Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 366 posts

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#61

Post by chc4 »

analyte123 wrote: post #52

The ADP payroll report is noise . It is based on the payroll data from ADP only . The assumption of this report is that companies that use ADP to process their payroll are completely representative of the entire economy and that there is no regional, sector, or company stage bias to their customers. A firm with ADP laying employees off and 3 new firms with the same number of employees being founded and using a differ…

ADP say that they handle payroll for one in six of all companies in America. That is both a large sample size, and probably broadly representative of the economy. There will of course be some business segments that are over or underrepresented but that is different than disregarding the entire report as noise.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#62

Post by jordanb »

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #39
mywittyname wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could lose my six-figure job, turn around, and get hired on as a server at Applebee's for minimum wage, and the "unemployment" rate would stay the same. Not to mention that it doesn't include those not actively looking for work. This is captured as part of the "U-6" figure for unemployment. The thing is, at a large scale, these events don't matter. They are rare enough to be noise in the grand scheme of things. T…

>This is captured as part of the "U-6" figure for unemployment. I always wonder how this is captured. For U-3, you could go with the number getting unemployment benefits. For U-6, you'd have to literally call people and ask them, and I've literally never been called to ask if I'm working in my field and I'd guess most of us haven't either. I have to think if they are sampling, it's a very narrow sample likely biased…

U-6 mostly comes from the BLS Occupational Employment Survey.

I don't think the original poster would be considered as part of U-6 unless his new job is defined as "marginally attached to the workforce or part-time for economic reasons." Simply getting a job with less pay doesn't put you in U-6.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#63

Post by ajmurmann »

mathiaspoint wrote: post #48
Analemma_ wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically these aren't incompatible: it's possible that democracy doesn't work but nothing else does either— there's no natural law that says there must be a system of political and social organization which actually works in the world we have now. I have been drifting in this direction myself the last few years; it's discouraging, but it seems to be the only conclusion supported by the evidence.

It works ok in the short term. Note that most democracies (especially the current best performing ones) are extremely young despite the idea being ancient. You see this on smaller scales as well. Most of people's complaints about "capitalism" are really about the short sighted decisions corporate leadership often make because it has to answer to an anonymous mob of shareholders. The only thing that actually works is…

The benefit of democracy is that it has somewhat of a self-correcting mechanism build in and it functions without violence. Autocracies don't have that.

You say Democracies have a short track record. While this is true in the grand scheme of things, each individual non-Democracy that came before did as well. Rulers conquered each other's countries, usurped the current leaders etc. quite regularly. I'm not sure I'd count that as stable and longer-lasting.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#64

Post by jeffbee »

analyte123 wrote: post #52

The ADP payroll report is noise . It is based on the payroll data from ADP only . The assumption of this report is that companies that use ADP to process their payroll are completely representative of the entire economy and that there is no regional, sector, or company stage bias to their customers. A firm with ADP laying employees off and 3 new firms with the same number of employees being founded and using a differ…

There have been many instances of ADP and BLS job reports being out of step, which can be expected because of their differing methodologies. On the other hand, nobody with a brain can take BLS surveys at face value under these circumstances.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#65

Post by darth_avocado »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #45
ajmurmann wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have good metrics. The problem is the media seems to only ever look at one of them at a time but we need to look at several at once to get a more complete picture. Your scenario would be called out by median household income, or better median disposable household income. Even the good old GDP per capita covers your case. Workforce participation also can be valuable instead of or in addition to unemployment numbers…

> Even the good old GDP per capita covers your case. Absolutely not. If corporate revenue increases, but wages stay the same, GDP per capita goes up, yet the workers aren't any better off. All that extra money is being absorbed by the ones at the top. Median disposable household income is probably the best measure.

> Median disposable household income is probably the best measure

If I used to make $78k as a full time IT employee, but now have to work two jobs to make $78k, I still have same household income but I’m considerably worse than before.

A combination of hours worked, wages earned and household debt together would paint a much more accurate picture.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#66

Post by pkaye »

psunavy03 wrote: post #6

We really need better ways of measuring economic health. I could lose my six-figure job, turn around, and get hired on as a server at Applebee's for minimum wage, and the "unemployment" rate would stay the same. Not to mention that it doesn't include those not actively looking for work. Either way, "full employment" doesn't mean much unless you take into account whether people are actually able to live a stable lifes…

The U6 unemployment rate is supposed to cover those who are underemployed. What is usually reported is the U3 unemployment rate which is closest to that used internationally as defined by ILO.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#67

Post by silisili »

ajmurmann wrote: post #25
psunavy03 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is the media seems to only ever look at one of them at a time but we need to look at several at once to get a more complete picture. This is what I'm getting at. I recognize there are more detailed measures, but they also never seem to inform the public discourse.

Not to come off as too cynical but I've increasingly come to the conclusion that the public discourse stays generally at a very shallow level that basic research for 30 minutes quickly moves you beyond. On one hand I find that appalling and poisonous for a democracy. On the other hand, imagine everyone having to spend 30+ minutes on every important topic. It quickly gets out of hand. One could argue that the media sh…

I agree with the premise here completely, but not what it's in response to necessarily.

Most people keep very shallow knowledge of most subjects, but this doesn't mean things shouldn't be reported. It just means they(media) shouldn't spend a ton of time explaining how said numbers are calculated. Most people read, hear, or otherwise know the current inflation rate, but not exactly how it's calculated.

All that to say, if some metric isn't being reported, there's a reason - likely for some agenda being pushed.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#68

Post by bilsbie »

psunavy03 wrote: post #6

We really need better ways of measuring economic health. I could lose my six-figure job, turn around, and get hired on as a server at Applebee's for minimum wage, and the "unemployment" rate would stay the same. Not to mention that it doesn't include those not actively looking for work. Either way, "full employment" doesn't mean much unless you take into account whether people are actually able to live a stable lifes…

It sounds silly but we should take it one step further and look at life satisfaction. Who cares about jobs if people are unhappy?

Stay at home parents could be way more valuable than more Wall Street jobs.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#69

Post by eastbound »

chc4 wrote: post #61
analyte123 wrote: post #52

The ADP payroll report is noise . It is based on the payroll data from ADP only . The assumption of this report is that companies that use ADP to process their payroll are completely representative of the entire economy and that there is no regional, sector, or company stage bias to their customers. A firm with ADP laying employees off and 3 new firms with the same number of employees being founded and using a differ…

ADP say that they handle payroll for one in six of all companies in America. That is both a large sample size, and probably broadly representative of the economy. There will of course be some business segments that are over or underrepresented but that is different than disregarding the entire report as noise.

ADP is predominant in large companies and has little hold in startups. It skews the stats.

Re: Private sector lost 33k jobs, badly missing expectations of 100k increase

#70

Post by hx8 »

darth_avocado wrote: post #65
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even the good old GDP per capita covers your case. Absolutely not. If corporate revenue increases, but wages stay the same, GDP per capita goes up, yet the workers aren't any better off. All that extra money is being absorbed by the ones at the top. Median disposable household income is probably the best measure.

> Median disposable household income is probably the best measure If I used to make $78k as a full time IT employee, but now have to work two jobs to make $78k, I still have same household income but I’m considerably worse than before. A combination of hours worked, wages earned and household debt together would paint a much more accurate picture.

I'm not sure household debt is a great indicator. Someone that has a mortgage will have much more household debt than a renter, but also not have to pay rent.

This would need data to contextualize.

Post reply on HN