The BLS numbers need to be interpreted, which is different from saying they are grossly misleading, distorted, or anything else of the sort.
MGs point is also rather obvious: the weight of the data is overwhelmingly on the side of an accelerating improvement in the jobs picture. As follows:
1 - Declining jobless claims.
2 - Increasing number of hours worked and...
3 - Increasing number of overtime hours worked.
4 - Upward revisions to the number of jobs added in previous months.
5 - Increased number of industries reporting gains in employment.
6 - Strong increase in private payrolls, stronger than the overall number reported.
In other words, all of the numbers underneath the headline number were strong. To say otherwise is to talk your book, which is pretty obviously short. Or at least that's what you'd like it to be.
On top of that, the ISM report showed an increased backlog in unfilled orders, which is positive for production in the months ahead. There is no evidence anywhere of an economy that is either losing steam or just maintaining a steady state. All of it points to an accelerating gain in production and employment in the coming months.
The market, meantime, has been telegraphing recovery throughout Jan: tech has been strong, the Russell 2000 has been screaming, and bonds had a horrible month. The message from both the jobs numbers and the markets is blindingly obvious.
The BLS numbers need to be interpreted, which is different from saying they are grossly misleading, distorted, or anything else of the sort.
MGs point is also rather obvious: the weight of the data is overwhelmingly on the side of an accelerating improvement in the jobs picture. As follows:
1 - Declining jobless claims.
2 - Increasing number of hours worked and...
3 - Increasing number of overtime hours worked.
4 - Upward revisions to the number of jobs added in previous months.
5 - Increased number of industries reporting gains in employment.
6 - Strong increase in private payrolls, stronger than the overall number reported.
I'm not even going to waste time on your ISM/tech comments. That's not the subject of the debate here, so stop trying to change the topic.
As for the BLS numbers not being misleading, you're smoking some good shit (pass it over). The fact that the BLS can revise it's numbers based on a huge portion of people "giving up" in their look for a new job, means - by definition - that the numbers are misleading. They're supposed to be showing the unemployment figures, and they aren't giving the full picture of unemployment! It's pretty friggen clear I would think. I suppose we can try putting this argument into a pop-up book, but I don't know if the words will be any easier to read.
The fact that the BLS can use multiple methods of counting unemployment, and the media seize just the one (which happens to be the revised number showing the lowest unemployment calculations) means that it's slanted.
Quote from Tsing Tao: You are tap dancing around the issue. The overall issue is that the employment picture is not improving in any way, shape or form like the BLS suggests it is, and therefore the BLS data is grossly misleading at best, and an outright distortion at worst. Instead of speaking to that, you instead say the report was positive, because technically you are correct (and you know it). The numbers the report presents are, indeed, positive.
Huh? I really don't understand the logic here. This report is positive and yet the employment picture is not improving? The BLS data is grossly misleading and yet, if you bother to look at the details the BLS releases, it's all there? I am sorry, but I just don't understand the point you're making.
Quote from Tsing Tao: Because the BLS knows the media will not go to that level of detail, and why "smooth" something when there is no gain in doing it?
The headline number is what gets reported to the sheeple, and the smoothing serves that purpose, the same way each and every single week with almost no exception whatsoever shows weekly jobless numbers being revised up in the previous week. Why is it never revised down? Is that some sort of statistical anomaly?
Huh? Yet again, I don't get it. HZ is media, no? HZ goes into detail normally, right? Why is HZ not reporting on the smoothing that the BLS is engaging in here? Could it be, gasp, because the "smoothing" actually casts into doubt the nice sensationalist headline?
As to the claims, I haven't explored this issue properly, but, as I understand it, main reason for the revisions is some states reporting the number of claims late. Given the current state of the economy, I imagine the result is that revisions are upwards. Glancing at the old 2004-05 numbers, it seems plausible.
Quote from Tsing Tao: I think Denner's point is obvious. You're a known Fed/ECB apologist on these forums, and by extension of that knowledge, he's saying that you'd also align yourself with governmental statistics, institutions and the main stream media. In other words, you're on the same "team" with the same "agenda".
Ah, I see... So, basically, this is a case of one grand super-conspiracy? The MSM, all the govt agencies, bloggers, like Ritholtz and CalculatedRisk, and, finally, yours truly, we're all on the same team, trying to further our nefarious "agenda"? What can I say? Yes, it's true, all true!! You can call me Dr. Evil!
I'm not even going to waste time on your ISM/tech comments. That's not the subject of the debate here, so stop trying to change the topic.
As for the BLS numbers not being misleading, you're smoking some good shit (pass it over). The fact that the BLS can revise it's numbers based on a huge portion of people "giving up" in their look for a new job, means - by definition - that the numbers are misleading. They're supposed to be showing the unemployment figures, and they aren't giving the full picture of unemployment! It's pretty friggen clear I would think. I suppose we can try putting this argument into a pop-up book, but I don't know if the words will be any easier to read.
The fact that the BLS can use multiple methods of counting unemployment, and the media seize just the one (which happens to be the revised number showing the lowest unemployment calculations) means that it's slanted.
The BLS is an extremely honest organization. They ain't the Fed, by a long shot.
And the ISM wasn't brought up to change the subject: it's supporting evidence. As in, if the BLS numbers were made up, the ISM would contradict them. But the ISM doesn't; it's consistent with what the BLS is reporting.
Of course, it does take a small amount of actual logical thought to connect the two. Truly, you're a dunce. I had thought you had at least some intelligence before, but I'm revising that opinion. You're right up there with Grand Supercycle and bwolinsky when it comes to soaring stupidity.
The BLS is an extremely honest organization. They ain't the Fed, by a long shot.
And the ISM wasn't brought up to change the subject: it's supporting evidence. As in, if the BLS numbers were made up, the ISM would contradict them. But the ISM doesn't; it's consistent with what the BLS is reporting.
Of course, it does take a small amount of actual logical thought to connect the two. Truly, you're a dunce. I had thought you had at least some intelligence before, but I'm revising that opinion. You're right up there with Grand Supercycle and bwolinsky when it comes to soaring stupidity.
Ditto for the markets, by the way. You know, the ones you're supposed to be trading & making money on? The whole point of this exercise?
