More economic doom 'n' gloom

[Cool Dood]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060407/economy.html?.v=17

Employers boosted payrolls by a sizable 211,000 in March in a springtime hiring burst that pushed the unemployment rate down to 4.7 percent.

The latest snapshot of the U.S. job market, released by the Labor Department Friday, suggested that an accelerating economic expansion is putting companies in the hiring mood, brightening prospects for those seeking work...

Hiring gains were fairly widespread. Construction, retailers, financial activities, education and health care, and government were among the sectors posting payroll gains. That help to blunt job losses in manufacturing and in the transportation industries.

The unemployment rate, which dropped from February's 4.8 percent, ended up matching January's jobless rate, which was the lowest in 4 1/2 years.

Is it too much to expect the usual suspects not to find the cloudy lining on all that silver?

 

[Cut-Throat]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060407/economy.html?.v=17

Is it too much to expect the usual suspects not to find the cloudy lining on all that silver?

This is a lot like dinosaurs mating right before their extinction.

The Dow Jones dropped almost 100 points today also.

 

[Gone4Good]

This is a lot like dinosaurs mating right before their extinction.

Sounds like a good way to end an era.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

There are two minor quibbles with the jobs number.

One is that it doesnt measure the people who no longer consider themselves "unemployed and looking for work" after they quit looking.

The other is that it includes "invented" jobs. If the economic numbers are positive, the jobs folks decide that there must be jobs being created that they cant measure, so they create a bunch of jobs that they didnt measure and add them to the number. Discounting the possibility that during positive economic expansion some businesses dont hire new people. Or the the economic expansion just isnt as good as its portrayed. Since the 'new jobs' folks cant accurately measure small business job growth, this is how they put that together.

Anyone notice an acceleration of new small businesses cropping up in their neighborhoods? Me neither.

 

[REWahoo]

Anyone notice an acceleration of new small businesses cropping up in their neighborhoods?

I have.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

How much do the "massages" cost these days?

 

[Nords]

There are two minor quibbles with the jobs number.

Me too. It doesn't work and it's misleading.

Business Week reviewed the "process" a couple years ago and came up with a fudge factor of +/- 100,000 jobs. Since that's frequently the number of the week, that means there were either zero or 200,000 jobs. Pick your interpretation and go on CNBC.

Anyone notice an acceleration of new small businesses cropping up in their neighborhoods? Me neither.

Actually I have. I'm especially intrigued by the guy opening his second "Cartridge World" franchise, and when I see the traffic through the first one I wonder if he's looking for a little equity from a silent partner.

Hawaii's been the most-employed state in the nation for something like 13 months now, with a 2.5% unemployment figure. That's quite an achievement for a state whose anti-business stance is only behind CA & MA. I wasn't kidding about Laurence's brother!

 

[Gone4Good]

Anyone notice an acceleration of new small businesses cropping up in their neighborhoods?  Me neither.

Not sure what the "invented jobs" adjustment you're referring to is.  But the official unemployment number does not include the self-employed.  I can't speak for others, but my wife is officially "unemployed" according to the government yet she earned more last year than any year she was counted as "employed".  Her status as "unemployed" didn't stop the government from confiscating collecting a healthy share of her earnings though.

Incidentally, I'm not sure you would necessarily know if small businesses were cropping up in your neighborhood. Not all businesses have store fronts. Many are consulting/freelancing arrangements which could be done out of a home office and you would never know. Including my wife, I know 5 people who are former professionals turned freelancers - probably many more where they came from.

 

[kramer]

I am a software engineer in Silicon Valley. The job market is great here right now, which is a big shift from, say, three years ago. Recruiters are cold calling folks to try to fill positions, one of my friends (I have this guy's old position at my current company) is a manager and he has essentially "unlimited requisitions" according to an email to me last week, virtually everyone is hiring, etc.

Basically, the job market here has slowly been getting better here year after year since mid-2002 until now it is amazing. A lot of folks I know who thought they were doomed because of offshoring have been wrong, in the short term, at least. There is also lots and lots of venture capital money flowing.

Kramer

 

[retire@40]

Anyone notice an acceleration of new small businesses cropping up in their neighborhoods?  Me neither.

In the Boston area I've seen plenty of new small business startups, especially in the past 5 years.

Until about 5 years ago there were about a dozen empty lots in my neighborhood that were empty for the prior 10-15 years. All of them have been built upon and are being occupied by new small businesses like restaurants and fast-food joints, gas stations, auto repair, laundomats, and (for the life of me I can't figure out why) local banks.

Something good is happening in the economy, but only time will tell if it will get even better and last.

 

[Cool Dood]

I guess Cute Fuzzy Bunny should eat some more carrots.. "What's up, eye doc?"

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I guess the key word in what I said was "acceleration". All y'all are proving the point that at best, its guesswork.

Basing a key economic number on an estimate of a guess as a factor of another economic number thats an estimate of some measures and not others...

Nords got the point.

This isnt science, its a bunch of economists reviewing a bunch of economists consolidation of a bunch of economists work to determine an economists wet dream of measuring what cant really be accurately measured.

Then it gets rolled up into an employment number or a CPI figure, gets slapped on the headline at the business news channel, and we're off to the races.

The very definition of the term...Bullshit!

 

[SteveR]

I know the job market is heating up in my industry too. I have gotten about 2X the cold calls from Head hunters over the past couple of months compared to the past few years. I know my company has over 200 open positions in NY alone. We always have 20+ jobs unfilled at any one time because we can't find qualifed people. We are seeing increases in the internet jobs sites, classified listings in the newpaper and HH cold calls. Something is going one. They are also in a building spree with new office space which seems to fill up as fast as they can build them.

Makes one wonder anyway.

 

[sgeeeee]

Unemployment rate calculations are not perfect, but they are much more than a WAG. There is a lot of survey and sampling that goes into the numbers. The US bureau of Labor Statistics sampling techniques are pretty transparent and detailed. Sampling error on any given week can be high, but over a longer period of time, the figures probably good indicators of what's going on with employment.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics:
http://www.bls.gov/

Employment and Unemployment:
http://www.bls.gov/bls/employment.htm


National Employment Survey:
http://www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm

National Unemployment Rate:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm

 

[Mysto]

I guess it just depends on where you are. Come to Michigan the home of "where the work used to be". No business expansion here - but a lot of unemployed and underemployed. My son- in-law is living in Florida away from my daughter so he can work and my early retirement is as much of lack of business as a desire to do so.

 

[Maximillion]

mysto, Michigan and Ontario need to work closely together, they keep shifting auto jobs down South, we wil all be seeing our Grand Kids only at Christmas.

Jobs are being created, but they are not of the same quality or Benefits previously enjoyed, companies hire Contract Workers, No benefits, Fixed contract, and "I don't care if you have an MBA, you are still a Receptionist".

 

[Gone4Good]

Nords got the point.

This isnt science, its a bunch of economists reviewing a bunch of economists consolidation of a bunch of economists work to determine an economists wet dream of measuring what cant really be accurately measured.

Then it gets rolled up into an employment number or a CPI figure, gets slapped on the headline at the business news channel, and we're off to the races.

The very definition of the term...Bull****!

Business Week reviewed the "process" a couple years ago and came up with a fudge factor of +/- 100,000 jobs.  Since that's frequently the number of the week, that means there were either zero or 200,000 jobs.  Pick your interpretation and go on CNBC.

I think both of you might be missing the larger point, which is understandable because the financial press has it wrong too.

To Nords point that the monthly unemployment report may have a "fudge factor of +/- 100,000 jobs" is probably true. It is also completely irrelevant! Total U.S. employment stands at 143,600,000. 100,000 jobs +/- is an error of 0.07% (a.k.a 0.0007) . . . so what? In fact, if that is all the error is, I'd say the stats are pretty darn good.

 

[Brat]

I just reviewed a recording the UCTV program I mentioned on another thread.  I will try to digest presentation and post there today,  BUT.. one of the significant comments he made is that housing prices are sustained by JOBS. 

The import of this is that if the employment level in a community falls significantly home prices will follow over time.  The cost of selling a home, moving and buying (or renting) another are significant so households that do not need to move won't put their house on the market.  Homes will be less liquid (will stay on the market longer) and prices will flatten or trend downward. 

 

[Nords]

Sampling error on any given week can be high, but over a longer period of time, the figures probably good indicators of what's going on with employment.

I think both of you might be missing the larger point, which is understandable because the financial press has it wrong too. 
To Nords point that the monthly unemployment report may have a "fudge factor of +/- 100,000 jobs" is probably true.  It is also completely irrelevant!  Total U.S. employment stands at 143,600,000.  100,000 jobs +/- is an error of 0.07% (a.k.a 0.0007) . . . so what?  In fact, if that is all the error is, I'd say the stats are pretty darn good.

Well, excuse the #$%^ out of me for reporting what investors and the media do about a figure that's widely reported in the media.

Your points are extremely logical, correct, and agreed with. My point is that the employment figure isn't reported like most polls that say "xx samples with an error of +/- 3%". It's reported as "Employment rises 100,000!" without the additional detail that the figure reported may be +/- 100,000. Sure the sampling error flattens out over time. Sure the fudge factor is irrelevant.

But the bad info is treated as gospel on CNBC and acted on anyway. If you statistics Vulcans aren't on the job to interpret these figures for the great unwashed public investor, then irrational behavior is bound to take place.

I also think that, if errors are identified in the survey process, that a better process could be developed. But that's probably not deemed to be cost effective, and CNBC would probably lose a lot of sound bites...

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

My point exactly. What the facts are and whats reported with the subsequent knee jerk investor reactions are not necessarily the same.

This is why "systems" dont work. Try predicting which funny number will be reported and which direction the herd will run when they hear it...

 

[audreyh1]

If you statistics Vulcans aren't on the job to interpret these figures for the great unwashed public investor, then irrational behavior is bound to take place.

Irrational investor behavior will happen NO MATTER WHAT.

Audrey

 

[Gone4Good]

Nords, I tried to cover all your points with the following disclaimer:

. . . which is understandable because the financial press has it wrong too.  

I completely agree with you.  It's not only the financial press that has become excessively myopic but the financial markets as well.  Stocks and bonds will trade based on whether monthly job growth was 100,000 or 200,000 when both numbers in and of themselves are statistically meaningless.  The market and the press lose the forest, meaning the trend in jobs data, for the trees, which is an individual report.  Again, I completely agree.

However, the idea that I was responding to was this:

. . . the economic expansion just isnt as good as its portrayed.  Since the 'new jobs' folks cant accurately measure small business job growth, this is how they put that together.

Anyone notice an acceleration of new small businesses cropping up in their neighborhoods?  Me neither.

The implication here is that the data is bad and the economy is worse than it seems.  I think this statement is untrue.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

My implication is that we dont actually know. I think some parts of the economy are good. I think some parts arent. I think the "numbers" that are reported to us like the jobs numbers and CPI numbers have very little bearing on what parts are working well and what parts arent.

I think we're all in vigorous agreement.

 

[sgeeeee]

Nords:

Well, excuse the #$%^ out of me for reporting what investors and the media do about a figure that's widely reported in the media.

CFB:

My point exactly. What the facts are and whats reported with the subsequent knee jerk investor reactions are not necessarily the same.

You guys are pretty sensitive, aren't you? I didn't even mention your posts in my origninal post. I just gave some links that explain where the numbers really come from. Maybe I should send the links to Oprah.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Blow me!

(wow, its been a long time since the last iteration of THAT one!)