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

271–280 of 366 posts

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

#271

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

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…

[flagged]

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

#272

Post by brewdad »

relaxing wrote: post #85
jljljl wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This metric of underemployment is captured in U-5 and U-6 in the BLS statistics. It's less common to report, but in the aftermath of the financial crisis I remember hearing more about it. You can construct a chart in FRED that covers it: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1JWGw

[flagged]

Econ nerds are nerds with a different focus than coding nerds. Both are still nerds.

#ImAnEconNerd

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

#273

Post by zdragnar »

issafram wrote: post #256

I used to have multiple recruiters reach out to me daily on LinkedIn regarding software engineering positions. And this was for multiple years. That hasn't been the case for the last 3 or 4 months. None of this surprises me and it shouldn't for others.

Odd, it's gotten better for me over the last 3-4 months. The year or two prior to roughly March 2025 were very quiet, though, maybe 1 a month at most.

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

#274

Post by brewdad »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #263
darth_avocado wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This entire thread is nothing if not a perfect indicator of how difficult it is to get an good/accurate gauging of employment health.

And that's before you even get into bad actors or actors with a POV to push who selectively highlight one metric over another confounding metric.

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

#275

Post by brewdad »

RayVR wrote: post #241
darth_avocado wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Whatever metric or scenario you can think up, I guarantee governments, think tanks, private data companies, or universities are already tracking (or attempting to) There is a huge quantity of data about the US.

At least though 2024. It remains to be seen how much of that data is still being collected in a post-DOGE world.

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

#276

Post by JumpCrisscross »

slashdev wrote: post #234
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 e…

The numbers have been so consistently wrong in the same direction. It could be that there are other things going on, but simply that volatile numbers come in later doesn’t seem to explain the bias.

> numbers have been so consistently wrong in the same direction

Because the data have been going in one direction recently. When the job market booms, the revisions are upwards. Then everyone gets to wax lyrical about how BLS is socking the President.

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

#277

Post by duncangh »

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…

I have been thinking about this a lot recently as well and think there is a really simple answer and fix and am frustrated I haven’t seen it meaningfully attempted or discussed anywhere (passively consuming message boards etc)

Cash flow per person (per household) just like the IRS does (except also including money from loans).

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

#278

Post by brewdad »

const_cast wrote: post #152
elzbardico wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't matter. You still have the debt. If you lose your job in a depression, odds are no much other people will be in the market to buy your home.

I think debt is good, actually, for most middle class households, and they're actively trying to increase their debt because that results in greater cash-flow, more savings, and more security in terms of retirement. That's why buying a home is Goal #1 for most Americans.

Home mortgage debt is mostly "good" debt for middle class households. Pretty much any other type of debt is a net negative in financial terms. There are less tangible benefits to owning a newer, more reliable car for example, so it can be a bit murky. General consumption debt is a bad bet for pretty much anyone.

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

#279

Post by qcic »

ctoll wrote: post #155
Analemma_ wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because economists get things wrong, does not imply that therefore they can be, and need to be, corrected by computer programmers with superficial understandings of the field. You can both be wrong.

This is like arguing that politicians don't need to be corrected by non-politicians, or that people with no understand of programming can't criticize the tech industry. No one is arguing that being a computer programmer gives a person unique insights here.

False equivalence. Politicians aren’t scientists, and people do criticize programmers all the time. I got at least 3 complaints at work today about bugs in our software.

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

#280

Post by dmix »

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.

That's an extremely simplistic view of our economics works.
Post reply on HN