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

Post by bentt » Wed, Jul 02, 2025, 8:35 PM UTC

ajmurmann wrote: post #12

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 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…

Post by danaris » Wed, Jul 02, 2025, 8:43 PM UTC

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.

Post by pqtyw » Wed, Jul 02, 2025, 8:46 PM UTC

danans wrote: post #40

jimbokun wrote: post #31

> But the contraction was capped by payroll expansions in goods-producing roles across industries such as manufacturing and mining. All together, goods-producing positions grew by 32,000 in the month, while payrolls for service roles overall fell by 66,000. Is this tariffs working as intended?

If your metric is "more/better jobs", then yes tariffs are a failure. But in a roundabout sense ... yes they are working. At least if the goal is to discipline and squeeze labor, and return leverage to employers. Part of the goal of the tariffs (and other non-tariff related policies) seems to be to reset leverage at all layers of the labor markets, pushing higher skilled and paid workers into lower skilled and paid m…

Post by gopher_space » Wed, Jul 02, 2025, 8:59 PM UTC

csallen wrote: post #142

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.

Ironically, you're proving the person you're responding to right: The problem is trying to get a holistic view by focusing on one metric in isolation. You need to consider multiple metrics. Any one metric by itself is going to have holes.

Post by ajmurmann » Wed, Jul 02, 2025, 9:00 PM UTC

kranke155 wrote: post #82

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…

It's the incentive. There is a reason the media focuses on easily juiced metrics.