Positive Change in Job Growth

[trottigy]

Blunting worries about the American economy’s momentum after a stretch of lackluster growth, the government reported on Friday that employers added a hefty 280,000 jobs in May, well above the average monthly totals logged over the last year.

The official unemployment rate ticked up slightly to 5.5 percent from 5.4 percent, as more Americans dived back into the labor pool and started actively looking for work. Higher hourly wages, which rose 0.3 percent last month, may have helped lure back some sidelined workers while providing those already on the job with some long-awaited gains.

The return of stronger job growth is also likely to strengthen the resolve of Federal Reserve officials who are hoping to start raising interest rates from their near-zero level later this year.

“This is a confirmation that the economy is performing well and the first quarter was an aberration,” said Carl Tannenbaum, chief economist at Northern Trust.

Change in Jobs and Unemployment Rate - NYTimes.com - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/05/business/economy/100000003724150.app.html

Edited June 5, 2015 by trottigy

[trottigy]

Maybe, "peace AND security" soon ....

Well, one can hope.

[Daniela]

Well, more than one... 

[kejedo]

The monthly reports on employment/ job growth come primarily from The US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey/ Bureau of Labor Statistics. (see the source re:the New York Times Article)  I used to work on this monthly report.I also worked on the Decennial Census and other statistical projects,as did another sister. The statistical research reached conclusions using some questionable procedures and formulae, imho.   

[JudyO]

Okay, Pauline, thanks for busting my bubble!   lol.............but seriously--the cry of Peace and Security will come from people who PERCEIVE it as such--it won't really be true peace and security.

 

Sometimes, even when questionable procedures and formulae are used, it's all about PERCEPTION.....

[trottigy]

What is interesting about statistics is - there is no such thing as one with a 100% confidence ratings. There is always a possibility of error. A 95% confidence rating is REALLY good.

BUT if done the same way consistently - like these are - even if there ARE errors the historical pattern can be seen and the direction a number is heading (up, down or staying the same) can be seen. It is clear unemployment is going down.

An example can be seen in our statistics, whether it is memorial attendees, Bible Studies, hours, etc. Surely these are not 100% accurate, BUT its clear more and more are attending and more and more hours are being spent. AND the percent increase is also going to be fairly accurate.

The point, its not about making the number 100% accurate, but keeping the method the same and watching the trend.

Edited June 6, 2015 by trottigy

[kejedo]

What is interesting about statistics is - there is no such thing as one with a 100% confidence ratings. There is always a possibility of error. A 95% confidence rating is REALLY good.

BUT if done the same way consistently - like these are - even if there ARE errors the historical pattern can be seen and the direction a number is heading (up, down or staying the same) can be seen. It is clear unemployment is going down.

An example can be seen in our statistics, whether it is memorial attendees, Bible Studies, hours, etc. Surely these are not 100% accurate, BUT its clear more and more are attending and more and more hours are being spent. AND the percent increase is also going to be fairly accurate.

The point, its not about making the number 100% accurate, but keeping the method the same and watching the trend.

The Department of Labor, Current Population Survey is certainly better than using the unemployment office for statistics. It self reports 90 to 100 percent accuracy. I would guess that 80 per cent is a high estimate,and 70 more reasonable. Reasons: Households are in the sample for 8 non-consecutive months.It would be the same four months in a row in two consecutive years. Many drop out of the sample because they don't want to be bothered 8 times.. Their household's participation has been lost as soon as they opt out. Households have a choice of not participating at all or answering only the questions they choose. This results in incomplete sampling.  Many people have moved during this two year period, so the statistics are on a completely different household, which may appear that they have gained or lost employment. Some people move seasonally, like 'Snowbirds" and may have a recurring seasonal job in their alternate living arrangement. These stats can get lost in one geographical area and inflated in another. This type of household (common where I lived in Maine) could be completely missed in any sample.  It is an interesting way to collect information and was one of the two jobs I held while pioneering. There was another large error when I worked on the decennial census. The previous decade, there was a large discrepancy of which counts to be used. The director decided to choose one of the two counts which had a differential of many hundreds of thousands. In the next decennial census, this made many conclusions suspect. I venture to say that this system is too broke to be fixed, and many errors can be found in any large worldly organization. Here is one of many interesting looks at errors in the CPS, which reports Monthly labor statistics. http://gatton.uky.edu/faculty/Bollinger/Workingpapers/JOLECPSerror.pdf

Edited June 6, 2015 by kejedo

[trottigy]

Thanks for the link. Its interesting to look at the errors done in March of 1978.

This just reaffirms why its important to exam the trend of several months (or in the case of annual #s like censuses - several years) rather than just one month's figures.

The trend over an extended period removes the errors and allows us to see the reality.

Edited June 6, 2015 by trottigy

[Dustparticle]

What is interesting about statistics is - there is no such thing as one with a 100% confidence ratings. There is always a possibility of error. A 95% confidence rating is REALLY good.

BUT if done the same way consistently - like these are - even if there ARE errors the historical pattern can be seen and the direction a number is heading (up, down or staying the same) can be seen. It is clear unemployment is going down.

An example can be seen in our statistics, whether it is memorial attendees, Bible Studies, hours, etc. Surely these are not 100% accurate, BUT its clear more and more are attending and more and more hours are being spent. AND the percent increase is also going to be fairly accurate.

The point, its not about making the number 100% accurate, but keeping the method the same and watching the trend.

If statistics run it course, then between 2016-2020, we will see another recession. That is if Jesus doesn't come then. If he comes during that time, then we all will be working.

[trottigy]

If statistics run it course, then between 2016-2020, we will see another recession. That is if Jesus doesn't come then. If he comes during that time, then we all will be working.

Do you have a source for this?

[Dustparticle]

Do you have a source for this?

I don't think so. However,in the late 1970's into early 80's we were in recession. And late 1980's into early 1990's we were in a recession, I think early 2000's we in recession. In 2008 was another one. Basically between 8-12 years we go into a recession. I has been a cycle for a while. 

[kejedo]

Nobody counts the way our brothers do; every single (conscious, as in not a sleeping newborn) head is accounted for, and reported. It is an important and accurate task. Statistical sampling could represent possible trends. The US tenth year census is targeted to reach every single person, but they cannot do it the way our organization does. I am not sure how other countries account for population increase/ decrease or employment rates. I am definitely confident in the way our congregations do the counting. As for hours, I think the general publisher underestimates hours, and rvs. If one is pioneering, he or she keeps closer inspection of informal time spent. If everyone did just one rv on the way home from Sunday meeting, that would be over 8 million extra visits for that week. Multiply it by 4.333 for the monthly count. Now, that's a statistic I could live with. As for the article's quote,"The official unemployment rate ticked up slightly to 5.5 percent from 5.4 percent, as more Americans dived back into the labor pool," if the unemployment rate rose 0.1 percent, that would mean less employment." I know that quote was from an article by a chief economist and not by our brothers, but it shows to me how little poof reading goes into those articles. Thanks for starting this thought provoking thread.  As for what comprises an economic down turn, a recession, or a depression - those are terms that have specific applications/ definitions -  which are not always followed in real time by so called professional economists.   Hey, I'm just a recovering math teacher whose  favorite courses to teach were not statistics and  accounting. Strangely enough, I did enjoy preparing income taxes and may do that again .   OT, sorry (again). 

Edited June 6, 2015 by kejedo

[trottigy]

I don't think so. However,in the late 1970's into early 80's we were in recession. And late 1980's into early 1990's we were in a recession, I think early 2000's we in recession. In 2008 was another one. Basically between 8-12 years we go into a recession. I has been a cycle for a while.

So, 8-12 years from 2008 could also be 2020, right? However this is really just a guess and not one I have seen from any economist - for a few reasons:

1. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of the future. This means we shouldn't do what we often do - look for a pattern in the past to tell us what will happen in the future.

2. Most recessions are fairly short - about 1 year, but not this one. So, if you DID use the past, this one is so different you really cant.

3. And if the length is different, so is the gradual way we have came out of it - most recessions end with a quick pick up in the economy - not this one. It has been slow and steady. And the entire world hasn't even picked up as fast (if you can call it that) as the US.

We will just have to watch the usual economic indicators we do. Unemployment #s are just one. Its good to see it tick up 1th of 1% or .1% even though the number of jobs created is very high. This means more people are getting BACK into the job market - otherwise it would have ticked down - like it has for the past more than 5 years.

But you all have helped me to appreciate something I hadn't thought of before. If it is SO HARD for God's people to accept simple good news - no wonder those who aren't have such a hard time accepting it from us. Something more to meditate on.

Edited June 6, 2015 by trottigy

[Dustparticle]

So, 8-12 years from 2008 could also be 2020, right? However this is really just a guess and not one I have seen from any economist - for a few reasons:

1. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of the future. This means we shouldn't do what we often do - look for a pattern in the past to tell us what will happen in the future.

2. Most recessions are fairly short - about 1 year, but not this one. So, if you DID use the past, this one is so different you really cant.

3. And if the length is different, so is the gradual way we have came out of it - most recessions end with a quick pick up in the economy - not this one. It has been slow and steady. And the entire world hasn't even picked up as fast (if you can call it that) as the US.

We will just have to watch the usual economic indicators we do. Unemployment #s are just one. Its good to see it tick up 1th of 1% or .1% even though the number of jobs created is very high. This means more people are getting BACK into the job market - otherwise it would have ticked down - like it has for the past more than 5 years.

But you all have helped me to appreciate something I hadn't thought of before. If it is SO HARD for God's people to accept simple good news - no wonder those who aren't have such a hard time accepting it from us. Something more to meditate on.

You have some go points here. However, we all need to remind ourselves and that is, in this system,our past is our future. Things do happen in cycles even our ecology happen in cycles. We all on a roller coaster ride. Enjoy it. Compare Revelation Climax book chpt 18

[trottigy]

I LOVE the Revelation Climax book. It is one of my favorites and as you note is still an excellent reference. I don't recall anything in chapter 18 about cycles. I know it mentions some upheavals like the Great Depression, but I don't remember anything about repeated cycles.

Could you point me to a paragraph?

[Dustparticle]

I LOVE the Revelation Climax book. It is one of my favorites and as you note is still an excellent reference. I don't recall anything in chapter 18 about cycles. I know it mentions some upheavals like the Great Depression, but I don't remember anything about repeated cycles.

Could you point me to a paragraph?

I was thinking paragraph 8 in the chpt 18. This would go along what is say about recessions especially since 1929 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States. You will see on the chart that since 1929 and onward, recessions happen about 8-12 years apart and that is what i mean in cycles.

[trottigy]

Paragraph 8:

8 Other things besides wars, though, have shaken human society to its foundations since 1914. One of the most traumatic upheavals was triggered by the U.S. stock-market crash of October 29, 1929. This brought on the Great Depression, which affected all capitalist countries. That depression bottomed out between 1932 and 1934, but we are still feeling its effects. Since 1929 an economically sick world has been patched up by makeshift schemes. Governments indulge in deficit financing. The oil crisis of 1973 and the stock market plunge of 1987 added to the shakings of the financial empire.

Here?

[Dustparticle]

Paragraph 8:

Here?

there

[trottigy]

I was thinking paragraph 8 in the chpt 18. This would go along what is say about recessions especially since 1929 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States. You will see on the chart that since 1929 and onward, recessions happen about 8-12 years apart and that is what i mean in cycles.

 

That wikipedia article has a nice chart:

 

 

See how there really isn't a "cycle".

Edited June 7, 2015 by trottigy

[Dustparticle]

 I think our definition on the word "cycle" is different. Basically I was referring that it happened between every 8 - 12 years or in that area. Take for instance, it happened in 2001 and next it happened in 2007. That was almost 7 years. The one before 2001 was 1990 and that was around 11 years.

[kejedo]

If the unemployment rate goes up, then employment has gone down.

[trottigy]

Not necessarily. This is why we look at several numbers: number of jobs created, unemployment numbers AND number of new people applying for unemployment. If jobs go up (like last month) AND unemployment goes up - we then look at how many new applications for unemployment. If it has gone down (again like last month) than that means more people have joined the work force (like was concluded for last month's numbers). This is a GOOD situation for the economy.

Now, if we have the same scenario, but the number of new people applying for unemployment goes UP, then the economy is starting to go bad again. BUT as noted - one month does not make a trend. It takes several month to see the full reality.

Edited June 7, 2015 by trottigy

[kejedo]

If the unemployment rate goes up, then employment has gone down.

Specifically talking about the quote by the economist and the Labor report quoted in the NYT article. The CPS does not have a statistic for people applying for unemployment or jobs created. http://www.bls.gov/cps/uiclaims.htm, (in my small experience.) That does not mean there could not have been job growth, but not based on this article and the CPS stats..

Edited June 7, 2015 by kejedo

[trottigy]

That was not in the article. What it did say was,

. The official unemployment rate ticked up slightly to 5.5 percent from 5.4 percent, as more Americans dived back into the labor pool and started actively looking for work.

See explanation above.

Edited June 7, 2015 by trottigy

[Dustparticle]

 All

 

 The unemployment numbers are deceiving. When view as being unemployed and getting unemployment checks, then you view as unemployed. However, when your unemployment check runs out, then you are view as being employed. Not only that, the government play with the numbers all the time.