bmags Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 5, 2012 -> 09:04 PM) So pretty much all of the job additions for July and August were governmental jobs. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/us-...b71a_story.html That's excellent news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Yeah, about time we stop cutting our own legs out from under us by laying of thousands of public sector employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 5, 2012 -> 03:04 PM) So pretty much all of the job additions for July and August were governmental jobs. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/us-...b71a_story.html Of course. Trickle down government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 5, 2012 -> 02:47 PM) what's the relevance of witesoxfan's quote? lol...no idea how that got there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 5, 2012 -> 03:20 PM) That's excellent news. I found it most entertaining that apparently the government didn't know about the 63,000 people it hired for two months or so. That and the whole hiring right before the elections to make the numbers look good, thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 5, 2012 -> 03:04 PM) So pretty much all of the job additions for July and August were governmental jobs. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/us-...b71a_story.html Where are you getting "pretty much all?" It looks like a small (relative to the idea of "most") portion based on those quotes to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 5, 2012 -> 03:37 PM) Where are you getting "pretty much all?" It looks like a small (relative to the idea of "most") portion based on those quotes to me 63,000 of 83,000 new jobs added were governmental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) A separate government survey of companies and government agencies showed they added 114,000 jobs in September. And it turns out that 86,000 more jobs were added in July and August than the government had initially estimated. Is this not an aggregate number of "companies" and "government agencies?" It also shows that federal, state and local governments added 10,000 jobs in September and a revised 63,000 jobs combined in July and August. The government’s initial estimates had shown government job losses for July and August So the government hiring 73,000 in the past three months = most? I'm willing to have read these wrong, I just don't see it It says we averaged 146,000 jobs created PER MONTH over the past three months....meaning 73,000/438,000 over the past three months are government jobs....? Edited October 5, 2012 by Jake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Regardless, it would be good news. If the private sector gains of the past 2 years had not been offset by government losses we would be in much better shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 5, 2012 -> 09:39 PM) A separate government survey of companies and government agencies showed they added 114,000 jobs in September. And it turns out that 86,000 more jobs were added in July and August than the government had initially estimated. Is this not an aggregate number of "companies" and "government agencies?" It also shows that federal, state and local governments added 10,000 jobs in September and a revised 63,000 jobs combined in July and August. The government’s initial estimates had shown government job losses for July and August So the government hiring 73,000 in the past three months = most? I'm willing to have read these wrong, I just don't see it It says we averaged 146,000 jobs created PER MONTH over the past three months....meaning 73,000/438,000 over the past three months are government jobs....? He was talking about the august and july revisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 5, 2012 -> 03:44 PM) He was talking about the august and july revisions. Gotcha! I was conflating "job additions" with "job growth" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 143k/mo is AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMGZZZZZZZZZZZ DORRRRRRRRRRIUULSSSS! OBAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAA@@!@@$ f***ing sheeple. A real recovery would have 5X that much per month, but alas, you're all brainwashed into thinking that this is WONDERFUL - right before the election. If I can predict what was going to happen a year ago, and I'm supposed to be the stupid one, WTF does that make you all? Brainwashed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 5, 2012 -> 09:16 PM) 143k/mo is AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMGZZZZZZZZZZZ DORRRRRRRRRRIUULSSSS! OBAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAA@@!@@$ f***ing sheeple. A real recovery would have 5X that much per month, but alas, you're all brainwashed into thinking that this is WONDERFUL - right before the election. If I can predict what was going to happen a year ago, and I'm supposed to be the stupid one, WTF does that make you all? Brainwashed. you're a crazy person. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 5, 2012 -> 03:39 PM) A separate government survey of companies and government agencies showed they added 114,000 jobs in September. And it turns out that 86,000 more jobs were added in July and August than the government had initially estimated. Is this not an aggregate number of "companies" and "government agencies?" It also shows that federal, state and local governments added 10,000 jobs in September and a revised 63,000 jobs combined in July and August. The government’s initial estimates had shown government job losses for July and August So the government hiring 73,000 in the past three months = most? I'm willing to have read these wrong, I just don't see it It says we averaged 146,000 jobs created PER MONTH over the past three months....meaning 73,000/438,000 over the past three months are government jobs....? July and August were revised 86000 higher. Government jobs were revised to 63000 higher. Re-read the original statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 5, 2012 -> 11:04 PM) July and August were revised 86000 higher. Government jobs were revised to 63000 higher. Re-read the original statement. I got it, my fault Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 6, 2012 -> 02:16 AM) 143k/mo is AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMGZZZZZZZZZZZ DORRRRRRRRRRIUULSSSS! OBAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAA@@!@@$ f***ing sheeple. A real recovery would have 5X that much per month, but alas, you're all brainwashed into thinking that this is WONDERFUL - right before the election. If I can predict what was going to happen a year ago, and I'm supposed to be the stupid one, WTF does that make you all? Brainwashed. oh hey it's kapkometbot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 5, 2012 -> 03:31 PM) I found it most entertaining that apparently the government didn't know about the 63,000 people it hired for two months or so. That and the whole hiring right before the elections to make the numbers look good, thing. QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 5, 2012 -> 03:37 PM) Where are you getting "pretty much all?" It looks like a small (relative to the idea of "most") portion based on those quotes to me QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 5, 2012 -> 11:04 PM) July and August were revised 86000 higher. Government jobs were revised to 63000 higher. Re-read the original statement. I think you are still misunderstanding the math here. The govt number was revised UP TO 63000. So unless it was REVISED UP FROM Zero, which is not what the article says. So no, unless the previous number was zero, you are not correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 It doesn't make SS2k5's point interesting. It's not like "Government job" is one entity. These would be hundreds of state local and federal agencies reporting. The monthly data's first number is rarely accurate. It's a lot of data to put together in one week, so they do revisions. They didn't start doing this in September 2012. But also, July Aug woudl feature a lot of seasonal teacher hiring. If you look at the past year of data it's clear the seasonal adjustments aren't amazingly accurate. But nonetheless, for the first time in 2 years the public sector hadn't negated some of the private gains. That's a good thing for the recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Yeah I don't get what's supposed to be "entertaining" about "the government" not knowing about every single public-sector employee in the country instantaneously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 9, 2012 -> 02:30 PM) I think you are still misunderstanding the math here. The govt number was revised UP TO 63000. So unless it was REVISED UP FROM Zero, which is not what the article says. So no, unless the previous number was zero, you are not correct. BLS data agrees with me. Page 5 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 01:05 PM) BLS data agrees with me. Page 5 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf July-18 August-45 September-10 That's 63M, but what were those numbers revised from? Isn't that what you need to look at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 01:43 PM) July-18 August-45 September-10 That's 63M, but what were those numbers revised from? Isn't that what you need to look at? Its not revised data. It is raw data, that has been revised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I think I'm still missing it. There's 63M government jobs in July and August, but there's 163+97 private jobs in those same months. 63M doesn't represent a majority of the jobs added in those months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 01:45 PM) Its not revised data. It is raw data, that has been revised. Right. That now shows 63k added. What did it say BEFORE the revisions? If it said zero, then you'd be right that of the 86k REVISED ADDITIONS, 63k were government jobs. If it showed, say, 60k before, then only 3k of the 86k bump was government. You are confusing your numbers here. The only way you are right, is if that number was zero before the revisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 10, 2012 -> 02:08 PM) Right. That now shows 63k added. What did it say BEFORE the revisions? If it said zero, then you'd be right that of the 86k REVISED ADDITIONS, 63k were government jobs. If it showed, say, 60k before, then only 3k of the 86k bump was government. You are confusing your numbers here. The only way you are right, is if that number was zero before the revisions. That is the number. 63k added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts