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.
now wtf does that have to do with employment statistics?
You are confused.Well, how do you capitalists and their cult servants sleep well in the "war of all against all"?
USSR falling apart and Russia going capitalist must drive an old soviet fart like you CRAZY.This current hell was predicted 150 years ago
It's only interesting to ignorant rubes, who don't understand how employment statistics work but are in desperate political need to deny official numbers.
This is what raw employment looks like vs adjustments:
What do you see? ~3 million job contraction like clockwork each and every January.
So if you see 2.5m loss instead of expected 3m, then what does that mean? It's means VERY GOOD EMPLOYMENT NUMBERS.
With numerous indicators pointing toward recession and with the Fed in the middle of a tightening period, the BLS is applying more or less the same January seasonal adjustment as usual. Will that prove to be the “correct” adjustment in 2023? It’s impossible to say, and it’s certainly impossible to take the make-believe number of “517,000 new jobs” as evidence of the underlying economic fundamentals at all. This sort of extrapolation is especially dangerous when job growth is increasingly all about part-time work.The further one gets from the raw data the further one goes from reality, and therefore the more erroneous any concentration upon that figure. Seasonal adjustments in data are not as harmless as they seem, for seasonal patterns, even for such products as fruit and vegetables, are not set in concrete. Seasonal patterns change, and they change in unpredictable ways, and hence seasonal adjustments are likely to add extra distortions to the data.
That actual jobs fell last month isn’t shocking, however, as total employment almost always goes down in January. It is reported as positive only due to sizable seasonal adjustments. But when the economy is in a transitional period, as it is now, seasonal adjustments may or may not actually reflect the current situation. In fact, as we can see in the next graph, when not seasonally adjusted, month-to-month January employment usually falls by at least two million jobs. Many Januarys in recent years have seen job losses of 2.8 million or more. In many cases, the BLS’s adjustments bring these numbers up by approximately three million.
Is the current adjustment appropriate under the circumstances? We don’t know. It’s pure guesswork. And this all brings to mind Murray Rothbard’s observation about some of the trouble we encounter with these adjustments:
With numerous indicators pointing toward recession and with the Fed in the middle of a tightening period, the BLS is applying more or less the same January seasonal adjustment as usual. Will that prove to be the “correct” adjustment in 2023? It’s impossible to say, and it’s certainly impossible to take the make-believe number of “517,000 new jobs” as evidence of the underlying economic fundamentals at all. This sort of extrapolation is especially dangerous when job growth is increasingly all about part-time work.
mediabiasfactcheck.com
Bullshit. Look at your graph, it shows that we've just had the LOWEST January job loss in the entire 25 year series presented..
Wow, that didn't take long. You must be quite a busy guy. *snicker*
It also shows you didn't bother to read anything that the literature stated, for if you had - you would realize that it didn't contradict the graph, nor was the source material INFO WARS or your boogey man Alex Jones.
As I posted before, "job gains" are the easiest statistic to fake any way you want to fake it. I stopped paying attention to "job gains" decades ago.
As I posted before, "job gains" are the easiest statistic to fake any way you want to fake it. I stopped paying attention to "job gains" decades ago.
