i thought i'd have to try to figure out how this trade report impacted GDP...now i'll just say Robert Oak worked out the change in GDP so we dont have to..
Too early to say since we do not have retail inventories which are slightly more than either wholesale or manufacturing inventories.
0.7% revision to about 1/3 or less of the total and it is the change of the total that impacts GDP, too early to say.
I can try to do a guesstimate when all of the inventories are in, as I did here, but the problem is inventories were secretly revised after this public release and thus this estimate was really off in terms of GDP.
Fun fun, but I will take a look anyway. The easiest guesstimator is PCE since it is a direct calculation but the above link goes into some details on what happens when inventories go into national accounts.
Generally speaking, NOT happy with the BEA, especially after those changes to GDP and what's going on now. I seriously wonder what we're even looking at.
Most of the government statistics change, are revised, one can question the methods and so on, but the BEA is clearly the most "in secret". They may publish a handbook of methods but it is still obviously confusing and worse, they refuse to just spit out the formulas on National accounts and as a result is is simply impossible to follow along at home due to so many modifications from monthly data.
Glad to see you, was hoping you'd comment on some of these, been doing a lot of original number crunching this week.
This post was done by a simple spreadsheet and when started, I expected to find something else, as in the increasing older population would somehow skew the labor participation rate and that's not what I found, as you can see.
So, if one wants to argue, obviously they need data analysis, mathematics, facts and we see none from this guy, a troll who managed to get an account and who is now banned.
I checked out your link and that is shocking, I have looked at disability and see no fraud or sudden increase showing up, but still these are the people to argue with who are running their numbers and know how to calculate.
My bottom line is the statistics and mathematics rule, the data rules and it says what it says. I triple checked my spreadsheet, no error.
Or maybe you are just lazy, or 7th grade math was too much of a challenge. But I repeat myself.
You can go back 2, 3, 4 years on this blog and others and see the same stats, repeated, supportable, and trending exactly this direction.
Here's just one of many examples:
"If we compare 2011 with 1995, we see that labor force particpation has increased among all groups 50 years or older. Participation has dropped the most among the youngest Americans (16-24) and is slightly lower for all groups in-between (25-49)."
http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/05/the-incredible-shrinking-labor...
You suggest data is left out, yet you fail to mention that the BLS has changed who and how it counts unemployment several times over the years, so there is no real comparison. You leave out the increase in women's employment today where they are replacing men in the workforce, even as we create crappy jobs to replace the ones that used to support whole families and economies. You suggest that there is some trend in age that is imacting those not in the workforce, yet you don't take advantage of the space here to show us.
Maybe it doesn't really exist, and your post serves as an example of how to embarass oneself on the Intertubes?
Seriously, you seem to think you know better, which means that you must have at least data, or some research. This is a pretty open blog - you should feel free to create your own post and send it in. Or just select "rich text editor" below your posting box and post it your self. I can almost guarantee it will be approved.
I'm sorry people are math disabled, but this is simple math, calculated from the data and it is explained why one took October, but one can take any month and see the exact same results. Why don't you bother to understand the calculations instead of writing insults due to some data going against your beliefs.
I am getting so sick of scam articles like this. I wonder why the 'author' chose to only show results from the month of October. Couldn't be that it was the month that agreed with his biased political message, could it? Nah, if the other months showed that a significant percentage of the change in employment IS due to aging and longer student status, he would have told us, right? I mean he's a really honest, forthright guy, isn't he? Even silly headline phrases like 'Record low' are a complete joke when you take into account that prior to 1940 virtually half the population between the ages of 19-65 didn't work simply because they were female.
If the revisions are significant to civilian labor force (CPS) statistics, I might update this article with the revised figures and/or taking the annual moving averages of not seasonally adjusted data for all calculations.
Using the average of 11/12 to 10/13 against the average of 11/11 to 10/12 and so on removes more variance between the monthly changes. The result is the same of course, but for non-believers it is a more robust calculation.
Behind this article is a four page spreadsheet and all calculations were checked against published aggregate numbers. In other words, the calculations used for this article have already been checked for accuracy and validity.
It is astounding with such a collapse the "forces" really want "business as usual", but this is one perspective in a series of data metrics which make me question who exactly is buying the homes. How can one possibly have a rebound when the main purpose of residential real estate should be to house the middle class.
Folks, we are the only site which throws together so many graphs per article. The reason you see so many graphs with text surrounding each one is to illustrate the trend. On most economic reports, but especially the labor market ones, the most important aspect of them is the trend over time. It is not the headline buzz numbers or the count of jobs, for those are almost always revised and job growth is still close to the error margin.
So, I hope all pay attention to the eye candy first and foremost on these overviews as I conclude the trend, overall in employment statistics really is not good. Don't get wrapped up in the monthly change or the headline buzz.
Sorry i wasn't referring to the report or the post.
What i meant was that the post is another one of many which confirms to me that the housing market is totally manipulated in a way in that protects big money banks and hurts average working people who would otherwise be able to afford a home if the manipulation of the market was stopped.
it's a survey, and it does validate what we suspect, the housing market is for investors and the rich, not regular people in many areas of the country, in particular California.
to even suggest that this is a "market" is ludicrous. It's a sham, the govt. bought all the toxic crap the banks sold during the bubble years, allowing the banks to survive (and prosper) and keep that huge backlog of homes off the market. Which BTW, if allowed to come on the market, maybe the huge number of walmart workers might be able to afford a home.
Labor costs are the excuse but one can see Germany has much higher labor costs than the United States and they run a trade surplus. The U.S. labor costs during the height of U.S. manufacturing were higher than anywhere else. It was the good trade policies, trade structure and incentives to manufacture in the U.S..
Labor costs are the excuse but there are much greater costs beyond labor. Plants alone can cost over $10 billion to set up.
Manufacturing follows low cost labor. The USA had an advantage over Europe, but that is long gone. Manufacturing moved to Japan a couple decades ago, then to Taiwan and on to Korea, before getting to China. As the Chinese standard of living improves, manufacturing will move to the next low cost labor market.
I don't think these are published anymore, discontinued, but the closest would be to use the PCE deflator. Have to research the BEA to see how they treat retail sales as a consumer expenditure input of the NIPA.
i realize this post is somewhat incoherent, and there's a couple of reasons for that; first, i covered retail sales and CPI together as part of one post on my own blog, then tried to split the CPI coverage into a separate post to use here on the economic populist; second, i've had long running quiet disagreement with the way NBER and FRED & everyone else figures real retail sales, but didnt start explaining that until half way through the post...then i kind of backed into my alternative methodology, but since i didnt have time to work it out completely, i failed to follow through...
here's the bottom line: this FRED series is constructed incorrectly: Real Retail and Food Services Sales (RRSFS); the series is constructed by simply deflating "Retail and Food Services Sales" (RSAFS) using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPIAUCSL). we can't deflate retail sales with CPI; because in some months, it would mean deflating car sales because of higher rent, tuitions or medical costs...the only accurate way to deflate retail sales is by deflating each sales group with its corresponding price change; next time, if i have the time, i'll do it right..
yeah it's basically hopeless. Change will only occur from the bottom, the very bottom when enough people are destitute with nothing to lose. Chris Hedges seems to concur.
Maybe another world war would help out the US of A again. Eh? destroy the competition, US workers get a good deal again since their competition has been killed. Sounds like that's the ticket, and both political parties love a good war. Thanks for letting me vent.
i thought i'd have to try to figure out how this trade report impacted GDP...now i'll just say Robert Oak worked out the change in GDP so we dont have to..
Too early to say since we do not have retail inventories which are slightly more than either wholesale or manufacturing inventories.
0.7% revision to about 1/3 or less of the total and it is the change of the total that impacts GDP, too early to say.
I can try to do a guesstimate when all of the inventories are in, as I did here, but the problem is inventories were secretly revised after this public release and thus this estimate was really off in terms of GDP.
Fun fun, but I will take a look anyway. The easiest guesstimator is PCE since it is a direct calculation but the above link goes into some details on what happens when inventories go into national accounts.
Generally speaking, NOT happy with the BEA, especially after those changes to GDP and what's going on now. I seriously wonder what we're even looking at.
Most of the government statistics change, are revised, one can question the methods and so on, but the BEA is clearly the most "in secret". They may publish a handbook of methods but it is still obviously confusing and worse, they refuse to just spit out the formulas on National accounts and as a result is is simply impossible to follow along at home due to so many modifications from monthly data.
Glad to see you, was hoping you'd comment on some of these, been doing a lot of original number crunching this week.
the technical note on 3rd quarter GDP indicates the BEA assumed that wholesale and retail inventories would decrease $7.6 billion in September; wholesale inventories came in today at $506.3 billion, up 0.4%, but retail inventories arent scheduled till the 20th; when August were reported on Oct 29th, they were at 508.4 billion, down 4.5% from July..
This post was done by a simple spreadsheet and when started, I expected to find something else, as in the increasing older population would somehow skew the labor participation rate and that's not what I found, as you can see.
So, if one wants to argue, obviously they need data analysis, mathematics, facts and we see none from this guy, a troll who managed to get an account and who is now banned.
I checked out your link and that is shocking, I have looked at disability and see no fraud or sudden increase showing up, but still these are the people to argue with who are running their numbers and know how to calculate.
My bottom line is the statistics and mathematics rule, the data rules and it says what it says. I triple checked my spreadsheet, no error.
Or maybe you are just lazy, or 7th grade math was too much of a challenge. But I repeat myself.
You can go back 2, 3, 4 years on this blog and others and see the same stats, repeated, supportable, and trending exactly this direction.
Here's just one of many examples:
"If we compare 2011 with 1995, we see that labor force particpation has increased among all groups 50 years or older. Participation has dropped the most among the youngest Americans (16-24) and is slightly lower for all groups in-between (25-49)."
http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/05/the-incredible-shrinking-labor...
You suggest data is left out, yet you fail to mention that the BLS has changed who and how it counts unemployment several times over the years, so there is no real comparison. You leave out the increase in women's employment today where they are replacing men in the workforce, even as we create crappy jobs to replace the ones that used to support whole families and economies. You suggest that there is some trend in age that is imacting those not in the workforce, yet you don't take advantage of the space here to show us.
Maybe it doesn't really exist, and your post serves as an example of how to embarass oneself on the Intertubes?
Seriously, you seem to think you know better, which means that you must have at least data, or some research. This is a pretty open blog - you should feel free to create your own post and send it in. Or just select "rich text editor" below your posting box and post it your self. I can almost guarantee it will be approved.
Waiting...
I'm sorry people are math disabled, but this is simple math, calculated from the data and it is explained why one took October, but one can take any month and see the exact same results. Why don't you bother to understand the calculations instead of writing insults due to some data going against your beliefs.
I am getting so sick of scam articles like this. I wonder why the 'author' chose to only show results from the month of October. Couldn't be that it was the month that agreed with his biased political message, could it? Nah, if the other months showed that a significant percentage of the change in employment IS due to aging and longer student status, he would have told us, right? I mean he's a really honest, forthright guy, isn't he? Even silly headline phrases like 'Record low' are a complete joke when you take into account that prior to 1940 virtually half the population between the ages of 19-65 didn't work simply because they were female.
If the revisions are significant to civilian labor force (CPS) statistics, I might update this article with the revised figures and/or taking the annual moving averages of not seasonally adjusted data for all calculations.
Using the average of 11/12 to 10/13 against the average of 11/11 to 10/12 and so on removes more variance between the monthly changes. The result is the same of course, but for non-believers it is a more robust calculation.
Behind this article is a four page spreadsheet and all calculations were checked against published aggregate numbers. In other words, the calculations used for this article have already been checked for accuracy and validity.
It is astounding with such a collapse the "forces" really want "business as usual", but this is one perspective in a series of data metrics which make me question who exactly is buying the homes. How can one possibly have a rebound when the main purpose of residential real estate should be to house the middle class.
Folks, we are the only site which throws together so many graphs per article. The reason you see so many graphs with text surrounding each one is to illustrate the trend. On most economic reports, but especially the labor market ones, the most important aspect of them is the trend over time. It is not the headline buzz numbers or the count of jobs, for those are almost always revised and job growth is still close to the error margin.
So, I hope all pay attention to the eye candy first and foremost on these overviews as I conclude the trend, overall in employment statistics really is not good. Don't get wrapped up in the monthly change or the headline buzz.
Sorry i wasn't referring to the report or the post.
What i meant was that the post is another one of many which confirms to me that the housing market is totally manipulated in a way in that protects big money banks and hurts average working people who would otherwise be able to afford a home if the manipulation of the market was stopped.
it's a survey, and it does validate what we suspect, the housing market is for investors and the rich, not regular people in many areas of the country, in particular California.
to even suggest that this is a "market" is ludicrous. It's a sham, the govt. bought all the toxic crap the banks sold during the bubble years, allowing the banks to survive (and prosper) and keep that huge backlog of homes off the market. Which BTW, if allowed to come on the market, maybe the huge number of walmart workers might be able to afford a home.
Makes me sick.
Labor costs are the excuse but one can see Germany has much higher labor costs than the United States and they run a trade surplus. The U.S. labor costs during the height of U.S. manufacturing were higher than anywhere else. It was the good trade policies, trade structure and incentives to manufacture in the U.S..
Labor costs are the excuse but there are much greater costs beyond labor. Plants alone can cost over $10 billion to set up.
Manufacturing follows low cost labor. The USA had an advantage over Europe, but that is long gone. Manufacturing moved to Japan a couple decades ago, then to Taiwan and on to Korea, before getting to China. As the Chinese standard of living improves, manufacturing will move to the next low cost labor market.
If anyone tried to change anything the Supreme Court would just rule that foreign currency manipulation destroying the USA is free speech.
I don't think these are published anymore, discontinued, but the closest would be to use the PCE deflator. Have to research the BEA to see how they treat retail sales as a consumer expenditure input of the NIPA.
i realize this post is somewhat incoherent, and there's a couple of reasons for that; first, i covered retail sales and CPI together as part of one post on my own blog, then tried to split the CPI coverage into a separate post to use here on the economic populist; second, i've had long running quiet disagreement with the way NBER and FRED & everyone else figures real retail sales, but didnt start explaining that until half way through the post...then i kind of backed into my alternative methodology, but since i didnt have time to work it out completely, i failed to follow through...
here's the bottom line: this FRED series is constructed incorrectly: Real Retail and Food Services Sales (RRSFS); the series is constructed by simply deflating "Retail and Food Services Sales" (RSAFS) using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPIAUCSL).
we can't deflate retail sales with CPI; because in some months, it would mean deflating car sales because of higher rent, tuitions or medical costs...the only accurate way to deflate retail sales is by deflating each sales group with its corresponding price change; next time, if i have the time, i'll do it right..
under Obama there would be just tax cuts for the rich. One more in the notch of Bushism.
yeah it's basically hopeless. Change will only occur from the bottom, the very bottom when enough people are destitute with nothing to lose. Chris Hedges seems to concur.
Maybe another world war would help out the US of A again. Eh? destroy the competition, US workers get a good deal again since their competition has been killed. Sounds like that's the ticket, and both political parties love a good war. Thanks for letting me vent.
Pages