that's a first coming from you.
Maybe if tinfoil nutjobs like joshh started focusing on better methods of tracking employment metrics, instead of simply calling foul based on ignorance, the BLS might adopt a tracking of payroll-to-population as the primary indicator. But then someone would whine about changing the methodology even if it was for the better.
How would you do it, thinks-he-is-all-knowing mutual-fund-pusher?
I'm pretty sure anyone with half a brain is readily able to see that the bulk of employment came from part-time workers and U-6 didn't change, so all the idiots who got into a rage like the numbers are too good to be true are ridiculous. It can't be considered that simply.
And you might want to check the numbers again... civilian labor force as well as participation rate ticked up in the Sept job report.
If they give up, they've still captured, although not in U-3. I think they try to gather enough information and present it in a way that if someone cares to put in the effort to understand it, it is easily feasible. If someone has the reading comprehension of a child or too lazy to read anything themselves, it can seem wrong. And some people leave the workforce to take care of kids and that ought to be tracked and categorized differently (still not looking for work, but different reasons)... and not against the metrics. But the real confusion which is understandable is the retiree and school factors that they need to track and present better. The seasonality may help with summer vs. school year but there's a lot that needs to be taken into consideration that many people don't pick up on, unless they find the reports that explain long-term demographic trends. And then there are people who want to be close-minded and call bullshit even if it is a very apparent trend that kids are in school for longer (masters) and work less while in school these days. There's also some people working later into retirement age, but the gigantic wave of baby boomers who will stop work will make the participation rate plummet further and not be as clear as possible. It's not like the population is some static mass that doesn't change or age - and it can better communicate demographics than "in labor force" or "not". There are research studies into it, but like I mentioned - not everyone cares to be informed about them.
And how many jobs were added after the benchmark and also the revised July and August numbers? Or can you not read anything that's not a headline?
You are aware that that sample is scaled to indicate the trend for the overall population, right? Sometimes it's hard to tell with someone as moronic as you. Do you think that the government ought to spend more every month for a larger sample pool, or what??
You know, besides the ISM reports... or improvement in the housing market. But hey, you're the guy who has been battling any consideration that anything has gotten better in the last 4 years because you are a close-minded dimwit whose hatred blinds him from reading data objectively.
Maybe if tinfoil nutjobs like joshh started focusing on better methods of tracking employment metrics, instead of simply calling foul based on ignorance, the BLS might adopt a tracking of payroll-to-population as the primary indicator. But then someone would whine about changing the methodology even if it was for the better.
How would you do it, thinks-he-is-all-knowing mutual-fund-pusher?
I'm pretty sure anyone with half a brain is readily able to see that the bulk of employment came from part-time workers and U-6 didn't change, so all the idiots who got into a rage like the numbers are too good to be true are ridiculous. It can't be considered that simply.
And you might want to check the numbers again... civilian labor force as well as participation rate ticked up in the Sept job report.
If they give up, they've still captured, although not in U-3. I think they try to gather enough information and present it in a way that if someone cares to put in the effort to understand it, it is easily feasible. If someone has the reading comprehension of a child or too lazy to read anything themselves, it can seem wrong. And some people leave the workforce to take care of kids and that ought to be tracked and categorized differently (still not looking for work, but different reasons)... and not against the metrics. But the real confusion which is understandable is the retiree and school factors that they need to track and present better. The seasonality may help with summer vs. school year but there's a lot that needs to be taken into consideration that many people don't pick up on, unless they find the reports that explain long-term demographic trends. And then there are people who want to be close-minded and call bullshit even if it is a very apparent trend that kids are in school for longer (masters) and work less while in school these days. There's also some people working later into retirement age, but the gigantic wave of baby boomers who will stop work will make the participation rate plummet further and not be as clear as possible. It's not like the population is some static mass that doesn't change or age - and it can better communicate demographics than "in labor force" or "not". There are research studies into it, but like I mentioned - not everyone cares to be informed about them.
Companies report a whopping jobs of 114,000 for Sept. Yet the Obama administration finds 870,000 jobs from a 60,000 numbered survey of homes.
You are aware that that sample is scaled to indicate the trend for the overall population, right? Sometimes it's hard to tell with someone as moronic as you. Do you think that the government ought to spend more every month for a larger sample pool, or what??
No indicator there of jobs or much growth in the economy by any stretch of the imagination.
Comment