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

191–200 of 366 posts

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

#191

Post by the_real_cher »

SR2Z wrote: post #184
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.

If a software engineer starts working at Applebees, GDP will decrease. If lots of software engineers do it, GDP decreases more. If corporate revenue increases and is spent (as most revenue is), then the workers will be better off in the most bland "raising all boats" sense of the word - there will be more competition for their labor and more opportunities for them to jump ship. GDP gets a bad rap but if I had to pick…

Not if those are replaced by automation, offshoring, or outsourcing.

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

#192

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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.

> 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

No, this is not the reason. The numbers that get fanfare are the preliminary BLS numbers. BLS collects data through surveys. Preliminary data are published with incomplete responses. As more employers respond, the numbers get updated.

Guess which employers tend to report late? Those that are doing lots of hiring and firing. So the stable numbers come in first. Then the volatile numbers later. This is well documented, happens on the way up and down, and is constantly (and wrongly) quoted as a partisan conspiracy going both ways.

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

#193

Post by robocat »

shkkmo wrote: post #80
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.

> That is both a large sample size, It doesn't matter how large your sample size is if your sampling method is biased. This could be measuring market share gain/loss in different segments of a steady employment environment. > disregarding the entire report as noise Studies with bad / non public sampling methods should be, at a minimum, treated with great skepticism. Why would that not apply here?

A factual number that has less statistical noise or political bias is extremely valuable. Yes, one needs to factor for the biases but that doesn't mean the number should be ignored.

The trend is useful, since one can fairly safely assume that most of the biases haven't radically changed.

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

#194

Post by nradov »

SR2Z wrote: post #184
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.

If a software engineer starts working at Applebees, GDP will decrease. If lots of software engineers do it, GDP decreases more. If corporate revenue increases and is spent (as most revenue is), then the workers will be better off in the most bland "raising all boats" sense of the word - there will be more competition for their labor and more opportunities for them to jump ship. GDP gets a bad rap but if I had to pick…

One thing I remember from the first Dot-com crash circa 2002 is that the service quality in Silicon Valley area restaurants suddenly got a lot better. There were a lot of former "HTML programmers" forced to find other jobs.

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

#195

Post by ajmurmann »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #182
ajmurmann wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does wealth inequality matter? If my real wealth doubles and Elon's real wealth doubles, inequality went up, yet everyone is tremendously better off. I think we are using inequality as a very bad proxy for poverty but we have much better metrics for that. I suspect people just dislike it for emotional reasons. I want to point out that Sweden has more billionaires per capita than the US. Yet everyone is fine with…

> Why does wealth inequality matter? If my real wealth doubles and Elon's real wealth doubles, inequality went up, Not in terms of the ratio between you, which is the way we normally talk about wealth inequality : "he has X times more wealth than I do", or "she makes X times more than I do". Anyway, this is not how wealth inequality has grown at all. It has happened by most people's real income barely rising at all o…

That's not at all what I've seen in the US. The middle class has shrunk but that part of the overall population has moved to upper income.

Meanwhile, real (aka inflation corrected) median household income has gone up: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

If what you care about is standing real wages why talk about inequality? I'm concerned that it just functions better as rage bait and leads to unproductive policies.

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

#196

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#197

Post by ajmurmann »

hello_moto wrote: post #178
pedroma wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nobody is incentivized to share bad news about the economy. Isn't the media incentivized to keep you watching or reading? The common criticism of media is they like to exaggerate a minor issue to get you to click on a headline.

except when it affects the economy thus their investment (be it 401k or something else)

Yet, for the last few years the media has been poopooing and economy that's by pretty much all measures was very strong.

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

#198

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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.

> that's exactly how U-3 is used by everyone but the labor economists that define it

No, it’s not. Enterprise demand planning, market research, hell even political analysis for donors and politicians——everyone who has a use for the data knows how to use them.

If you want to see the contrast in treatment, compare the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal publications versus free media, e.g. CNBC or TV news.

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

#199

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ivape wrote: post #153
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…

Why do we care so much if jobs are created or not created? The market is the market, either we need more jobs or we don't. If there are not enough jobs, then what are we going to do? Create more? We're just dressing up socialism in capitalism's clothes. If you want to seriously do capitalism, then there is absolutely no reason to measure employment. If it's zero then it's correct, if it's 100% then it's correct, the…

> if there are not enough jobs, then what are we going to do? Create more?

…yes.

> problem isn't employment. It's food and shelter

We track these. And in most places in America, you can get to a place where you can get both for free. Not to the quality most people want. But to a degree that will sustain you.

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

#200

Post by nradov »

ajmurmann wrote: post #166
shafyy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even better one: real wages, and income and wealth inequality.

Why does wealth inequality matter? If my real wealth doubles and Elon's real wealth doubles, inequality went up, yet everyone is tremendously better off. I think we are using inequality as a very bad proxy for poverty but we have much better metrics for that. I suspect people just dislike it for emotional reasons. I want to point out that Sweden has more billionaires per capita than the US. Yet everyone is fine with…

It depends on what you're trying to measure. From a purely rational perspective, increasing inequality doesn't matter if everyone's quality of life is improving. But humans are irrational, and happiness is often tied to social status within the hierarchy. Even if you're materially better off you might find yourself lower on the status scale. Status is a zero-sum game. Maybe we shouldn't care about such things but yet most people do.
Post reply on HN