We won't know the real number until a couple of months from now. When the birth/death guess is corroborated. My guess is the final revised number will be lower.
So when do the final numbers come out re unemployment? I've watched this and the whole thing smacks of Orwell's Ministry of Truth (yeah, I know there's another poster who thinks the same thing...).
Who posits the final figures in most generally accepted forms?
"the confidence interval for the monthly change in total employment from the household survey is on the order of plus or minus 430,000. Suppose the estimate of total employment increases by 100,000 from one month to the next. The 90-percent confidence interval on the monthly change would range from -330,000 to 530,000 (100,000 +/- 430,000)."
So they are 90 percent sure it was -62,000 but it could also be -400,000 or +300,000. They are also 99 percent sure it was -62,000 +- 2,500 000 Why people even bother reading this BS?!
U.S. stock index futures rose to session highs on Thursday after the government reported a loss of 62,000 jobs on non-farm payrolls in June, a figure which came close to Wall Street's expectations.
This is just a temporary slowdown. Goldilocks is on her way to help with the soft landing now that all of the writedowns have been done by the i-banks and that this is all contained to the housing sector and inflation is under control.
Man, employment only contracted a whole bunch, but we almost predicted it would be this bad. Buy stocks. I suggest, in particular, a very large and long position in IMB. You can buy like 7 shares for a gallon of gas.
Check out the birth/death rate. If you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you. Construction seems to have added jobs as well as hospitality & leisure. Thats funny.
Next week when everyone comes back it will be back to the normal trend. --BB
The carnage at the moment is spectacular. I can't even imagine how many billions are being shoveled into the Dollar furnace to accomplish this retrace.
Anonymouse, it ends up the BLS just changed their methodology for weekly claims (see the next post). So the jump to 400K is not because of the extended benefits - it would have been too early anyway.
i find it odd that you have a 60k+ drop and a downward revision to prior month and you need 150k-200k a month to keep up with population growth and the unemployment rate doesn't move in 2 months? fishy numbers as usual.
I don't even bother with the headline CNBC number. I go straight to Table A-12 for the U-3/U-6 figures and the widening gap. U-6 seasonally adjusted is 9.9%.
Note that our host is drawing comparisons most often on a y/y basis. That confidence interval you note is for single-month changes. Once you start repeated sampling - sampling the same thing for several months - the confidence interval narrows.
However, even if we take your objection at face value, it misses a big point. We need information, and there is no evidence that better information exists on the labor market in the short term. Our choice is not between this and some other, better indicator of labor market performance. It is between this as (an important) part of a mozaic of labor market data, or the mozaic with this left out.
By the way, is anybody but me troubled by the steadiness of decline in overall and private employment? In normal times, we'd expect to see more volatility in payroll data than we see over the past 6 months. During a disruption in the economy, shouldn't we be seeing far bigger swings? I don't think this is answered by "well we didn't hire many workers on the way up." That has to do with average magnitudes, not month to month swings.
Who posits the final figures in most generally accepted forms?
homedad43
Establishment goes final after 2 months of revisions, but the BED Survey is the final say(coming out 9 months later), next release should be 2nd week of August for Q4-07.
Q3-07 survey had 235k losses while the initial estanlishment survey showed (IIRC)150 jobs gained.
Regarding that tentative "recession" stripe, Frankel of NBER's business cycle dating committee says employment is a big deal for declaring recessions. The downward revisions to prior months' data matter as much as the June figure, in that context.
k harris said: "...By the way, is anybody but me troubled by the steadiness of decline in overall and private employment?"
I see it, but am not troubled by it because it's consistent with a lower level of economic growth.
Every single one of the past 6 months of net job losses in non-farm payrolls was within the BLS's +/- 100,000 error range, and the job losses in the first 3 months of the year were higher than in the last 3 months.
This "recession" is losing what little momentum it had, and is on its way to being the biggest hoax since the Y2000 scare.
B/d model the last 3 months added more jobs than the 1st 3(except the January blowout revision), and as the BED numbers show the B/D model is no longer operable.
So strip all that out and it's another month of 200k job losses(only to be confirmed in 9 months), even the household survey has it at 144k down.
An interesting element of your graph is the way it seems to confirm that employment numbers truly are a lagging indicator. For every one of the recessions, employment losses seem to continue during the opening phase of the next expansion.
BTW, that last comment was not meant to indicate a covert bullishness, such as, "It's not so bad, see..." But it does make me wonder why the markets key in so strongly on the unemployment data, since they do lag so much. Almost always employment is still growing months after an economy has peaked, and still shrinking after it has begun expanding again. Not exactly a great trading signal.
CR,
Was this the week that initial claims over 400k "don't count because they extended benefits", even though expectations were given as 385k? TIA
We won't know the real number until a couple of months from now. When the birth/death guess is corroborated. My guess is the final revised number will be lower.
Just wait until the revisions.
State and local governments are going to be forced to make employment cuts in the next few months so I excpect the rate of job losses to accelerate.
B/D not that bad this month, only construction (+29) Transport (+20) and Leisure & Hospitality(+89) doing oddly outsized numbers of the 177 added.
So in all likelihood another 200k job loss come 3 quarters from now.
Revisions downward to April and May were substantial. This is sort of like the downward revisions in New Home Sales.
BED survey suggests it's been 11 months of job losses.
CR:
So when do the final numbers come out re unemployment? I've watched this and the whole thing smacks of Orwell's Ministry of Truth (yeah, I know there's another poster who thinks the same thing...).
Who posits the final figures in most generally accepted forms?
"the confidence interval for the monthly change in total employment from the household survey is on the order of plus or minus 430,000. Suppose the estimate of total employment increases by 100,000 from one month to the next. The 90-percent confidence interval on the monthly change would range from -330,000 to 530,000 (100,000 +/- 430,000)."
So they are 90 percent sure it was -62,000 but it could also be -400,000 or +300,000. They are also 99 percent sure it was -62,000 +- 2,500 000
Why people even bother reading this BS?!
Wright Model B suggests everyone should move to Charlotte.
U.S. stock index futures rose to session highs on Thursday after the government reported a loss of 62,000 jobs on non-farm payrolls in June, a figure which came close to Wall Street's expectations.
TREASURIES-Bonds rise after U.S. payrolls, jobless data
| Reuters
Have to admit that only 30% over is pretty damn close. LOL dead cat how high you going in the air this time.
Buy Bucky!
This is great news! IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE!
safe_as_apartments writes:
Buy Bucky!
This is great news! IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE!
Next week when everyone comes back it will be back to the normal trend.
This is just a temporary slowdown. Goldilocks is on her way to help with the soft landing now that all of the writedowns have been done by the i-banks and that this is all contained to the housing sector and inflation is under control.
Or not.
Yipee Ki Yay!
Man, employment only contracted a whole bunch, but we almost predicted it would be this bad. Buy stocks. I suggest, in particular, a very large and long position in IMB. You can buy like 7 shares for a gallon of gas.
Cheers,
Check out the birth/death rate. If you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you. Construction seems to have added jobs as well as hospitality & leisure. Thats funny.
Next week when everyone comes back it will be back to the normal trend. --BB
The carnage at the moment is spectacular. I can't even imagine how many billions are being shoveled into the Dollar furnace to accomplish this retrace.
Anonymouse, it ends up the BLS just changed their methodology for weekly claims (see the next post). So the jump to 400K is not because of the extended benefits - it would have been too early anyway.
Best to all.
i find it odd that you have a 60k+ drop and a downward revision to prior month and you need 150k-200k a month to keep up with population growth and the unemployment rate doesn't move in 2 months? fishy numbers as usual.
I don't even bother with the headline CNBC number. I go straight to Table A-12 for the U-3/U-6 figures and the widening gap. U-6 seasonally adjusted is 9.9%.
AlphaB,
Note that our host is drawing comparisons most often on a y/y basis. That confidence interval you note is for single-month changes. Once you start repeated sampling - sampling the same thing for several months - the confidence interval narrows.
However, even if we take your objection at face value, it misses a big point. We need information, and there is no evidence that better information exists on the labor market in the short term. Our choice is not between this and some other, better indicator of labor market performance. It is between this as (an important) part of a mozaic of labor market data, or the mozaic with this left out.
By the way, is anybody but me troubled by the steadiness of decline in overall and private employment? In normal times, we'd expect to see more volatility in payroll data than we see over the past 6 months. During a disruption in the economy, shouldn't we be seeing far bigger swings? I don't think this is answered by "well we didn't hire many workers on the way up." That has to do with average magnitudes, not month to month swings.
Anonymous Bosch writes:
The carnage at the moment is spectacular.
It's just traders making a killing. It won't and cannot last. Besides there were huge moves already, hence profit taking would be prudent.
Am listening to Trichet's Q&A, if inflation gets worse, he will do his duty again. I like him, he does what he says. No doublespeak.
Who posits the final figures in most generally accepted forms?
homedad43
Establishment goes final after 2 months of revisions, but the BED Survey is the final say(coming out 9 months later), next release should be 2nd week of August for Q4-07.
Q3-07 survey had 235k losses while the initial estanlishment survey showed (IIRC)150 jobs gained.
Regarding that tentative "recession" stripe, Frankel of NBER's business cycle dating committee says employment is a big deal for declaring recessions. The downward revisions to prior months' data matter as much as the June figure, in that context.
and as predicted the market responds postively jumping up 70 points...
and its a Friday too....
after 3 years i think i am actually starting to get this market response thingy down... now where did i put my doillars...oh yeah, GM, hold on..
There is a sea of red in the oil patch today.
Looks like in previous recessions the yoy rate change pasted through zero on the way down at the end of the recession.
States don't begin taking extended UI claims until next week.
DD
k harris said: "...By the way, is anybody but me troubled by the steadiness of decline in overall and private employment?"
I see it, but am not troubled by it because it's consistent with a lower level of economic growth.
Every single one of the past 6 months of net job losses in non-farm payrolls was within the BLS's +/- 100,000 error range, and the job losses in the first 3 months of the year were higher than in the last 3 months.
This "recession" is losing what little momentum it had, and is on its way to being the biggest hoax since the Y2000 scare.
Sebastia
B/d model the last 3 months added more jobs than the 1st 3(except the January blowout revision), and as the BED numbers show the B/D model is no longer operable.
So strip all that out and it's another month of 200k job losses(only to be confirmed in 9 months), even the household survey has it at 144k down.
At least you're consistent why you're wrong.
An interesting element of your graph is the way it seems to confirm that employment numbers truly are a lagging indicator. For every one of the recessions, employment losses seem to continue during the opening phase of the next expansion.
BTW, that last comment was not meant to indicate a covert bullishness, such as, "It's not so bad, see..." But it does make me wonder why the markets key in so strongly on the unemployment data, since they do lag so much. Almost always employment is still growing months after an economy has peaked, and still shrinking after it has begun expanding again. Not exactly a great trading signal.
I miss the chart you used to publish with cummulative jobs gains.