Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You can't know that. It's entirely possible that department stores let more people go they than they needed to and the increase is bringing them up to a sustainable level. I wouldn't expect department stores to continue hiring as much, but that doesn't mean they'll have massive layoffs (beyond the normal post-Christmas layoffs) after Christmas.
Which is why I don't expect continued growth. But that doesn't mean that the increase that did occur was purely seasonal, which is what this thread was claiming.
Per yopur line in bold:
Sesonal hiring has always created a spike in employment and always results in a downward trend following the return season of January....so I idsagree.....we DO know it.
To sit back and assume that maybe this year may be different is a mistake as we all need to forecast and plan based on history...not hope.
Then where was the seasonal spike last year?
We lost 700,000 jobs a month at this time last year, only 11,000 last month.
Per yopur line in bold:
Sesonal hiring has always created a spike in employment and always results in a downward trend following the return season of January....so I idsagree.....we DO know it.
To sit back and assume that maybe this year may be different is a mistake as we all need to forecast and plan based on history...not hope.
Then where was the seasonal spike last year?
We lost 700,000 jobs a month at this time last year, only 11,000 last month.
rightwinger is just too stupid for words......like that stupid cartoon bird asking the same question to a million people until he gets the answer he wants to hear...so he can say...see? Someone agrees with ME!!!!
WHERE'S YOUR LINK TO LAST NOVEMBER'S EMPLOYMENT DATA.
pinqy, I don't wnt to put words in your mouth. Can you explain how a lack of seasonal retail sales, which seem to indicate you agree with, will not lead to jobs being lost after the season. Sure sound like a temporary seasonal job savings to me. You lost me somewhere is all I can gather. Please explain.
The seasonal temporary jobs are factored out of the official unemployment numbers. I think that should be clear in this thread by now.
I was talking to pinqy. You can go puke in the toilet and not on my shoes thanks. The largest gain was in temporary help. These folks may be in seasonal jobs, we don't know. Even if intended to be full time permanent, slow retail sales could end these opportunities.
rightwinger is just too stupid for words......like that stupid cartoon bird asking the same question to a million people until he gets the answer he wants to hear...so he can say...see? Someone agrees with ME!!!!
WHERE'S YOUR LINK TO LAST NOVEMBER'S EMPLOYMENT DATA.
FAIL.Then where was the seasonal spike last year?
We lost 700,000 jobs a month at this time last year, only 11,000 last month.
rightwinger is just too stupid for words......like that stupid cartoon bird asking the same question to a million people until he gets the answer he wants to hear...so he can say...see? Someone agrees with ME!!!!
WHERE'S YOUR LINK TO LAST NOVEMBER'S EMPLOYMENT DATA.
Still waiting for your response my friend.... Your lame assertion that the 11,000 jobs lost is only due to a Christmas bump doesn't work and you know it.
700,000 last Christmas to 11,000 this Christmas negates your Christmas bump
rightwinger is just too stupid for words......like that stupid cartoon bird asking the same question to a million people until he gets the answer he wants to hear...so he can say...see? Someone agrees with ME!!!!
WHERE'S YOUR LINK TO LAST NOVEMBER'S EMPLOYMENT DATA.
RIGHT HERE! Those were the preliminary numbers. Not all businesses reported on time and the numbers were later revised. If you go HERE you can do a historical search, with graphs. The one screen search is the easiest. For Employment, you want to look at the CES (Employment, Hours, and Earnings - National) and for unemployment the CPS (Labor Force Statistics including the National Unemployment Rate).
For the CES data, run both seasonally adjusted and unadjusted numbers, iinclude graphs, and tell us what you see.
I'm not spinning shit. You asked for a link, I've given you the link. What am I supposed to post? You've already been given the numbers and then you insist on a link. You're given the link then you insist the numbers get posted. Make up your mind. I'd post the graphs if I had any idea how to do that.rightwinger is just too stupid for words......like that stupid cartoon bird asking the same question to a million people until he gets the answer he wants to hear...so he can say...see? Someone agrees with ME!!!!
WHERE'S YOUR LINK TO LAST NOVEMBER'S EMPLOYMENT DATA.
RIGHT HERE! Those were the preliminary numbers. Not all businesses reported on time and the numbers were later revised. If you go HERE you can do a historical search, with graphs. The one screen search is the easiest. For Employment, you want to look at the CES (Employment, Hours, and Earnings - National) and for unemployment the CPS (Labor Force Statistics including the National Unemployment Rate).
For the CES data, run both seasonally adjusted and unadjusted numbers, iinclude graphs, and tell us what you see.
You post it...your the one attempting to spin your way out of this. Like I told rightwinger...make your case or STFU.
The only reason why there hasn't been as many jobs shed in November is the Christmas shopping season. That is what is keeping employers from shedding the normal amount of jobs and after the season is over its going to be a huge increase in job cuts.
Do you have ANY data (i.e., facts) to support your claim?
I'm not spinning shit. You asked for a link, I've given you the link. What am I supposed to post? You've already been given the numbers and then you insist on a link. You're given the link then you insist the numbers get posted. Make up your mind. I'd post the graphs if I had any idea how to do that.RIGHT HERE! Those were the preliminary numbers. Not all businesses reported on time and the numbers were later revised. If you go HERE you can do a historical search, with graphs. The one screen search is the easiest. For Employment, you want to look at the CES (Employment, Hours, and Earnings - National) and for unemployment the CPS (Labor Force Statistics including the National Unemployment Rate).
For the CES data, run both seasonally adjusted and unadjusted numbers, iinclude graphs, and tell us what you see.
You post it...your the one attempting to spin your way out of this. Like I told rightwinger...make your case or STFU.
I'm still waiting for you in any way to back up your claim that the season is affected by seasonality despite seasonal adjustment.
That's not a complete sentance so I have no idea what you're trying to say. All one has to do is look at where the jobs are being created and who is and is not now included in the labor pool and what? What does that have to do with seasonal adjustment? I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make and even less idea what point you think I'm trying to make. The composition of the Labor Force hasn't changed at all since 1994, and that was one minor change regarding people who had been accepted for a job but hadn't started working yet. So nothing to do with the current recession let alone seasonal adjustment.Uhhhh...yes...you did. All one has to do is look at where the jobs are being "created". and who is and is not now included in the labor pool.
First, I'm pretty sure the link to BLS has already been posted many times where the Employment Situation release clearly says the figures that are seasonally adjusted. Second, I have not "refused" to post links to the graphs, the graphs aren't static...you have to use the java script to create the graphs. I can't copy the graphs here because I have no idea how. Third, what case do you think I'm trying to make? The numbers ARE seasonally adjusted. That's an indisputable FACT. I have no idea why you keep denying it, even though it's been said and linked to multiple times. Again: Here's the full news release You want to look at department stores: Go to Table B-1 and look at the differences in the Oct-Nov change between seasonally adjusted and adjusted numbers. (I already told you what they were, there's the link to see for yourself). I already gave you the link to the graphs, which I would post if I knew how.You refuse to post links to the graphs and your figures that you claim support your allegations and make a convincing case
Denying that seasonal adjustment occurs when the numbers are processed is not an interpretation. It's a denial of fact...well...thats says enough about you....it's all in the way the data is interpreted. I interpret it one way and you another...
Never said it was. In fact I pointed out that it could well have gone up because of the margins of error.All I know is a .2% drop isn't SHIT in the big picture.
It might not be a trend. Who knows? All I'm saying is that any reversals or trends are not Seasonal, because that's already been accounted for....and I'm sure in December it will dip a bit as well...but in February/March we will see what transpires....if it the unemployment rate holds or begins a TREND towards improving after the holiday season .... you can shoot your mouth off...but right now your spin is meaningless.
And? You know, I'm still waiting for you to make an actual point.and I never DENIED seasonal adjustments didn't exist...I said they are meaningless if you look at the sectors where jobs are being created....from your link...
Majority in healthcare with an emphisis on "home healthcare provider"...
Local GOVERNMENT....
State Government...
Federal government...
General merchandise stores...
Department stores....
after seasonal adjustments.....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
And? You know, I'm still waiting for you to make an actual point.and I never DENIED seasonal adjustments didn't exist...I said they are meaningless if you look at the sectors where jobs are being created....from your link...
Majority in healthcare with an emphisis on "home healthcare provider"...
Local GOVERNMENT....
State Government...
Federal government...
General merchandise stores...
Department stores....
after seasonal adjustments.....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Look, either Seasonal Adjustment occurs, or it doesn't. By saying that the changes are due to seasonal reasons, you are denying that adjustment takes place. You can't have it both ways and say that seasonal factors are taken out and the remaining changes are due to seasonal factors. It's blatantly nonsensical. Why on Earth can't merchandise stores and Department stores increase the number of jobs for other than seasonal factors? Does it seem strange because sales have gone down? Sure. But that doesn't make it impossible.
Look..it's common knowledge that retail hires Christmas help.
Look..it's common knowledge that retail hires Christmas help.
THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING! And that seasonal hiring hides the underlying trend. If we went off the actual increase in retail jobs, that number is 321,300 and department stores increased jobs by 131,500. But we know that that can't be the real trend because retail hires Christmas help. So based on past trends, BLS uses statistical techniques to eliminate the noise created by Christmas hires in a process called SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT. Applying that technique, we see that the real trend is that retail jobs actually went DOWN 14,500 and Department stores only went up 7,500. So the published numbers are the underlying trend, and do NOT reflect seasonal hires.
I'm really not sure what part of that you don't understand.
