Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by THE-BEAKER, Feb 3, 2012.

  1. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    Once again, the BLS's U3 stat is conveniently managed to maintain the "illusion" that unemployment is much better than it actually is. It's not a coincidence that the media picks up on the U3 and only discusses it. I apologize, but I just don't know how to make that any clearer.

    You know perfectly well the difference between the main stream media and the blogosphere. If you "don't get it" then there isn't anything I can do to assist you in this.

    So the revisions in those late reporting states always go up, then? Or the BLS doesn't include them at all when it reports the first time? That would certainly help the number print each and every time. I have an idea, let's delay half of the states, and we'll kill the number each time! Then next week when there's a 50% revision, no one will notice. It's old news.

    If you would like, I shall call you such. But there are clearly two sides to the coin - without calling one right and the other wrong. There are those that believe that what the Fed is doing, and in government statistics, and there are those that believe the Fed is harming the country (and the world) and the statistics are not to be trusted. If that is a grand conspiracy, as you claim, then who am I to argue. I will go and get my foil hat at once.
     
    #31     Feb 3, 2012
  2. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    Ah, here come the personal insults. You've run out of ammo, have you?

    The best defense you have is that the BLS is an extremely honest organization, eh? And you've got this from a friend of a friend...or...wait, a relative works there? Your neighbor?

    I'm not making an economical argument, which is why I said stop with the ISM. I'm focusing solely on the BLS's employment report, which I claim as misleading. If you are unwilling (or unable) to address my comments in that topic, meet me in the P+R forum and you and I can throw mud and feces properly.
     
    #32     Feb 3, 2012
  3. More supporting evidence from the markets:



    But you can ignore it, 'cause you know, it's changing the subject.
     
    #33     Feb 3, 2012
  4. I don't have time to waste on yet another conspiracy stupe. Take it to someone who cares about your opinion. I can't imagine who would, but whatever. The world is full of suckers.
    As for running out of ammo, this weekend I'll give this report the analysis it requires, and shred your argument properly. There's quite a bit more in that report, stuff people with real money look for to see if what's being reported is real. It's all there.
     
    #34     Feb 3, 2012
  5. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    I'll ignore it because it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion here, which, for your short attention span, is the misleading statistics in the BLS numbers.
     
    #35     Feb 3, 2012
  6. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    So you "don't have time to waste on yet another conspiracy "stupe" (whatever the hell that word is). But you'll have time this weekend. Sorry to hear you have such a boring weekend ahead. But I shall wait with baited breath.
     
    #36     Feb 3, 2012
  7. You don't have to apologize. I am not defending the media. I just don't see how it's the fault of the BLS or anyone who actually looks at the details that people and the media fixate on a particular number, while a whole plethora of other numbers are reported. Surely, given that all this data is released and widely available (and reported ad nauseam by the likes of HZ), the BLS is doing a really sh1t job of "managing" the data to maintain the "illusion". What sort of an "illusion" is it when journalists can see right through it?
    I do know the difference, but what does that have to do with my point? Who's dancing arnd the issue now?
    There is no need for exaggeration. If you read what I said carefully, I am sure you would see my point. Moreover, as you're aware, I'm sure, revisions that we're talking about are on the order of a few thousands and don't affect the 4-week moving average (which is what matters) in a significant manner.
    Call me whatever you like, just don't call me Shirley. And yes, a grand conspiracy it is and tin foil hats 'r us!

    BTW, as if on cue: http://www.businessinsider.com/here...spike-in-people-not-in-the-labor-force-2012-2
     
    #37     Feb 3, 2012
  8. It was a strong report. You gotta be a bit quixotic to make a bear-play based upon the supposition of massaged data. There really isn't a clear trade here as vol will continue to erode into Spring. So I guess the play is slightly short delta and short vol.

    If nothing else it puts a floor under the market until the ECB drops another Tsar Bomba.
     
    #38     Feb 3, 2012
  9. Yep, agreed... In rates, ironically, vol is already so low that the trade might almost to be long vol, in hopes that all sorts of fun stuff will happen (e.g. Fed raising rates early or smth like that). Other than that, it's not entirely clear, given it's already moved a lot. Maybe stuff like blues - golds steepeners in Eurodollars has more juice, but it's a bit problematic here.
     
    #39     Feb 3, 2012
  10. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao



    Ok, MG - you've exhausted me with your death from a thousand cuts. I yield.

    My only point in this entire thread was, is and will continue to be that the BLS's much famed monthly release of Non-Farmed Payrolls is all about a number (the U3) which is the least accurate of the employment situation (since it excludes just about anyone except the generic "unemployed looking for work" category). And for a report that is supposed to be the pinnacle of employment reports, it is the most misleading. Whether that is due to the BLS and their emphasis on it (revising the U3 to it's current state) or the media, or the tooth fairy, is irrelevant.

    Oh, and you're still a Fed apologist!
     
    #40     Feb 3, 2012