One job loss will not equal one unit of unemployed because they are not surveying the same sets - exact workers to exact employees. You really have to read the definitions and methodology of the survey. These are just indicators there will always be sampling errors and certain biases in these numbers.
There will always be that disagreement between green shoots vs. green weeds in some form or another. And it's hard to figure out who is right. But I guess in a way this is human nature.
The predictive quality of economics is highly questionable particularly in our current situation. In my opinion, what matters are the levels of unemployment, debt and other things. Small or some other incremental change means very little to me since we are in such a huge hole. But that is just my opinion.
Thank you. As I said before: “Getting answers to questions on this blog is like going to graduate school.”
If I may, I would like to probe this a little further in the context of my secretary pool example.
First, let me say that I am currently reporting on Italian American census data in my blog. A question was put to me about the difference between ‘ethnic’ and ‘race.’ To answer the question, I went to the questionnaire that the census taker uses. The difference is very obvious just by reading the questions and increasingly understandable with the supporting documentation.
In unemployment statistics, I know the question that is asked. Something like: “Did you work, were you available for work, did you look for work, etc.” A former mason, I’ve answered that question more times than I care to remember. If you did not work, were available for work and looked for work, then you are counted as an unemployed person. All those people are aggregated into the unemployment statistics.
What I can’t find, and I have been though numerous BLS pdf documents, is the exact question that is put to the employer about ‘number of jobs.’ There are many pages of “concepts”, but no questions. Concepts such as your BLS quote: “Employees…are those who received pay…including paid leave. Persons are counted in each job that they hold”
Then JOB = EMPLOYEE; i.e. the number of jobs equal the number of employees. Then the number of JOB LOSSES per unit time (should) = INITITAL UNEMPLOYED per same unit time. In my secretary pool as soon as the secretary is laid off (assuming it is not temporary) the number of jobs in the firm is reduce from 5 to 4. One job loss = one unemployed?
If this is the case than ‘job losses’ should be roughly equal to unemployed. This is not true. Job losses for the whole month of September were roughly 250,000, while weekly average of initial claims was roughly 550,000.
Again, I don’t mean to belabor a Platonic definition. But, the ideological debates (‘green shoots’ or not), ergo political debates, turn on such equivocal definitions of employment and various other economic variables. X says things are getting worse ‘look at increasing rate of unemployment’. Y says things are getting better ‘look are decreasing rate of job losses.’ Over at Bonddad, New Deal Democrat is promising us, like the Old New Deal Democrats, a “chicken in every pot”. Others disagree. Both are armed with lots of statistics.
but the other thing is the quality of earnings. Many of these profits are based on cost cutting. Look at Catepillar it made its profits based on inventory and capacity cuts. Now, they say that things have bottomed out - we will see. Certainly, a lower dollar will help them overseas but they have probably cut to the bone.
It's illusory. Make it feel like things are going well by providing trillions in liquidity and this time the place for all that cheap money is the stock market. But hey, LEI will show an increase because of the stock market and everything will seem OK.
The stock market is reflexive - there is a built-in feedback mechanism where perceptions and information is reflected back into itself often times ignoring reality.
Every day a foreclosure pops up in my neighborhood. Every color of the rainbow is represented on signs posted by different real estate agencies. I feel like I'm in a tragic Monopoly game where everyone needs a get-out-of-jail-free card. Upside down runs North and South in the World's 7th largest economy.
Unemployment and 'Job Losses' typically measure two different things. Both are based on surveys. Unemployment surveys households as to status of employment. This from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS):
People are classified as employed if they did any work at all as paid employees during the reference week; worked in their own business, profession, or on their own farm; or worked without pay at least 15 hours in a family business or farm. People are also counted as employed if they were temporarily absent from their jobs because of illness, bad weather, vacation, labor-management disputes, or personal reasons.
People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.
The civilian labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons. Those not classified as employed or unemployed are not in the labor force. The unemployment rate is the number unemployed as a percent of the labor force. The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a percent of the population, and the employment-population ratio is the employed as a percent of the population.
As for job losses, private nonfarm businesses such as factories, offices, and stores, as well as federal, state, and local government entities are surveyed. Again from the BLS:
Employees on nonfarm payrolls are those who received pay for any part of the reference pay period, including persons on paid leave. Persons are counted in each job they hold. Hours and earnings data are for private businesses and relate only to production workers in the goods-producing sector and nonsupervisory workers in the service-providing sector.
It comes down to two different perspectives on employment: household and business. So, when a job is lost it usually means it was cut from a businesses payroll.
I’m returning to a question I raised a couple of days ago with another writer who made a noble effort (twice) to help me.
Please forgive me, but in college I had an elective to fill and I made the mistake of taking a philosophy course. I haven’t been thinking the same since. I picked up this habit of needing precise definitions.
In employment discussions there are so many terms that I can’t keep them straight: UNEMPLOYMED (various categories like ‘first time’, ‘longer that x# of weeks’, ‘used up benefits’, ‘extended benefits’, ‘discouraged’, ‘continuous’, have I missed any?); JOBS LOSS; JOBS GAINED; EMPLOYMENT SHRINKAGE; EMPLOYMENT LEVEL; UNEMPLOYMENT LEVEL; JOBS AVAILABLE’…
More specifically, I’m really interested in the ‘Jobs Loss’ category. Does the term ‘job loss’ (singular – one job loss) denote a 'person' who gets the proverbial ‘pink slip’ or does it mean that the 'job' per se that the person worked no longer exists. For example, if there is a secretary pool of five secretaries (i.e. five jobs) and one gets ‘laid off’, there are still five jobs, but only four are filled and the expectation is that eventually the fifth job will be filled again (i.e. no 'job loss', the job still exists; the desk, computer, file cabinet, etc. are still there waiting to be used again).
But, if the company eliminates one job, i.e. there are now only four jobs and there is no expectation of hiring a fifth secretary, then the job has been LOSS (i.e. the desk, computer, etc. are removed hence forth there will not be more than four secretaries).
If you have the time and are off the mind, perhaps you could indulge me… If not, I understand. Socrates was a pain too.
"In late September 2008, capitalism was on the verge of failing.
The reason for this calamity wasn't because the government taxed too much or spent too much.
It wasn't because the Federal Reserve raised interest rates or contracted the money supply.
It wasn't because the American consumer stopped spending.
It was because the financial system knowingly overpriced a major financial asset class, and then leveraged itself against that asset class in the vain hope that the Day of Reckoning never came.
It's really quite simple when you break it all down."
A truly hilarious populist rant! William Jennings Bryan would be proud. So much to debunk in one section and so little time...I love the internet.
there are two bills, one ag, one financial services, financial services is supposedly extremely watered down, both are out of committee.
I haven't had time to write them up, to go over the bills and so on, but IMHO, this is way more imp. than the CFPA...
it's derivatives, the credit ratings agencies, i.e. the entire shadow banking system is just going to "go on".
I believe Section 1964 of Title 18 allows for civil remedies meaning an individual or entity that can prove it was "injured" as a result of a RICO violation can recovery huge amount of damages (treble damages).
Just so you know, I'm under the gun until Wednesday and can't post/write a lot of detail, moderate, so I'm hoping the rest of the EPer's take up the slack on posting good and detailed pieces.
Don't forget the rating system (arrow on the bottom left) in case of any sort of trolly type post or comments to get 'em off of the site! Has to be more than one to do it, but if enough of you gang up on a troller (and I think we know what that is by now), you will control what is published on this site.
I think I have fixed security so it won't happen at this point, but, just in case you have the power!
If I see another "Balloon boy" story I'm gonna scream!
(Check out SMC for the dailyshow's major rip on CNN for useless drivel, 24/7)
In the EP FAQ, some of the site rules are "when in doubt, use a calculator" and "be good to each other". We do not do "flame bait" in the comment section on EP (unless of course it's against Goldman Sachs and so forth).
ever there was debate about past consumer protection legislation such Truth in Lending or other past legislation. Consumer credit survived and I am sure consumer credit would survive a strong CFPA but it looks like we are not going to get a strong CFPA.
financial conglomerates were raising credit card fees early on in this crisis to compensate for their huge losses.
They are using much needed consumer protection regulations as the reason for their increases but these increases in credit card fees are a result of their business practices not regulations.
Are you being sarcastic? Your comment makes no sense, especially since you started the thread by posting the information about Melissa Bean helping gut federal regs.
And cheap credit? Maybe for mortgages, but have you paid any credit card interest lately?
Scary numbers manfrommiddletown. As to why, I think it is almost obvious. The economic policies instituted by our political leaders caused the problem as documented at http://getoddnews.com/2009/05/24/the-naked-economy/
(see page 3 for a succinct example). Basically few politicians consider the long term effects of their actions.
One job loss will not equal one unit of unemployed because they are not surveying the same sets - exact workers to exact employees. You really have to read the definitions and methodology of the survey. These are just indicators there will always be sampling errors and certain biases in these numbers.
There will always be that disagreement between green shoots vs. green weeds in some form or another. And it's hard to figure out who is right. But I guess in a way this is human nature.
The predictive quality of economics is highly questionable particularly in our current situation. In my opinion, what matters are the levels of unemployment, debt and other things. Small or some other incremental change means very little to me since we are in such a huge hole. But that is just my opinion.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Thank you. As I said before: “Getting answers to questions on this blog is like going to graduate school.”
If I may, I would like to probe this a little further in the context of my secretary pool example.
First, let me say that I am currently reporting on Italian American census data in my blog. A question was put to me about the difference between ‘ethnic’ and ‘race.’ To answer the question, I went to the questionnaire that the census taker uses. The difference is very obvious just by reading the questions and increasingly understandable with the supporting documentation.
In unemployment statistics, I know the question that is asked. Something like: “Did you work, were you available for work, did you look for work, etc.” A former mason, I’ve answered that question more times than I care to remember. If you did not work, were available for work and looked for work, then you are counted as an unemployed person. All those people are aggregated into the unemployment statistics.
What I can’t find, and I have been though numerous BLS pdf documents, is the exact question that is put to the employer about ‘number of jobs.’ There are many pages of “concepts”, but no questions. Concepts such as your BLS quote: “Employees…are those who received pay…including paid leave. Persons are counted in each job that they hold”
Then JOB = EMPLOYEE; i.e. the number of jobs equal the number of employees. Then the number of JOB LOSSES per unit time (should) = INITITAL UNEMPLOYED per same unit time. In my secretary pool as soon as the secretary is laid off (assuming it is not temporary) the number of jobs in the firm is reduce from 5 to 4. One job loss = one unemployed?
If this is the case than ‘job losses’ should be roughly equal to unemployed. This is not true. Job losses for the whole month of September were roughly 250,000, while weekly average of initial claims was roughly 550,000.
Again, I don’t mean to belabor a Platonic definition. But, the ideological debates (‘green shoots’ or not), ergo political debates, turn on such equivocal definitions of employment and various other economic variables. X says things are getting worse ‘look at increasing rate of unemployment’. Y says things are getting better ‘look are decreasing rate of job losses.’ Over at Bonddad, New Deal Democrat is promising us, like the Old New Deal Democrats, a “chicken in every pot”. Others disagree. Both are armed with lots of statistics.
Thank you again,
Tom
but the other thing is the quality of earnings. Many of these profits are based on cost cutting. Look at Catepillar it made its profits based on inventory and capacity cuts. Now, they say that things have bottomed out - we will see. Certainly, a lower dollar will help them overseas but they have probably cut to the bone.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
It's illusory. Make it feel like things are going well by providing trillions in liquidity and this time the place for all that cheap money is the stock market. But hey, LEI will show an increase because of the stock market and everything will seem OK.
The stock market is reflexive - there is a built-in feedback mechanism where perceptions and information is reflected back into itself often times ignoring reality.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Every day a foreclosure pops up in my neighborhood. Every color of the rainbow is represented on signs posted by different real estate agencies. I feel like I'm in a tragic Monopoly game where everyone needs a get-out-of-jail-free card. Upside down runs North and South in the World's 7th largest economy.
Regards,
Dude
Unemployment and 'Job Losses' typically measure two different things. Both are based on surveys. Unemployment surveys households as to status of employment. This from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS):
As for job losses, private nonfarm businesses such as factories, offices, and stores, as well as federal, state, and local government entities are surveyed. Again from the BLS:
It comes down to two different perspectives on employment: household and business. So, when a job is lost it usually means it was cut from a businesses payroll.
I hope that answers the question.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
I’m returning to a question I raised a couple of days ago with another writer who made a noble effort (twice) to help me.
Please forgive me, but in college I had an elective to fill and I made the mistake of taking a philosophy course. I haven’t been thinking the same since. I picked up this habit of needing precise definitions.
In employment discussions there are so many terms that I can’t keep them straight: UNEMPLOYMED (various categories like ‘first time’, ‘longer that x# of weeks’, ‘used up benefits’, ‘extended benefits’, ‘discouraged’, ‘continuous’, have I missed any?); JOBS LOSS; JOBS GAINED; EMPLOYMENT SHRINKAGE; EMPLOYMENT LEVEL; UNEMPLOYMENT LEVEL; JOBS AVAILABLE’…
More specifically, I’m really interested in the ‘Jobs Loss’ category. Does the term ‘job loss’ (singular – one job loss) denote a 'person' who gets the proverbial ‘pink slip’ or does it mean that the 'job' per se that the person worked no longer exists. For example, if there is a secretary pool of five secretaries (i.e. five jobs) and one gets ‘laid off’, there are still five jobs, but only four are filled and the expectation is that eventually the fifth job will be filled again (i.e. no 'job loss', the job still exists; the desk, computer, file cabinet, etc. are still there waiting to be used again).
But, if the company eliminates one job, i.e. there are now only four jobs and there is no expectation of hiring a fifth secretary, then the job has been LOSS (i.e. the desk, computer, etc. are removed hence forth there will not be more than four secretaries).
If you have the time and are off the mind, perhaps you could indulge me… If not, I understand. Socrates was a pain too.
Thank you
Tom
"In late September 2008, capitalism was on the verge of failing.
The reason for this calamity wasn't because the government taxed too much or spent too much.
It wasn't because the Federal Reserve raised interest rates or contracted the money supply.
It wasn't because the American consumer stopped spending.
It was because the financial system knowingly overpriced a major financial asset class, and then leveraged itself against that asset class in the vain hope that the Day of Reckoning never came.
It's really quite simple when you break it all down."
A truly hilarious populist rant! William Jennings Bryan would be proud. So much to debunk in one section and so little time...I love the internet.
there are two bills, one ag, one financial services, financial services is supposedly extremely watered down, both are out of committee.
I haven't had time to write them up, to go over the bills and so on, but IMHO, this is way more imp. than the CFPA...
it's derivatives, the credit ratings agencies, i.e. the entire shadow banking system is just going to "go on".
the results will be the same regardless of priorities. Congress is owned by industry and will side with industry regardless of the issue.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
I believe Section 1964 of Title 18 allows for civil remedies meaning an individual or entity that can prove it was "injured" as a result of a RICO violation can recovery huge amount of damages (treble damages).
Just saying.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Just so you know, I'm under the gun until Wednesday and can't post/write a lot of detail, moderate, so I'm hoping the rest of the EPer's take up the slack on posting good and detailed pieces.
Don't forget the rating system (arrow on the bottom left) in case of any sort of trolly type post or comments to get 'em off of the site! Has to be more than one to do it, but if enough of you gang up on a troller (and I think we know what that is by now), you will control what is published on this site.
I think I have fixed security so it won't happen at this point, but, just in case you have the power!
If I see another "Balloon boy" story I'm gonna scream!
(Check out SMC for the dailyshow's major rip on CNN for useless drivel, 24/7)
In the EP FAQ, some of the site rules are "when in doubt, use a calculator" and "be good to each other". We do not do "flame bait" in the comment section on EP (unless of course it's against Goldman Sachs and so forth).
ever there was debate about past consumer protection legislation such Truth in Lending or other past legislation. Consumer credit survived and I am sure consumer credit would survive a strong CFPA but it looks like we are not going to get a strong CFPA.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
financial conglomerates were raising credit card fees early on in this crisis to compensate for their huge losses.
They are using much needed consumer protection regulations as the reason for their increases but these increases in credit card fees are a result of their business practices not regulations.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Are you being sarcastic? Your comment makes no sense, especially since you started the thread by posting the information about Melissa Bean helping gut federal regs.
And cheap credit? Maybe for mortgages, but have you paid any credit card interest lately?
I thought that it was important to acknowledge the correction, instead of disappearing it.
Transparency matters. And when entering thousands of data points to create datasets, it's inevitable that this will happen from time to time.
I wish I could get software that did double entry verification. However, that would take a lot more time.....
You can edit, revise and even change the title of a post and it won't mess up the site. All for those "oopsy's" which I have done also!
I made an entry error.
I entered the employment for the labor force. So in short, I messed up Massachusetts.
Scary numbers manfrommiddletown. As to why, I think it is almost obvious. The economic policies instituted by our political leaders caused the problem as documented at
http://getoddnews.com/2009/05/24/the-naked-economy/
(see page 3 for a succinct example). Basically few politicians consider the long term effects of their actions.
Grandpa Oddball
http://GetOddNews.com
Pages