February 04, 2011
— Geoff As mentioned below, the BLS released its unemployment report for January this morning. As you can see from The Chart, unemployment made another 0.4-point drop, falling from 9.4% to 9%. Unfortunately, that number, like The Chart itself, has become irrelevant to understanding the unemployment situation.
Yes, The Chart, which brought me fame, fortune, and black helicopters buzzing lazily overhead, has become as pointless as the U-3 numbers it plots. It's partly because the number of people who have dropped out of the labor force has gotten so large. For example, the Household Survey says that 622K people dropped out of unemployment. Of these, 100K found jobs, 200K are "marginally attached" (i.e., they'll show up in the U-4, U-5, and U-6 unemployment rates), and 300K have dropped out of the work force entirely (they won't show up in any of the unemployment calculations). When 5/6 of your "improvement" is actually bad news, it's obvious that the U-3, and even the U-6 unemployment rates are not very useful (except in harassing the administration, of course).
To see how bad it really is, check this out:
Yeah, we should have 5 million more people in the labor force than we do today (maybe slightly smaller due to demographic shifts, but...). Pick a "U-", any "U-": Those people won't show up in any unemployment rate.
The Household Survey numbers themselves had huge adjustments this month: the BLS revises its population numbers every year based on the latest Census Bureau estimates. This year, that pulled 500,000 people out of the labor force. I think the revision is a good thing - without it, the BLS would have reported that 590K people moved from unemployed to employed.....in a month where the Establishment Survey tells us that only 36K jobs were added. [The unemployment rate is based on the Household Survey, but the Establishment Survey (industry survey) is considered to be a more accurate gauge of how many jobs are added or lost.]
There may be a spot of good news in this report. The number of people employed part-time dropped by 780K, which would indicate that at least some of these job were converted to full-time positions. The number of part-timers has been swinging wildly lately, with fluctuations larger that those entering and leaving the workforce. It was increasing reasonably steadily over the last quarter of 2010, so seeing it drop is good news. But we'll see next month, w/o the effect of the adjustments to muddy the data.
Posted by: Geoff at
08:35 AM
| Comments (121)
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: dagny at February 04, 2011 08:40 AM (7oMSd)
Case in point; this chart does for employment what the CBO does for budgeting, - lies and diddly squat.
Posted by: Sheriff Vigilan T. Justice at February 04, 2011 08:41 AM (GwPRU)
They also went back and fiddled with both sets of data.
They moved almost ALL of the Establishment survey data for last year DOWN... thus lowering the bar for now...
AND, they used 11 year old census data to "adjust" the Household survey based on "Census Data". Note, not NEW Census data... based on the Census data from 11 years ago.
Sooo... even though the establishment data showed a net gain of only 36K jobs... because the "renormed" the data to show less overall people, the rate dropped.
Its like deciding the origional High Jump Record, measured in Meters, will now be measured in Yards... and thus you have a higher number.
Sooo.... like the current Government Inflation data, which leaves OUT food and fuel... its a F'n Lie that the media will eat up... giving Obama credit.
Posted by: Romeo13 at February 04, 2011 08:41 AM (AdK6a)
SAT Question:
The unemployment rate over time most resembles a:
a) parabola
b) hyperbola
c) sine curve
d) a haphazard, misleading shit sandwich stacked higher than Primanti's
e) all of the above
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at February 04, 2011 08:41 AM (DPM1U)
Posted by: 18-1 at February 04, 2011 08:44 AM (7BU4a)
BTW, why is my cursor always invisible now in the commnet box? Should I be concerned? Can others see it, but just not me? Did the invisible ninjas who daily stalk me take it away?
I hate those guys.
Posted by: countrydoc at February 04, 2011 08:44 AM (131HS)
There are too many things still wrong for the economy to pick up.
A few signs of hope (actual hope) will help our job/economic outlook:
1. Not hiking taxes back to the Clinton era near 40% tax rape.
2. ObamaCare repeal. The closer we get to actual repeal, the more actual confidence will return to the market.
Fuck cloward and piven.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at February 04, 2011 08:44 AM (0fzsA)
Sooo.... like the current Government Inflation data, which leaves OUT food and fuel... its a F'n Lie that the media will eat up... giving Obama credit.
"Obesity epidemic" and "global warming" discipline. You shouldn't care about food or fuel you racist bitter clinger. You're probably fat and drive a non-hybrid vehicle, or at least we like to portray you as such. Just stop eating, grow a garden, and walk. Silly american.
Posted by: dagny at February 04, 2011 08:45 AM (7oMSd)
Posted by: Emperor Obama Shabaaz Snowconus at February 04, 2011 08:46 AM (oEV9E)
7 Did you switch to firefox? My cursor is invisible there and not in ie.
Posted by: dagny at February 04, 2011 08:46 AM (7oMSd)
There may also be a spot of no news in this report.
I was born in 1948, and I'm probably one of the reasons "unemployment declined", and "Social Security unexpectedly went into the red" this year, instead of the earlier predicted 2016.
I'm guessing there's more than two of me.
Posted by: jwb7605 at February 04, 2011 08:47 AM (Qxe/p)
I hate those guys.
Posted by: countrydoc at February 04, 2011 12:44 PM (131HS)
That started happening to me several months ago too. But if you click your cursor in one of the 'Name', 'Email' or 'URL' boxes and then click back in the comment box, it will appear.
Posted by: Tami at February 04, 2011 08:47 AM (VuLos)
BTW, why is my cursor always invisible now in the commnet box?
Is it plugged in?
You should plug it in.
Posted by: geoff at February 04, 2011 08:48 AM (s4b+9)
Posted by: t-bird at February 04, 2011 08:48 AM (FcR7P)
in fact, if you look at the bottom chart, Table C on population changes in the data... ie what they changed...
The ENTIRE .4% change is them F'n with the data...
Posted by: Romeo13 at February 04, 2011 08:48 AM (AdK6a)
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at February 04, 2011 08:49 AM (DPM1U)
Yeah, I've always used it. The weird thing is that sometimes its there, but usually its not.
Posted by: countrydoc at February 04, 2011 08:50 AM (131HS)
Posted by: t-bird at February 04, 2011 12:48 PM (FcR7P)
I think the only question now is have we broken 20% real unemployment yet, or is that still coming?
Posted by: 18-1 at February 04, 2011 08:51 AM (7BU4a)
12
7 Did you switch to firefox? My cursor is invisible there and not in ie.
Posted by: dagny at February 04, 2011 12:46 PM (7oMSd)
When that happens to me (in FireFox) I just highlight some text in the last post and click on the comment box. The cursor always comes right back.Posted by: Ed Anger at February 04, 2011 08:51 AM (7+pP9)
So remember when real 5% unemployment under Bush was "the worst economy since Herbert Hoover?"
Posted by: 18-1 at February 04, 2011 12:44 PM (7BU4a)
Jab a libtard - repeatedly - with this sharp stick:
If 5% unemployment under Bush was the "worst economy since Herbert Hoover", what is 9% unemployment under Obama?
Posted by: ya2daup at February 04, 2011 08:51 AM (HmCnI)
So what's the real percentage when you take into account population growth and those five million jobs that were never created? Call it U-7.
I make it out to be 11.8%.
Posted by: geoff at February 04, 2011 08:51 AM (s4b+9)
That's pretty much why my dad closed his practice and went to work for hospitals at a salary. Medicare/Title 19 wasn't covering expenses.
The unemployment number will not be allowed to be reported as 10% under any circumstances.
Unless they can find a way to blame Boehner for all the shit that happened under Pelosi.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 04, 2011 08:52 AM (TUpD9)
Santelli rips some cnbc synchophants in vid over at drudge.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at February 04, 2011 08:53 AM (xdHzq)
They will.
Retroactive blame is the Dem's specialty.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at February 04, 2011 08:53 AM (9hSKh)
The best thing that could happen to you at this time in your life!
Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 04, 2011 08:54 AM (TUpD9)
Posted by: bigred ain't buyin' it. at February 04, 2011 08:55 AM (cX9pO)
If adding 200,000 jobs a month is necessary to keep pace with population growth, and last month the economy added only 36,000 jobs, how many people were consigned to unemployment by Obama's economic policies?
(I may have the 200,000 figure wrong ... I'll go look it up.)
Posted by: ya2daup at February 04, 2011 08:56 AM (HmCnI)
Posted by: Congress at February 04, 2011 08:57 AM (FcR7P)
The best thing that could happen to you at this time in your life!
Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 04, 2011 12:54 PM (TUpD9)
Esp. if the government is sending you a check for being that way.
Posted by: The Robot Devil at February 04, 2011 08:58 AM (LdYLm)
I'm doing O.K. here, since doctors are so rare, my days are full.
So how can I make a profit on a prostate exam when I get paid less than a truck stop hooker, you ask?
That's easy...Volume.
Posted by: countrydoc at February 04, 2011 08:59 AM (131HS)
Posted by: Gordon Gekko at February 04, 2011 08:59 AM (Pq1Al)
9% + 9% =18%
See even the math works.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 04, 2011 08:59 AM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: Whatever at February 04, 2011 08:59 AM (L5sNt)
Um...consigned to unemployment..we should start using that.
Posted by: Soylent Green Corp at February 04, 2011 08:59 AM (xdHzq)
Posted by: Gordon Gekko at February 04, 2011 12:59 PM (Pq1Al)
And gold. AU rules!
Posted by: The Robot Devil at February 04, 2011 09:00 AM (LdYLm)
Posted by: Seriously at February 04, 2011 09:01 AM (9IMTf)
Posted by: Seriously at February 04, 2011 09:02 AM (9IMTf)
Fuck Kiwi immigration regulations.
Posted by: Whatever at February 04, 2011 12:59 PM (L5sNt)
People don't pay attention unless they are f*cked.
Posted by: The Robot Devil at February 04, 2011 09:03 AM (LdYLm)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at February 04, 2011 09:03 AM (c5RQr)
Posted by: The-Moose: Mike at February 04, 2011 09:03 AM (87SW+)
Posted by: Whatever at February 04, 2011 09:04 AM (L5sNt)
They can receive letters. Try this info:
U.S. Supreme Court Addresses
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at February 04, 2011 09:05 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: Whatever at February 04, 2011 01:04 PM (L5sNt)
There's a big differences between the US and the UK. One, we have better dentists. Two, we have guns. Three, we love under-boob.
Posted by: The Robot Devil at February 04, 2011 09:07 AM (LdYLm)
Posted by: The-Moose: Mike at February 04, 2011 09:07 AM (87SW+)
Posted by: Whatever at February 04, 2011 01:04 PM (L5sNt)
Then Maggie Thatcher came along.
Posted by: Oldcat at February 04, 2011 09:08 AM (z1N6a)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at February 04, 2011 09:08 AM (c5RQr)
An Obama bundler picked for a choice ambassadorship brought the U.S. embassy she led to “a state of dysfunction” in a year on the job, a State Department probe has found.
Cynthia Stroum, who last month left her post as U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg, was “aggressive, bullying, hostile and intimidating,” the department’s inspector general said in a report released Thursday. The embassy and its staff face myriad problems, including “the absence of a sense of direction,” which has “brought major elements of Embassy Luxembourg to a state of dysfunction.”
StroumÂ’s year in Luxembourg was marred by personality struggles, management problems and improper spending, including $3,400 the embassy rushed to spend on wine and liquor at the end of the 2010 budget year.
The inspector general found that Stroum, who announced her resignation in mid-January and left the embassy on the last day of the month, was the source of”Posted by: runningrn at February 04, 2011 09:08 AM (ihSHD)
Posted by: Larry Johnson at February 04, 2011 09:09 AM (SZy+Y)
Remember when our unprofessional hack in the tank for the D media talked down our 5% unemployment during the Bush years?
Yeah 5% unemployment was a disaster. 9% under captain unicorn skittles is progress.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at February 04, 2011 09:09 AM (0fzsA)
Posted by: Whatever at February 04, 2011 09:09 AM (L5sNt)
Geoff, Ace, check out the chart from WZ linked in my name. Talk about scary.
Yeah, that chart is originally from Calculated Risk, whom I heartily recommend you visit daily. I do. I used to do a lot more posts on economics until I found his blog, and found out that he was doing a much better job than I was. With charts even.
Posted by: geoff at February 04, 2011 09:10 AM (s4b+9)
Posted by: Larry Johnson at February 04, 2011 01:09 PM (SZy+Y)
Cause we got the Power! We are the MAN! We got the Power!
Posted by: Black Population at February 04, 2011 09:11 AM (LdYLm)
I would imagine the letter would have to be absolutely stupendous to warrant a reply from a Supreme Court Justice.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at February 04, 2011 09:13 AM (9hSKh)
The dirty little bit of reality our unprofessional hack in the tank for the-D media won't tell you:
Unemployment is actually at high as 17%, depending on the state. Cough Michegan. And never mind that self-employed individuals donÂ’t show up in those offical stats. And also not mentioned by our unprofessional hack media radar screen. DoesnÂ’t fit the narrative.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at February 04, 2011 09:13 AM (0fzsA)
Jab a libtard - repeatedly - with this sharp stick:
If adding 127,000 jobs a month is necessary to keep pace with population growth, and last month the economy added only 36,000 jobs, how many people were consigned to unemployment by Obama's economic policies?
(I may have had the 200,000 figure wrong ... I'll go look I looked it up.)
Posted by: ya2daup at February 04, 2011 12:56 PM (HmCnI)
Posted by: ya2daup at February 04, 2011 09:14 AM (HmCnI)
The text box cursor dropped out of the American workforce. The job just wasn't worth the hassle and the pay really sucked. "Follow your own typing," was the last thing it said before high-tailing it to China to get an up and down job in an environment of pretty little pictures.
Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 04, 2011 09:14 AM (N49h9)
Rush talking about this now.
In the first hour he said it takes 3 million jobs to equal a 1% drop. Egads.
Posted by: Annabelle at February 04, 2011 09:17 AM (4kxCX)
Posted by: The Mega Independent at February 04, 2011 09:17 AM (o6y40)
Posted by: Tigtog at February 04, 2011 09:17 AM (Q5+Og)
Posted by: Wallace Clever at February 04, 2011 09:18 AM (SZy+Y)
There is no hope. To be fair, we don't deserve any.~Whatever
What is this "we"? I haven't done anything wrong. I've done everything right. I have no debt, I've never taken government assistance, I've invested conservatively...I deserve hope DAMMIT!!11!!
Posted by: Speller at February 04, 2011 09:18 AM (J74Py)
We suffer from congenital stupidity—pay for our health care, now!
Posted by: Kelly's pre-existing conditioned friends without health insurance at February 04, 2011 09:19 AM (0ba8c)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at February 04, 2011 09:19 AM (2qc7e)
"How do you raise a child without a dominate male figure in the child's life."
You could ask Sparky's Mom or Grandma on that one.
Posted by: Tigtog at February 04, 2011 09:19 AM (Q5+Og)
From Drudge:
CNBC's Rick Santelli even lashed out at some of the CNBC "Squawk Box" panel that were discussing the latest jobs report.
"[W]e have overwhelming evidence the jobs market is disappointing, and all of you are trying to look for that one half of spaghetti in a 50 lb. spaghetti bowl. This is not great data," Santelli claimed. "We know that the U6 probably gives you a better indication of the true unemployment rate Â…"
CNBC's Steve Liesman interjected: "It went down, Rick. It went down - "
"Yeah, what is it?" asked Santelli.
"It went down Rick, to 16.1 [percent]," Liesman said.
"Oh boy, guys! 16.1 [percent] is probably the unemployment rate. That's cause celebre," Rick sarcastically shouted on the trading floor of the Chicago mercantile exchange.
"But it fell from 16.7," Liesman insisted.
Santelli continued to criticize the spin: "You know what Steve? You and I both know that the unemployment rate, the labor force moving in and out, those giving up, is really probably your best statistical reason for the drop to 9.0 (percent). And in terms of jobs, you, Mr. Steve Liesman, said if you work just one day. If you stay home but you get paid you're counted in the data Â…"
"Right - it shouldn't be weather," Liesman acknowledged. Some of the panelists including Moody's economist Mark Zandi had blamed weather for drops in construction and other sectors.
"So this is probably less distorted," Santelli concluded.
Posted by: runningrn at February 04, 2011 09:21 AM (ihSHD)
Posted by: Whatever at February 04, 2011 09:22 AM (L5sNt)
The Black population is insistant on committing genocidal suicide in the US. They have the highest abortion rate thus very little population growth. They are also the highest demgraphic group of single mothers. How do you raise a child without a dominate male figure in the child's life. In conclusion the black population in the US may be less than 5% in 2020. Sad but true and Obama doesn't really care !!
Hey man, I just don't want anyone to be punished with a baby.
Posted by: Barry Ogabe at February 04, 2011 09:23 AM (ihSHD)
Hell, if there's no experience necessary I'll go live in Luxembourg for awhile I don't speak Luxembourgish, but my pidgin Deutsch is almost decipherable.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 04, 2011 09:23 AM (TUpD9)
You're a veterinarian, aren't you.
Sonofabitch! Hmm, my cursor works fine.
GDP appears to be up .015% (note: appears, who knows really?)
With seven million fewer actual bodies pulling the levers, my hat is off to you still working, both of you. You gotta be kicking some serious ass out there.
It's Life After People.
Posted by: comatus at February 04, 2011 09:24 AM (hrwMe)
"How do you raise a child without a dominate male figure in the child's life."
Ritalin. Oodles of it. Maybe some prozac for mommy.
Posted by: Speller at February 04, 2011 09:24 AM (J74Py)
Posted by: some dope at February 04, 2011 09:25 AM (K/USr)
Posted by: curious at February 04, 2011 09:25 AM (p302b)
Posted by: Moooooooooooooochle "Planitoid Ass" Obama at February 04, 2011 09:27 AM (SZy+Y)
How do we explain the difference between this 9.0 number and the 9.8 number that was the subject of yesterday's post?
Yesterday's 9.8 was racist, today's 9.0 is post-racial.
Posted by: Speller at February 04, 2011 09:27 AM (J74Py)
So how does this help Michelles kids?
Posted by: The Chewbacca Defense at February 04, 2011 09:28 AM (GGEUV)
posted that one too, wonder which one caused my crash?
Posted by: curious at February 04, 2011 09:28 AM (p302b)
Hell, if there's no experience necessary I'll go live in Luxembourg for awhile I don't speak Luxembourgish, but my pidgin Deutsch is almost decipherable.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 04, 2011 01:23 PM (TUpD9)
Toss in a smattering of Austrian and you're a lock for the position, baby ... a lock!
Posted by: Preznint Splutnik, linguist extraordinaire at February 04, 2011 09:28 AM (HmCnI)
Also, what are these flashes on the computer? What do they mean?
It means they've found you and they're coming to get you. Run!
Posted by: Annabelle at February 04, 2011 09:28 AM (4kxCX)
The amount of "discouraged workers" that were omitted from the official figures?
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at February 04, 2011 09:29 AM (9hSKh)
Also, what are these flashes on the computer? What do they mean? TIA
Posted by: curious at February 04, 2011 01:25 PM (p302b)
Clashes between pro-Mubarak and anti-Mubarak electrons in your electrical feed. Check out their teeny-tiny soup pot helmets -- they're so cute!
Posted by: Preznint Splutnik, linguist extraordinaire at February 04, 2011 09:31 AM (HmCnI)
Posted by: RushBabe at February 04, 2011 09:31 AM (urYpw)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 04, 2011 09:31 AM (SJ6/3)
Posted by: t-bird at February 04, 2011 09:32 AM (FcR7P)
Also, what are these flashes on the computer? What do they mean?
It means they've found you and they're coming to get you. Run!
Posted by: Annabelle at February 04, 2011 01:28 PM (4kxCX)"
what? who is they, the geek squad? I'm trying to figure out if all this flashing at me on websites means I'm having computer problems. In order to ask my geeky friends I have to bribe them with food that I have to cook which means making a sauce from scratch and then lasagna, baked ziti, stuffed shells and meatballs in individual frozen servings. So, if I don't have to call the geeks in, if it is a simple explanation, I figured someone here would know.
Posted by: curious at February 04, 2011 09:32 AM (p302b)
Reagan Super Bowl Tribute - This video will be shown in Dallas stadium just before kickoff
And Toonces will be holed up in the WH eating Tom Barrett's sausage.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 04, 2011 09:33 AM (TUpD9)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 04, 2011 09:34 AM (SJ6/3)
Posted by: curious at February 04, 2011 09:34 AM (p302b)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 04, 2011 09:35 AM (SJ6/3)
Private sector reporting (Gallup) vs. Public sector reporting (BLS).
See? Government is always more effective, transparent, and apolitical.
Posted by: Derak at February 04, 2011 09:37 AM (CjpKH)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 04, 2011 01:35 PM (SJ6/3)
And with 1/10th the population! So, Canada really created 20 times the number of jobs per capita.
Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 04, 2011 09:37 AM (N49h9)
Posted by: curious at February 04, 2011 01:32 PM (p302b)
True geeky friends will believe you if you say you cooked the cheese doodles and Mountain Dew you give them.
Posted by: Oldcat at February 04, 2011 09:37 AM (z1N6a)
Posted by: Economic Tsarina Obama at February 04, 2011 09:39 AM (FcR7P)
I wouldn't characterize it as suicide, they have been talked into by "well-meaning", "well"-educated, white liberals.
Posted by: Jean at February 04, 2011 09:40 AM (WkuV6)
ah, I don't mind cooking for them. They are for the most part messy single guys who live in a total mess which they claim is "organized" and what I give them to fix my computer is the only home cooked meals they actually get.
Posted by: curious at February 04, 2011 09:40 AM (p302b)
Of course. Stephen Harper doesn't hate the country he's running.
Posted by: Ian S. at February 04, 2011 09:41 AM (p05LM)
Hey!! I'm a credentialed idiot. Stop calling me "young"!
What? Ohhh....
Posted by: countrydoc at February 04, 2011 09:43 AM (131HS)
Posted by: t-bird at February 04, 2011 09:43 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Uncle Sam at February 04, 2011 09:45 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: dagny at February 04, 2011 09:47 AM (7oMSd)
Posted by: Kelly, CEO UNFPA Negro Project at February 04, 2011 09:56 AM (JXwyN)
They didn't have the Democrats setting up FDR type programs for the last 40 years in those areas.
Posted by: Vic at February 04, 2011 09:57 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at February 04, 2011 11:22 AM (1Jaio)
New York Times - Floyd Norris
Pony, somewhere....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 04, 2011 11:40 AM (L8y7Q)
Posted by: Docface at February 04, 2011 11:46 AM (ss4yl)
The underground/cash-only/bartering economy is up. At some point people say," Why be traceable to the ever intrusive Massa Gub'ment?" Some go on the dole AND work under the table. That would account for the decrease in unemployment without an increase in the traceably employed.
Posted by: Live Free Or Die at February 04, 2011 12:50 PM (YAiiK)
Posted by: notthatGreg at February 04, 2011 02:58 PM (QkqDN)
Also, its not necessarily true that the payrolls data is more accurate than the household data. Household data includes firms under 50 employees which have generated ALL of the jobs the past 30 years [net] whereas the payrolls data simply ignores all of those firms, on purpose.
Also, the household data does not have everyone's favorite B-D adjustment.
Posted by: horn at February 04, 2011 05:52 PM (eekq5)
It's ridiculous to keep saying that you're so 'surprised' that more people are retiring as the Baby Boomers get older.
It's ridiculous to rely on silly guesswork like this. Guess what? Projections of labor force growth predicted that we'd reach 158 million by the end of 2010, just like the graph shows. The projections include the effect of Boomers, immigration, etc.
Of course the rate at which people retire - after a 21 month run where the market doubled! - is going to result in people leaving the labor force.
Save for the fact that those people lost more than half their money in the preceding crash.
Also, its not necessarily true that the payrolls data is more accurate than the household data.
"According to the BLS, the establishment survey employment series has a smaller margin of error on the measurement of month-to-month change than the household survey because of its much larger sample size. An over-the-month employment change of 104,000 is statistically significant in the establishment survey, while the threshold for a statistically significant change in the household survey is about 400,000. "
Household data includes firms under 50 employees which have generated ALL of the jobs the past 30 years [net] whereas the payrolls data simply ignores all of those firms, on purpose.
No, the establishment survey includes firms of all sizes ("...about 40 percent of the establishment survey sample is comprised of business establishments with fewer than 20 employees."). It does not include the self-employed, agricultural workers, unpaid family workers, and private household workers.
Posted by: geoff at February 05, 2011 03:18 AM (s4b+9)
Posted by: Sharpshooter at February 05, 2011 08:08 AM (J8sJ2)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2253 seconds, 249 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: countrydoc at February 04, 2011 08:40 AM (131HS)