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

21–30 of 366 posts

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

#21

Post by marcosdumay »

noslenwerdna wrote: post #19
kasey_junk wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You of course know that we have a diverse set of metrics for unemployment that capture all of what you are talking about right? And that is before we talk about alternative signals like the ADP number this like references. Anytime someone says “we need better ways” you should just read it as “I should do more reading”, because this is a very well studied, understood and measured set of data.

This response is a bit less than helpful. Could you provide an example of a metric from this diverse set that fits what the OP is asking for? I feel like there are at least two use cases from their post: * a metric that measures if people's jobs are paying enough to put food on the table * a metric that measures whether people's employment matches their education?

About the US specifically, your government reports underemployment numbers, as do almost every country report salaries distribution.

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

#22

Post by rexer »

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…

Some of the unemployment metrics do include folks not actively looking for work: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

> We really need better ways of measuring economic health.

What would that look like to you? It seems to me no single, measurable metric is going to tell you economic health. They're a bunch of indicators that need to be interpreted.

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

#23

Post by ceejayoz »

thehoff wrote: post #9
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…

The linked article is talking about ADP. "To be sure, the ADP report has a spotty track record on predicting the subsequent government jobs report, which investors tend to weigh more heavily." The BLS does do several measures. https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-une... Their (BLS) news release also provides more detail.

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/11/nx-s1-5323155/economic-data-r...

> The government recently disbanded two outside advisory committees that used to consult on the numbers, offering suggestions on ways to improve the reliability of the government data.

> At the same time, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has suggested changing the way the broadest measure of the economy — gross domestic product — is calculated.

> Those moves are raising concerns about whether economic data could be manipulated for political or other purposes.

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

#24

Post by jklinger410 »

kasey_junk wrote: post #10
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…

You of course know that we have a diverse set of metrics for unemployment that capture all of what you are talking about right? And that is before we talk about alternative signals like the ADP number this like references. Anytime someone says “we need better ways” you should just read it as “I should do more reading”, because this is a very well studied, understood and measured set of data.

> You of course know that we have a diverse set of metrics for unemployment that capture all of what you are talking about right?

If I could never see another passive aggressive response like this again I would die happy.

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

#25

Post by ajmurmann »

psunavy03 wrote: post #16
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…

> 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. This is what I'm getting at. I recognize there are more detailed measures, but they also never seem to inform the public discourse.

Not to come off as too cynical but I've increasingly come to the conclusion that the public discourse stays generally at a very shallow level that basic research for 30 minutes quickly moves you beyond. On one hand I find that appalling and poisonous for a democracy. On the other hand, imagine everyone having to spend 30+ minutes on every important topic. It quickly gets out of hand. One could argue that the media should do that research but if they incorporate that in their communication they lose most of their audience who needs to be picked up where they are.

It's why I recently have been convinced that we need something like election my jury

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

#27

Post by deciduously »

jklinger410 wrote: post #24
kasey_junk wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You of course know that we have a diverse set of metrics for unemployment that capture all of what you are talking about right? And that is before we talk about alternative signals like the ADP number this like references. Anytime someone says “we need better ways” you should just read it as “I should do more reading”, because this is a very well studied, understood and measured set of data.

> You of course know that we have a diverse set of metrics for unemployment that capture all of what you are talking about right? If I could never see another passive aggressive response like this again I would die happy.

You of course know that "you of course know _____, right" is the preferred HN rebuttal format, right?

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

#28

Post by mathiaspoint »

ajmurmann wrote: post #25
psunavy03 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This is what I'm getting at. I recognize there are more detailed measures, but they also never seem to inform the public discourse.

Not to come off as too cynical but I've increasingly come to the conclusion that the public discourse stays generally at a very shallow level that basic research for 30 minutes quickly moves you beyond. On one hand I find that appalling and poisonous for a democracy. On the other hand, imagine everyone having to spend 30+ minutes on every important topic. It quickly gets out of hand. One could argue that the media sh…

Sortition would help a little but at the end of the day this is why democracy just doesn't work in practice.

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

#29

Post by toomuchtodo »

genter wrote: post #17
toomuchtodo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Content management system guid I presume, versus a title slug that can drift during editing and publishing. Archive.today link added for the cautious.

Yeah, but WTF is bluematrix.com? If I see a bank name as a subdomain of a domain I don't recognize, alarm bells go off.

Research portal SaaS for financial services firms. Missed opportunity to use a `research.` subdomain CNAME.

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

#30

Post by thayne »

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.

Not necessarily. If most of the difference in pay goes to shareholders and/or executives, then the GDP per capita doesn't change. This could be because technology increases productivity, but in a way that increases wealth inequality, and results not only in greater wealth for the already wealthy, but less wealth for workers who are no longer needed.

Post reply on HN