Oooooh, look at that: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/0...d-not-drop-out-of-the-labor-force-last-month/ On that note, you have yerself a nice w/e, sire... Have a chilled Chinese alcoholic beverage!
Eh, I'm middle aged, been married a quarter century, and the weather's too cold to do anything outside. Winter's when I do all the research stuff on the weekends, 'cuz there's nothing else to do. Anyway, this won't take long. From what I see your headline's already been thoroughly trashed. The rest is going to be easy.
"Actual jobs, not seasonally adjusted, are down 2.9 million over the past two months. It is only after seasonal adjustments â made at the sole discretion of the Bureau of Labor Statistics economists â that 2.9 million fewer jobs gets translated into 446,000 new seasonally adjusted jobs." A 3.3 million "adjustment" solely at the discretion of the BLS? And this from the agency that just admitted it was underestimating the so very critical labor participation rate over the past year? - Charles Biderman. Don't worry, I already know that you will call the source a "loon" or a "kook" and that the BLS is the most "honest organization around". (everyone take note of how many times he'll reply with "stupid" and "conspiracy".)
if its B.S.,it will take the public the weekend to figure out and by the end of friday they (whoever wishes to create bogus data,US gov agncies/banks)used the data to move the mrkt higher which is apparently what they wanted..pissing match data not important
(Throwing today's report aside)...what you suggest is exactly how it's been done for years. Data is always revised at some later date..all of those "seasonal adjustments, birth/death cycle" stuff gets stripped out and can then be used as a new benchmark to create another "upside surprise" at a later date. Of course who could forget the latter part of the Clinton years when the reports were literally released sometimes a day early "computer glitch", etc, etc... It's an incredibly dirty business and the tentacles of the politico's are all over this stuff, regardless of what some loser troll like Tinfoil has to say on the matter.
Sorry, but I just can't stop beating this particular dead horse... Here's CalculatedRisk: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/02/employment-not-in-labor-force-actually.html I am somewhat gratified to see that there are respected people out there who seem to share my opinion of HeroZedge.
Respected, heh. You already mentioned both Barry and CR. I have a little respect for CR, but I've lost all my respect for Barry long ago. He's a shill. And for every article that they have both quoted ZH, I can show two that ZH put them in their place. Who is to say who is right when? And since I have read both your articles, here is another one for you: NFP in relation to tax withholding. Hopefully you'll take the time to listen and then offer some other blog to refute it. He makes some really good points - which of course you will dismiss to conspiracy, but have a listen even so. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bCA8tR99ORA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Oh, come on, denner... Is ZH the only thing you read? Do you treat everything posted by ZH as gospel? The above is beyond silly.
That wasn't ZH. That was Trimtabs - who has provided an enormous amount of relevant information and has been on Bloomberg, CNBC and a host of other shows, just as your revered Barry Ritholtz has. Here's another one. http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2012/02/non-farm-payrolls-report-air-brushing.html See, I can post blogs too!
I have heard of Biderman. He's the guy who was claiming at one point that the Fed PPT was holding the stock mkt up, isn't he? And if you think for a moment that he's the only guy out there collecting high-frequency tax withholdings data, you're sorely mistaken. If you'd like me to locate some charts, I will do so. As to his points, I can respond, but this is getting rather tedious, don't you think? I am not really even sure what the point of this discussion might be. I have no disagreement with you about the various more general points. My main beef was with ZH spouting its usual sensationalist drivel and people blatantly talking their book when interpreting today's number. But at least people on this thread are in good company. Apparently, Bill Gross's tweets were very much in the same vein (or so I am told).