Financial News

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

I think I get it now. From his original post:

 

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.

 

I don't have the raw, unadjusted data to compare to, but it does specifically say that initial estimates for government jobs were negative for those two months.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think I get it now. From his original post:

 

 

 

I don't have the raw, unadjusted data to compare to, but it does specifically say that initial estimates for government jobs were negative for those two months.

 

OK, now that I saw this:

 

The government’s initial estimates had shown government job losses for July and August.

 

The number makes much more sense. I agree. If they were negative before, the net change was in fact more than 63k. SS2K5 was right - I didn't see that phrase before. That's what I had been looking for, what it had been previously. I must have missed it earlier.

 

[StrangeSox]

OK, now that I saw this:

 

 

 

The number makes much more sense. I agree. If they were negative before, the net change was in fact more than 63k. SS2K5 was right - I didn't see that phrase before. That's what I had been looking for, what it had been previously. I must have missed it earlier.

 

That phrase isn't actually in the article he linked, but it is in this AP story:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=162353277

[StrangeSox]

 

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/02/pdf/c1.pdf

 

what that graph is showing is the forecasted slowdown underestimate versus the amount of austerity for a give country. The more austerity was enacted, the more the predictions underestimated the impact on productivity.

Edited October 11, 2012 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

some more commentary on that IMF report:

 

http://notthetreasuryview.blogspot.co.uk/2...-in-uk-imf.html

 

Back in July, the Fund said that fiscal consolidation had knocked about 2.5% off UK economic growth. This estimate was based on an assumption that the "fiscal multiplier" - the reduction in GDP growth resulting from a reduction in the government's structural budget deficit - was about 0.5. This estimate was quite similar to that coming out of macroeconomic models like ours at NIESR. It was somewhat larger than the impact estimated by the Office of Budget Responsibility. But it was much smaller that the impacts that many of the most credible macroeconomists - Brad Delong and Paul Krugman in the United States, Martin Wolf and Simon Wren-Lewis here - thought likely. [see Krugman here, for example]. It was also significantly smaller than Dawn Holland here at NIESR and colleagues at LSE suggest in the analysis here.

 

Now, in a commendable display of self-criticism, the Fund has gone back and reanalysed the forecasts that it made (as well as those made by the OECD and EU). Its conclusion:

 

"In line with these assumptions, earlier analysis by the IMF staff suggests that, on average, fiscal multipliers were near 0.5 in advanced economies during the three decades leading up to 2009. If the multipliers underlying the growth forecasts were about 0.5, as this informal evidence suggests, our results indicate that multipliers have actually been in the 0.9 to 1.7 range since the Great Recession. This finding is consistent with research suggesting that in today’s environment of substantial economic slack, monetary policy constrained by the zero lower bound, and synchronized fiscal adjustment across numerous economies, multipliers may be well above 1"

[StrangeSox]

More from the IMF:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/09/berg.htm

Do societies inevitably face an invidious choice between efficient production and equitable wealth and income distribution? Are social justice and social product at war with one another?

 

In a word, no.

 

In recent work (Berg, Ostry, and Zettelmeyer, 2011; and Berg and Ostry, 2011), we discovered that when growth is looked at over the long term, the trade-off between efficiency and equality may not exist. In fact equality appears to be an important ingredient in promoting and sustaining growth. The difference between countries that can sustain rapid growth for many years or even decades and the many others that see growth spurts fade quickly may be the level of inequality. Countries may find that improving equality may also improve efficiency, understood as more sustainable long-run growth.

[mr_genius]

Chrysler taking the Obama bailout bucks and moving to China?

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/jeep-an-obam...03#.UIniz4Z0iou

 

Jeep, the rugged brand President Obama once said symbolized American freedom, is considering giving up on the United States and shifting production to China.

Edited October 26, 2012 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

171k jobs added in October, beating everyone's expectations. 86k upward revision for August and September. UE goes up to 7.9 from 7.8 due to large numbers of people going back to looking for work.

 

That's about as good as the news can get right now on the jobs market. Still not fantastic, but good progress.

 

But all of this recent momentum in jobs, and in the housing market, is going to go down the tubes if we don't avoid the fiscal cliff.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Chrysler taking the Obama bailout bucks and moving to China?

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/jeep-an-obam...03#.UIniz4Z0iou

This of course turns out to be 100% false. They are building in China FOR China and SE Asian markets, because they are doing well. No jobs being moved.

 

[StrangeSox]

171k jobs added in October, beating everyone's expectations. 86k upward revision for August and September. UE goes up to 7.9 from 7.8 due to large numbers of people going back to looking for work.

 

That's about as good as the news can get right now on the jobs market. Still not fantastic, but good progress.

 

But all of this recent momentum in jobs, and in the housing market, is going to go down the tubes if we don't avoid the fiscal cliff.

 

Oh of course, them chicago boys cookin' the books again!

[southsider2k5]

Oh of course, them chicago boys cookin' the books again!

 

That is pretty funny now after the September numbers were revised down by about half.

[StrangeSox]

That is pretty funny now after the September numbers were revised down by about half.

 

No, it still remains paranoid delusions.

[StrangeSox]

Also the fiscal cliff is more of a gradual slope. There is time to work out solutions even after the date the sequestration kicks in, the Bush tax cuts expire and the temporary payroll tax cuts go away.

[bmags]

That is pretty funny now after the September numbers were revised down by about half.

 

What september numbers?

[southsider2k5]

What september numbers?

 

Revised from 162,000 to 88,200

[StrangeSox]

Revised from 162,000 to 88,200

 

link?

http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/blog/mo...employment.html

Jobs data released Friday morning by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics showed the nation's unemployment rate rose to 7.9 percent in October with the addition of 171,000 jobs in the month.

The national rate was 7.8 percent in September and 8.1 percent in August. An initially reported 114,000 jobs were added in September but that number was revised Friday morning to 148,000.

 

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012...ment-edition-2/

There’s lots of good news in today’s employment report: payrolls rose substantially in October, and the already-great numbers for August and September were revised upwards to boot. Even the uptick in the unemployment rate, from 7.8% to 7.9%, was actually positive in many ways. Americans are back looking for work, which bodes well for the next few months.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2012 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

link?

http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/blog/mo...employment.html

 

 

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012...ment-edition-2/

 

 

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49620569/New_ADP_Co...n_for_September

 

ADP's new calculations put the monthly job creation at just 88,200, down from the 162,000 the firm originally reported earlier this month.

[StrangeSox]

ADP =/= BLS, and Welch's and the rest of the right's paranoid rants were about the BLS numbers.

 

edit: wasn't the ADP change due to a change in their methodology?

Edited November 2, 2012 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49620569/New_ADP_Co...n_for_September

That's the ADP report, not the government report. You are comparing apples to oranges, not to mention that ADP's oranges are typically all over the map and not looked at in a serious way like the government numbers are.

 

[bmags]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49620569/New_ADP_Co...n_for_September

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-575...st-job-numbers/

 

This article really gives you a lot of confidence that the ADP revisions should trump the BLS...

 

 

....

 

.........

[StrangeSox]

Several graphs showing the jobs/employment situation in the US

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/11/...71000-jobs.html

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I thought this was an important point on the employment numbers:

 

Derek Thompson

For months, it looked like the unemployment rate was falling inexplicably fast. It turns out we were counting jobs added too slowly. ... Where is this new-look recovery coming from? It's coming from the beginning of a real housing recovery and the end of government austerity. In 2010 and 2011, the economy lost 477,000 public sector jobs. This year, we've added 20,000. That's made a huge difference.

[NorthSideSox72]

Also the fiscal cliff is more of a gradual slope. There is time to work out solutions even after the date the sequestration kicks in, the Bush tax cuts expire and the temporary payroll tax cuts go away.

If you are talking short term, the actual effect can be small, yes. However, what you are losing sight of here is that corporations will start making difficult decisions as the deadline approaches, if action isn't taken, because they need time for effect and they can't wait for the dithering to end. That causes job losses, and markets tank.

 

After the election, no matter who is elected, Congress and Obama need to get to work on this before ANYTHING else, and work at it full tilt until it is taken care of. Lots else to do, but it can all wait behind this.

 

[jasonxctf]

I cant believe that I started a topic that 3+ years later is still going.

 

I'm so proud of myself.

[bmags]

I believe this is the right thread:

 

I encourage Chicagoans to please email the CAPB and request they strike down the new regulations aimed at Ubers black car service. It would make illegal their demand pricing and rate system and, according to uber, remove them from Chicago.

 

The fact that customers who download the app, agree to the TOS, and are ordering f***ing black limos need protection seems like this is a no-brainer overreach by the city govt. Uber's black car service has been helpful when I was in crazy areas, but more realistically their taxi hailing app is best I"ve found and I don't want to lose it from the city.