Christmas season is what is saving jobs

[NYcarbineer]

Here's an interesting fact:

The highest rate for a single month is shared by November and December of 1982 with an unemployment rate of 10.8%

Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States

I don't recall not having Christmas that year.

 

[pinqy]

One for pinqy....

Among the marginally attached, there were 861,000 discouraged workers in
November, up from 608,000 a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally ad-
justed.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work be-
cause they believe no jobs are available for them.

And? I'm well aware of the definition of discouraged worker and that the Not in Labor Force numbers aren't seasonally adjusted. So what? I never said they were. We were talking about Employment and Unemployent. Discouraged workers are Not in the Labor Force.

more holes shot into pinqy's bullshit!!!!
Ab

out 2.3 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in
November, an increase of 376,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not sea-
sonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and
were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12
months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched
for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

Again, I'm not sure how that puts any holes into what I've been saying. Employment and Unemployment numbers are seasonally adjusted. Some specific industry data is not, and some other data isn't either, mostly those with very small sample sizes or with a great deal of subjectvity. The tables clearly state which figures are and which aren't and the unadjusted numbers are given along side the adjusted numbers when seasonal adjustment is used. The Marginally attached and its subset of Discouraged workers are not seasonally adjusted. They're also Not in the Labor Force and so we weren't talking about them.

and finally....

The number of people working part time for economic reasons (sometimes re-
ferred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in November
at 9.2 million. These individuals were working part time because their hours
had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

Again I have to ask so what? I'm not sure what you think that proves or how that counters anything I've said. That number is seasonally adjusted, by the way.

Perhaps you can try an actual argument and explain your points.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the unemployment numbers were not adjusted to account for Christmas hiring then the unemployment rate would go down every November.

Is that the case?

I love, btw, watching the rightwingers scramble and thrash trying to spin out of this one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

One for pinqy....

Among the marginally attached, there were 861,000 discouraged workers in
November, up from 608,000 a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally ad-
justed.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work be-
cause they believe no jobs are available for them.

And? I'm well aware of the definition of discouraged worker and that the Not in Labor Force numbers aren't seasonally adjusted. So what? I never said they were. We were talking about Employment and Unemployent. Discouraged workers are Not in the Labor Force.


Again, I'm not sure how that puts any holes into what I've been saying. Employment and Unemployment numbers are seasonally adjusted. Some specific industry data is not, and some other data isn't either, mostly those with very small sample sizes or with a great deal of subjectvity. The tables clearly state which figures are and which aren't and the unadjusted numbers are given along side the adjusted numbers when seasonal adjustment is used. The Marginally attached and its subset of Discouraged workers are not seasonally adjusted. They're also Not in the Labor Force and so we weren't talking about them.

and finally....

The number of people working part time for economic reasons (sometimes re-
ferred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in November
at 9.2 million. These individuals were working part time because their hours
had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

Again I have to ask so what? I'm not sure what you think that proves or how that counters anything I've said. That number is seasonally adjusted, by the way.

Perhaps you can try an actual argument and explain your points.

You are up against a classic case of righties getting caught being wrong and going into their never admit you were wrong mode. They try to suck you into trying to get them to admit they were wrong and then try to wear you out by refusing to. It's classic con message boarding.

 

[saveliberty]

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Gains in Temporary Help Flattens Out Unemployment Numbers

Employers using temp services are obviously a signal that firms are very nervous about the economy and do not want to take on the burden of a permanent employee.

The only other sector to gain was the heavily government influenced health care industry.

 

[saveliberty]

...and how are those department store jobs going to hold up?

The data below present monthly net sales growth and same-store sales growth (compared with the prior year).

Department Stores
Bon-Ton Stores, Inc. -6.4 -6.0
Dillard's, Inc. -13.0 -11.0
Kohl's Corporation 7.1 3.3
Macy's, Inc. -6.3 -6.1
Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. -5.9 -7.5
Nordstrom, Inc. 5.9 2.2
Penney Corporation, Inc. (J.C.) -5.2 -5.9
Saks Incorporated -25.1 -26.1

Sorry, I forgot to include the source: http://www.retailforward.com/retailintel/samestr_sales.pdf

 

[pinqy]

All of your points are meaningless....we see what the report says...spin it however you want but we still have it in black and white.

No, you keep ignoring the parts about the numbers that are SEASONALLY ADJUSTED. It's right there in black and white, I don't know why you keep insisting they're not adjusted.

Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who completed tem-
porary jobs fell by 463,000 in November. The number of long-term unemployed
(those jobless for 27 weeks and over) rose by 293,000 to 5.9 million. The
percentage of unemployed persons jobless for 27 weeks or more increased by
2.7 percentage points to 38.3 percent.

Keep digging pinqy...keep digging, spinning, deflecting...whatever....

I'm not sure what that's supposed to refute. Are you just making up things you think I've said? You'll have to point out a specific quote of mine that this refutes, because in this thread I've just been pointing out that seasonal adjustment occurs so it's silly to say that the season is the reason for the lesser decrease in Employment or the decrease in the Unemployment rate.

In reality, the Labor Force numbers don't tell us a whole lot this month because doing the math, the changes in Employment, Unemployment, labor force etc all include zero in the range. Example: The change in non-farm payroll employment was -11,000. But the standard error for a 1 month change is 60.447 At a 90% confidence, then, the actual change was somewhere between -110,000 and +88,000
The change in unemployment was between -708,614 and +58,614

The tendancy seems to be towards an improvement, but it's not possible to say for sure.

 

[pinqy]

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Gains in Temporary Help Flattens Out Unemployment Numbers

Employers using temp services are obviously a signal that firms are very nervous about the economy and do not want to take on the burden of a permanent employee..

That's one way to spin it. It's also possible that firms are more optimistic about the economy and want to hire more in anticipation but can't yet afford to hire permanent employees so go with temps to bolster their workforce while things improve.

The truth is probably somewhere in between. We might be in the early stages of recovery, but it's too early to say for sure.

 

[saveliberty]

All of your points are meaningless....we see what the report says...spin it however you want but we still have it in black and white.

No, you keep ignoring the parts about the numbers that are SEASONALLY ADJUSTED. It's right there in black and white, I don't know why you keep insisting they're not adjusted.

Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who completed tem-
porary jobs fell by 463,000 in November. The number of long-term unemployed
(those jobless for 27 weeks and over) rose by 293,000 to 5.9 million. The
percentage of unemployed persons jobless for 27 weeks or more increased by
2.7 percentage points to 38.3 percent.

Keep digging pinqy...keep digging, spinning, deflecting...whatever....

I'm not sure what that's supposed to refute. Are you just making up things you think I've said? You'll have to point out a specific quote of mine that this refutes, because in this thread I've just been pointing out that seasonal adjustment occurs so it's silly to say that the season is the reason for the lesser decrease in Employment or the decrease in the Unemployment rate.

In reality, the Labor Force numbers don't tell us a whole lot this month because doing the math, the changes in Employment, Unemployment, labor force etc all include zero in the range. Example: The change in non-farm payroll employment was -11,000. But the standard error for a 1 month change is 60.447 At a 90% confidence, then, the actual change was somewhere between -110,000 and +88,000
The change in unemployment was between -708,614 and +58,614
The tendancy seems to be towards an improvement, but it's not possible to say for sure.

Regardless, more people were hired even with the seasonal adjustments in department stores. That will not hold past the "season". Retail sales in their stores are not supporting long term employment. I agree with your assessment in the bold paragraph above. There will be adjustments here as well in the next three months. I have not heard anyone I talk with in public speaking about increased spending for Christmas. Most are saying they will spend less.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Employers using temp services are obviously a signal that firms are very nervous about the economy and do not want to take on the burden of a permanent employee.

Actually, this trend has been going on for a while - even before the economic collapse. In fact, the company I worked for previously stopped hiring full time people and only hired free-lance and contract designers so that THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR HALF OF THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE. Lots of companies are doing this. This is why so many people are losing their insurance.

 

[pinqy]

Regardless, more people were hired even with the seasonal adjustments in department stores. That will not hold past the "season".

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.

Retail sales in their stores are not supporting long term employment. I agree with your assessment in the bold paragraph above. There will be adjustments here as well in the next three months. I have not heard anyone I talk with in public speaking about increased spending for Christmas. Most are saying they will spend less.

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.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

 

[Oldandtired]

Regardless, more people were hired even with the seasonal adjustments in department stores. That will not hold past the "season".

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.

Retail sales in their stores are not supporting long term employment. I agree with your assessment in the bold paragraph above. There will be adjustments here as well in the next three months. I have not heard anyone I talk with in public speaking about increased spending for Christmas. Most are saying they will spend less.

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.

 

[pinqy]

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..

Read the whole thread...especially the parts about SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT. The effects of seasonal hiring are factored out. The employment level of Department stores went up by 131,500 But most of that is seasonal, so it was factored out and the seasonally adjusted change, the official numbers, was an increase of only 7,500 The decrease in January will also be factored out.

The official numbers show the underlying trend, NOT the predictable fluctuations.

 

[pinqy]

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.

It might, it might not. What I'm saying is that it's possible that the industry shed too many jobs, even with the lower retail sales, and is adusting back up to the level needed even with lower sales. Sales may decrease, but you still need a certain amount of staff to handle the customers. And decreased sales doesn't necessarily mean fewer customers, just customers spending less. So it's possible (though I can't say if it's true) that the stores decreased staff to the point where they could no longer handle the customer they did have, and had to hire more or risk losing more customers and therefore even more sales.

In other words, to save money the stores laid off people but it's possible they laid off too many to function properly and need to hire more to handle even the lower amount of sales.

Again, it's just a possibility, no idea if it's true.

 

[rightwinger]

Regardless, more people were hired even with the seasonal adjustments in department stores. That will not hold past the "season".

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.

Retail sales in their stores are not supporting long term employment. I agree with your assessment in the bold paragraph above. There will be adjustments here as well in the next three months. I have not heard anyone I talk with in public speaking about increased spending for Christmas. Most are saying they will spend less.

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.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

There are 7 million folks that can only be counted as unemployed once. Yet it still is getting worse. MORE unemployed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Regardless, more people were hired even with the seasonal adjustments in department stores. That will not hold past the "season".

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.

Retail sales in their stores are not supporting long term employment. I agree with your assessment in the bold paragraph above. There will be adjustments here as well in the next three months. I have not heard anyone I talk with in public speaking about increased spending for Christmas. Most are saying they will spend less.

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.

But it WAS seasonal...otherwise...why didn't it happen a month ago...2 months ago?

and just as you SPECULATE AND SPIN about .....

"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."

You don't KNOW THAT EITHER...You're just guessing like everyone else!!!! Now...as I suggested...why don't we wait until February and see what transpires and then we can revisit this thread.