Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier

barrons.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 514 posts

Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier

#391

Post by riazrizvi »

RC_ITR wrote: post #359
riazrizvi wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When ppl want job numbers they want a reliable proxy for the state of the economy. Fixing it on changes to payroll-based social security payments would be far better than what we have now, if timely.

Sure, that's personal income and can be found here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PINCOME

I only see a stat that reports the same number for full employment vs one person who fired them all and took their incomes. Is there a way to disaggregate to get some proxy for employment like we are talking about?

Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier

#392

Post by jshen »

lovich wrote: post #385
noitpmeder wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point I think the ball is in _your_ court to start suggesting reasonable cofactors.

He’s not going to if he’s already done this “actually you’re wrong but I won’t tell you why” comment in defense of this admin multiple times. God at least back in the day partisan hacks tried to hide it a little bit

I'm as anti-trump as anyone. He's doing tremendous harm to our economy and our society. Your anger is making you see things that aren't there. All I did was question the assumption that our economic problems are ENTIRELY the result of bad policy. Some how you jumped to some very wrong conclusions based on that tiny shred of information which wasn't even about Trump.

Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier

#393

Post by tzs »

riazrizvi wrote: post #308
tzs wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They survey businesses because the Social Security database has too much lag and does not contain enough detail. The lag is because it is based on employer submissions that are quarterly or annual.

Does that pass the basic common sense smell test? Everyone can see on their paycheck the amount, that is paid 30 days after any work day in the worst case. These payments are sent to a single federal bank account, and data-wise are combined with Social Security ID, sending bank id, date. It’s a bank, there’s a database. We are talking at most about 200mm records, a raspberry pi can process that query in minutes. If w…

The payments are deposited monthly or semiweekly (for employers with large payroll) but that's a lump sum. If you are looking at that from the government side all you can tell is whether total payroll has gone up or down. That won't tell if any change is due to a change in number of employees or a change in pay rates or some combination of that.

It isn't until the employer files their quarterly Form 941 that you'd see employment numbers. Form 941 includes the number of employees and total wages and withholding.

It isn't until the annual W-2 filings that you would see a breakdown that includes number of employees and the individual pay.

Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier

#394

Post by jmull »

tzs wrote: post #242
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #214

Given that Trump recently fired his head of labor statistics, because he didn't like what was being reported, I'd take this with a grain of salt. Presumably whatever numbers are now being released are whatever "alternate facts" he wants to put out. There could be various reasons Trump wants to report bad numbers, such as pressuring the Fed to lower rates, or to establish a horrible baseline from which he can then rep…

> Given that Trump recently fired his head of labor statistics, because he didn't like what was being reported, I'd take this with a grain of salt. Presumably whatever numbers are now being released are whatever "alternate facts" he wants to put out. That may someday be the case, but is is not yet. Trump fired the head, but the analysis and reports are still being produced by the professional career statisticians tha…

> still being produced by the professional career statisticians that have long worked there

...who all know that if they want to remain employed they better produce reports The administration likes.

I doubt they like it, but probably few of the rank and file can afford to take a stand.

Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier

#395

Post by dpkirchner »

dh2022 wrote: post #304
dpkirchner wrote: post #34

How does this compare with the ADP figures for the same time period?

I do not think ADP goes back and adjusts the numbers from its previous reports. I think this is because ADP does not use sampling - ADP uses the actual data from the private companies for which it provides payroll services. With this data is pretty clear, among many other things, how many people were employed at this particular company in this particular geography at this particular time. ADP then aggregates all of t…

Right -- I guess I'm wondering if ADP figures were lower than BLS figures by a proportionally significant margin (enough to possibly confirm these new values). I haven't been able to find the figures myself.

Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier

#397

Post by stock_toaster »

Hikikomori wrote: post #198
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> on the US tariffs thing, congress can put Trump back in his box and revert to normalcy any time it wants to We’ve already lost export market share. China, Russia and India have already begun building a trade bloc. FDI has already been trashed. We’re already in for a world of hurt. And personally, I’m eager to ensure it lands disproportionately on his voters and donors.

Pretty sure America is going to keep shooting itself in its foot in confusion.

Well... We do have a lot of guns over here! /s

Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier

#398

Post by dgfitz »

peterfirefly wrote: post #283
ta1243 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a new face can reverse policy on a dime, then that reversal can be reversed a couple of years later. It's amazing how few people seem to understand this. Countries are oil tankers, they take years to turn even a little - and that's a good thing. In 2000 the world broadly knew what was going to happen, Gore and BushII would implement pretty much the same policies. Same thing in 2008 when it was McCain and Obama. Su…

> The US does not elect a monarch. It is a constitutional monarchy with an elected, time-limited king. Monarchies generally have (and had) lots of checks on the king's power. Not necessarily the kinds of checks we would like, of course. The rights of the nobility were well-protected, the rights of landless commoners were not.

Somehow you’re wrong somewhere between two and 3 times in one sentence.

> It is a constitutional monarchy with an elected, time-limited king.

> Constitutional monarchy, also known as limited monarchy, parliamentary monarchy or democratic monarchy, is a form of monarchy in which the monarch exercises their authority in accordance with a constitution and is not alone in making decisions.[1][2][3] Constitutional monarchies differ from absolute monarchies (in which a monarch is the only decision-maker) in that they are bound to exercise powers and authorities within limits prescribed by an established legal framework. A constitutional monarch in a parliamentary democracy is a hereditary symbolic head of state (who may be an emperor, king or queen, prince or grand duke) who mainly performs representative and civic roles but does not exercise executive or policy-making power.[4]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy

Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier

#399

Post by bluGill »

CursedSilicon wrote: post #307
nradov wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? There is no practical limit to human innovation and productivity growth.

As the saying goes. You can't have infinite growth on a finite planet

Let me introduction you to asymptotes.

Re: U.S. added 911k fewer jobs in year through March than reported earlier

#400

Post by overfeed »

mbfg wrote: post #257
jghn wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't worry. Congress will take back this power as soon as a Dem is in office.

Will there be another election?

"Well, Doctor [Ben Franklin], what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"

"A republic, if you can keep it"

The question I put to every individual American is: can you?

Post reply on HN