajan]

hummm,simple, I like that.

so how many people have we not employed who were new entrants, almost splitting the difference of opinions, between say 125 and 145K lets say 130, so, if we created 108k in a month, were are we really?

130 x12 = 1.560 M so, the net gain of that 2.237 is only 677k taken employed from our net pool....56K a month?

That is just making up shit.

For CON$ it's always simpler to make up shit, especially when the facts never support their crap.

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

is that the civil ed?

 

[JRK]

You want simple, fine. I know many people who were working three years ago that still have no job.

I don't want simple. Ed wants simple.

I want detailed, precise, accurate, comprehensive, and correct.

How old are they?
What is their marital status?
What were they doing before they got laid off?
What is their education level?
Male or female?
Where do they live?

More importantly;

What is it that they are finding to be the problem with getting hired?

What is their story?

Simplistic aggregate numbers don't tell us what is going on, only where to look.

Here we got this amazing technology, where people from across the country can tell the story. Here we have educations that would land us a management job in 1920. Here we have encyclopedias full of information that exceeds our local libraries when we were in high school. Here we have all this computing power, sitting on our laps, that would have run the entire city payroll system in the '70s. And all we get on this forum is what we can already get by going to the BLS and BEA website.

Try telling us something we don't already know.

I respect that, There is a resolving tool called the 5 whys, check it out. It helps to find a way to locate the root cause in a problem
I know WTF?
ck it out

The one number I found that pin points the problem is the % of employed to population ratio
It is the same it was in the last 12 months and maybe beyond

People leaving the work force is driving the UE # down
Ck out this link, god only knows how much info it will give you
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

 

[edthecynic]

Since the trend by this gov't to always revise
the numbers to be even more bad news for the economy

The trend will most likely continue

Notice the wishful thinking of the America-haters for revised numbers to be bad.

Actually the numbers were revised up, but CON$ can't tolerate any good news so they just make up shit. Both Feb and Mar were revised UP, the direction CON$ hate most.

Employment Situation Summary

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for February was revised from
+240,000 to +259,000, and the change for March was revised from +120,000 to
+154,000.

 

[edthecynic]

You want simple, fine. I know many people who were working three years ago that still have no job.

I don't want simple. Ed wants simple.

I want detailed, precise, accurate, comprehensive, and correct.

How old are they?
What is their marital status?
What were they doing before they got laid off?
What is their education level?
Male or female?
Where do they live?

More importantly;

What is it that they are finding to be the problem with getting hired?

What is their story?

Simplistic aggregate numbers don't tell us what is going on, only where to look.

Here we got this amazing technology, where people from across the country can tell the story. Here we have educations that would land us a management job in 1920. Here we have encyclopedias full of information that exceeds our local libraries when we were in high school. Here we have all this computing power, sitting on our laps, that would have run the entire city payroll system in the '70s. And all we get on this forum is what we can already get by going to the BLS and BEA website.

Try telling us something we don't already know.

I respect that, There is a resolving tool called the 5 whys, check it out. It helps to find a way to locate the root cause in a problem
I know WTF?
ck it out

The one number I found that pin points the problem is the % of employed to population ratio
It is the same it was in the last 12 months and maybe beyond

People leaving the work force is driving the UE # down
Ck out this link, god only knows how much info it will give you
Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age

No, 2.237 million more people employed over the last 12 months is driving the UE % down, and you know it.

 

[pinqy]

Again, why are you using pretend numbers? The seasonally adjusted numbers are really how many people. They are pretend, as in "pretend there was no season".

Is that the problem you're having, to many different numbers and you don't know what the difference are?

I am not sure why the insult
we end our debate here
I have provided this link many times
I am a mathematical genius
Again I do not understand the insult, I thought you better than that
What else are we suppose to use?
It is the numbers we are provided, the ones that agree with your opinion?
If there worthless than why does the BLS use them?

That made me sad that you would resort to an insult in stead of being an adult in the matter and state we agree to dis agree

Sorry, I meant to be consilitory. I was asking, why you use the seasonally adjusted numbers as they are not actual population estimates, they are pretend.

One option is that there are to many numbers to look at and you don't know the difference. Hey, there is nothing wrong with that, nobody knows everything about everything from the start.

The other option is that you are intentionally using them to lie, that you know that seasonal adjusted is not real population numbers and you know that the NILF didn't really go up from April to April.

I wouldn't then, be "insulting" to call you a disengenous liar because you would be, in fact, lying.

But I don't know that because you might simply not know. Nobody knows everything and there is a first time to know anything.

So I asked, why are you using seasonally adjusted numbers, numbers that are not real population? Is the problem that there are just to many f'in numbers and you don't know what the difference is?

That is not an insult, it's a question.

Since the SA numbers are the official ones and the ones that are and should usually be used, that's what I would expect. Since the ONLY times you ever want to us NSA numbers are for annual averages and comparing the same month in different years, it's hardly surprising for someone to use the SA numbers.

And they're hardly "pretend." they're certainly more "real" than unadjusted when it comes to month to month change.

 

[edthecynic]

That is just making up shit.

For CON$ it's always simpler to make up shit, especially when the facts never support their crap.

A-38. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

is that the civil ed?

To honest people there is nothing uncivil about the truth.

 

[Trajan]

hummm,simple, I like that.

so how many people have we not employed who were new entrants, almost splitting the difference of opinions, between say 125 and 145K lets say 130, so, if we created 108k in a month, were are we really?

130 x12 = 1.560 M so, the net gain of that 2.237 is only 677k taken employed from our net pool....56K a month?

That is just making up shit.

*shrugs* I am a simple guy, you can of course introduce a potpourri of if ands ors and here fores......it was more a simple rhetorical flourish.....

whats made up btw? economists say depending upon who you ask or site, for new entrants we need 120-145k jobs a month...

ed said we created 2.237 million jobs in 12 months...ok, fine. so aside from the 1.560 mill we require for new entrants, we are eating down the 'extra' ordinary unemployed pool by 56k a month, averaged over the last year....no?