Positive Change in Job Growth

[kejedo]

I think the error the economist made when reading the Labor Bureau charts was to count increased people who changed jobs as an increase in jobs. When I worked the survey, this was the question: Did you change jobs last week?(the reference week). Many had changed jobs laterally = there fore job changed but no job growth. I remember one case in which a man left his job and was starting a day care. He was counted as changed jobs, even though he had not received any money yet from the one child he was baby sitting. Another common occurrence was when someone left their paid job and worked in the family business for free. This counted as changed job, even though the new position did not produce any income. It might have changed since I worked for the Dept of Labor and Census Statistics, but all the current Labor questions are on line under CPS.  I do agree with Dustparticle. I did see lots of statistical skewing in the US Gov and even maneuvering of data in the school department that I recently left. In my small opinion, there may well have been a positive change in job growth. Maybe someone else read the report more carefully than I. I just did not reach that conclusion based on the Labor Board stats and charts. 

Edited June 7, 2015 by kejedo

[trottigy]

I think the error the economist made when reading the Labor Bureau charts was to count increased people who changed jobs as an increase in jobs. When I worked the survey, this was the question: Did you change jobs last week?(the reference week). Many had changed jobs laterally = there fore job changed but no job growth. I remember one case in which a man left his job and was starting a day care. He was counted as changed jobs, even though he had not received any money yet from the one child he was baby sitting. Another common occurrence was when someone left their paid job and worked in the family business for free. This counted as changed job, even though the new position did not produce any income. It might have changed since I worked for the Dept of Labor and Census Statistics, but all the current Labor questions are on line under CPS. I do agree with Dustparticle. I did see lots of statistical skewing in the US Gov and even maneuvering of data in the school department that I recently left. In my small opinion, there may well have been a positive change in job growth. Maybe someone else read the report more carefully than I. I just did not reach that conclusion based on the Labor Board stats and charts.

You are again speaking about the unemployment number not the job growth number. The job growth number comes from companies like ADP who provide payroll service. They report the number of people who are receiving a paycheck. That number compared to the previous months number will show either an increase or a decrease and how much. There has been a steady increase in the number of people who are getting paychecks and it is greater than the number of young people entering the job market.

It is OK yo accept good news.

[kejedo]

You are again speaking about the unemployment number not the job growth number. The job growth number comes from companies like ADP who provide payroll service. They report the number of people who are receiving a paycheck. That number compared to the previous months number will show either an increase or a decrease and how much. There has been a steady increase in the number of people who are getting paychecks and it is greater than the number of young people entering the job market.

It is OK yo accept good news.

Sorry, I missed that reference in the article to ADP. I only noticed the Labor Bureau Stats. Every time I open that link, all I get are the two charts from the Dept of Labor (Census Stats).Since I have had experience working on these stats in the past, I shared my personal experience.  I can't find the rest of the article and only responded to the economist that was quoted on this thread, which has certainly been thought provoking. At any rate,we know from where the real "good news" emanates.    YS,pauline

Edited June 7, 2015 by kejedo

[trottigy]

I see the link only goes to the one chart.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/06/business/economy/jobs-report-hiring-unemployment-may.html

You will also note as you worked there, the Bureau of Labor Statistics does MUCH more than just the census and unemployment #s.

http://www.bls.gov/

[LeslieDean]

1. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of the future.

 

 

Jerry, you must not be a fan of Dr. Phil!     His motto is "Past behavior is the most reliable indicator of future behvaior"--He obviously does not know many witnesses who have made great changes!

Edited June 8, 2015 by LeslieDean

[trottigy]

Jerry, you must not be a fan of Dr. Phil! His motto is "Past behavior is the most reliable indicator of future behvaior"--He obviously does not know many witnesses who have made great changes!

Thus is specific to economics.

It is interesting how much we can change for our God - with His help.

But Dr. Phil is correct, humans tend to do what we have always done. Its why we must build a good spiritual routine now while its relatively easy. When things get really bad (unlike now) we will stick to whatever routine we already have.

[Dustparticle]

Jerry, you must not be a fan of Dr. Phil!     His motto is "Past behavior is the most reliable indicator of future behvaior"--He obviously does not know many witnesses who have made great changes!

Ilthough many of God's people have made changes. But the history of the world's past is its future until Jesus comes. He will alter history. Daniel 2:44 

Edited June 8, 2015 by Dustparticle

[kejedo]

I see the link only goes to the one chart.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/06/business/economy/jobs-report-hiring-unemployment-may.html

You will also note as you worked there, the Bureau of Labor Statistics does MUCH more than just the census and unemployment #s.

http://www.bls.gov/

You are definitely correct.There are many other studies and ongoing surveys conducted by the Dept.of Labor/ Census Bureau.I worked on many of them,  Since the original link only showed two charts, I commented that the results the economist stated could not correctly be concluded from those two charts. Taking into account other survey results warrants additional examination.