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

281–290 of 366 posts

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

#281

Post by dmix »

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.

Have you used your linkedin profile? If you're looking for a job or are active you're going to get more attention. Your name will also start being added to lead databases when you apply for jobs and those will kick around for a couple years until it's marked as uninteresting.

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

#282

Post by dmix »

adrr wrote: post #14
hliyan wrote: post #5

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

Government job reports this year have been revised down up to 35%. > The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for March was revised down by 65,000, from +185,000 to +120,000, and the change for April was revised down by 30,000, from +177,000 to +147,000. With these revisions, employment in March and April combined is 95,000 lower than previously reported. (Monthly revisions result from additional reports receiv…

Revised down from previously reported projections. But the numbers are pretty neutral.

> Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (3.9 percent), adult women (3.9 percent), teenagers (13.4 percent), Whites (3.8 percent), Blacks (6.0 percent), Asians (3.6 percent), and Hispanics (5.1 percent) showed little or no change over the month.

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

#283

Post by eigen »

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.

> The numbers have been so consistently wrong in the same direction.

summary of mean revision for seasonally adjusted numbers, since 2003 are

2nd-1st: 8

3rd-2nd: 2

1st-3rd: 10

but 2025 has been consistently, so far, be negative revisions. Dec 2024 has some positive revisions but 2023-2024 on the whole was negative while 2017-2022 were on the whole positive revision. so I dont think that there is data to support consistently wrong in one direction.

https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm

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

#284

Post by layoric »

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…

> Even the good old GDP per capita covers your case.

I think the following joke encapsulates the problem with GDP pretty well..

---

Two economists go for a walk in the forest, and having a competitive nature, the first economist sees a pile of bear shit and says to the second "I'll give you $100 to eat that bear shit". The second economist, being one that generally does anything for money, eats the bear shit, takes the $100 and they continue on their walk. The second economist wants to get back at the first, sees another pile of bear shit and says "I dare YOU to eat that bear shit for $100" thinking no way they will actually do it. Not wanting to be outdone by the second economist, the first also eats the bear shit and takes $100.

After walking a bit further, the second economist stops and says to the first "Wait.. did we just both eat shit for nothing??" to which the first replies "No of course not, that would be crazy.. we increased GDP by $200".

---

I can't remember the source of the joke but been around for a while and I may have butchered some of the original details.

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

#285

Post by dmix »

elcritch wrote: post #90
danans wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If more goods are made locally then it seems rather that unions would have more leverage. They’re not competing with underpaid foreigners in countries with even less unions. The bigger loss for all employees is the shareholders primary fallacy giving executives excuses to pay workers less. Since there’s no competition for many consumer goods then there’s no pressure to keep prices low and companies just up their prof…

> If more goods are made locally then it seems rather that unions would have more leverage. They’re not competing with underpaid foreigners in countries with even less unions

That will take at least 5yrs to a decade to be a major economic change, not a few months after tariffs

For the rest, when analysis seems a bit too convenient it usually is.

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

#286

Post by wyldfire »

lawlessone wrote: post #161
MangoToupe wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's a pretty good measure of average economic health Median economic health strikes me as far more interesting than mean. I don't really care how well rich people are doing.

>I don't really care how well rich people are doing. ahem "people of wealth"

Maybe "people currently experiencing extraordinarily fine housing"?

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

#287

Post by 1123581321 »

ipogrjegiorejkf wrote: post #94
1123581321 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which metric(s) capture what he is talking about?

Take a look at the St. Louis FRED website and search for wages and wage growth.

FRED is a good resource. Do you know if there's a wage growth dataset that only analyzes job changes between companies?

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

#288

Post by phendrenad2 »

jordanb wrote: post #62
wing-_-nuts wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

If that's true, you've identified a huge hole in the measures. And you can't fix what you can't measure. I think you're right, because despite massive tech unemployment in the last 4 years, I don't see any of the charts spiking. Furthermore, people keep saying "this is captured in Figure X" but if it were really captured, it would be somewhat separable and could produce a chart that shows it in detail. I fear we're giving the Fed too much credit here.

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

#289

Post by phendrenad2 »

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.

Even if they are, it's not very useful if they have an adversarial relationship to us, the worker. Government is the only one listed above that is supposed to be the champion of the worker, but when was the last time that was true? At some point, you have to do your own digging. Trust but verify.

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

#290

Post by vitorgrs »

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…

Unemployment might say the same, but there's also data about wages, so, not sure what do you mean.
Post reply on HN