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

131–140 of 366 posts

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

#131

Post by kentm »

MangoToupe wrote: post #111
blitzar wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is akin to saying that we need a better metric than CPU temperature to track internet download speed.

I don't follow at all. Which of these is supposed to correspond to "aggregate economic health"? The problem is that unemployment, particularly U-3, is a bad signal for aggregate economic health by itself. As is GDP. You need an signal for wealth distribution to get a sense of how a given person can interpret to understand how well the economy is serving them. At the very least. EDIT: Of course, the ultimate issue is…

> Which of these is supposed to correspond to "aggregate economic health"?

There's no single metric for aggregate economic health in the same way that there's no single metric for aggregate server health. There's a problem in expectations when people complain about U-3; its not supposed to be a measure of economic health. And thats the point being made here.

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

#132

Post by weaksauce »

eastbound wrote: post #69
chc4 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

two small companies i used to work for used adp.

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

#133

Post by MangoToupe »

kentm wrote: post #131
MangoToupe wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow at all. Which of these is supposed to correspond to "aggregate economic health"? The problem is that unemployment, particularly U-3, is a bad signal for aggregate economic health by itself. As is GDP. You need an signal for wealth distribution to get a sense of how a given person can interpret to understand how well the economy is serving them. At the very least. EDIT: Of course, the ultimate issue is…

> Which of these is supposed to correspond to "aggregate economic health"? There's no single metric for aggregate economic health in the same way that there's no single metric for aggregate server health. There's a problem in expectations when people complain about U-3; its not supposed to be a measure of economic health. And thats the point being made here.

And yet, that's exactly how U-3 is used by everyone but the labor economists that define it. Hence why this conversation is happening in the first place.

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

#134

Post by MangoToupe »

Analemma_ wrote: post #128
MangoToupe wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also a sign that communication of the semantics in understandable terms is pretty bad.

The communications from the BLS are quite good and easily understandable. The problem is that the people making these complaints aren't reading those, they're reading the mainstream reporting on the BLS stats, which is extremely lossily-compressed, and then assuming this makes them qualified to criticize the underlying stats. Journalists deserve some flak here for the superficial way they report on the numbers, but a…

> but at some point it's on you to get the real thing before you start trying to correct it.

One thing is for sure is that people aren't going to do that.

Anyway, it seems disingenuous (or just completely irrelevant) to complain that people are attacking the BLS rather than how this is wielded to perpetrate a polemic.

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

#135

Post by triceratops »

bena wrote: post #126
triceratops wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

milquetoast, not milk toast

Both actually. Milquetoast was a fictional character used to characterize extreme timidity, as if he were the personification of milk toast. Eventually, the name became a synonym for the attitude. But the name comes from the food

TIL

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

#136

Post by kentm »

MangoToupe wrote: post #133
kentm wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which of these is supposed to correspond to "aggregate economic health"? There's no single metric for aggregate economic health in the same way that there's no single metric for aggregate server health. There's a problem in expectations when people complain about U-3; its not supposed to be a measure of economic health. And thats the point being made here.

And yet, that's exactly how U-3 is used by everyone but the labor economists that define it. Hence why this conversation is happening in the first place.

Yes, and the fault is on the people using U-3 that way, not the economists. Talking about the problems with U-3 implies that the economists messed up. The issue is that everyone is looking for a quick 5-second way of making conclusions about a complicated topic.

We don't need a new metric. There is no new metric that will satisfy that criteria. The only solution is to improve the way we talk about the economy.

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

#137

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

We know about all of those things and BLS publishes (or at least used to) reliable stats on them.

The unemployment rate as reported is probably the best way to report objectively on employment and the ebb and flow of layoffs and hiring. A more qualitative assessment requires more adjustments and interpretation.

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

#138

Post by k4shm0n3y »

llm_nerd wrote: post #37
hliyan wrote: post #5

Important: "[payroll processing firm] ADP's report has a spotty track record on predicting the subsequent government jobs report"

Recent government payroll data has been hugely suspect. On the big release day the numbers are rosy and get reported to much hoopla and "told you" celebration, but then are subsequently revised downwards to little fanfare or notice. And for those who wonder "why revise downward if it's a lie?", because the numbers eventually are going to collide with reality so they need to be right sized after the fact.

This isn't a recent phenomena

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

#139

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

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.

Perhaps the Gini coefficient would be a better metric to capture this?

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

#140

Post by fHr »

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…

Same with the stock market completly decoupled from the real economy. It's a wealthy index, there could be a real recession and the stock market still would go up.
Post reply on HN