4 ms·

The devil is in the details. The 528k headline number is misleading, unless you consider part-time/seasonal McJobs equivalent to full-time jobs. Household Surv

by lowkey 4y ago

The devil is in the details. The 528k headline number is misleading, unless you consider part-time/seasonal McJobs equivalent to full-time jobs. Household Survey Full Time -71,000 Part Time +384,000 Multiple Jobs +92,000 source: https://twitter.com/RobertLutherFL/status/1555550702084169731 https://twitter.com/RobertLutherFL/status/155555070208416973...

legitster 4y ago
The fed is using the exact same metric to count jobs as they were a year ago, 10 years ago, etc. You can nitpick it all you want but it's a consistent datapoint.
- lowkey 4y ago
  The fact is that full-time permanent jobs declined by 77k. The bulk of new job creation was in part-time, transient positions that for the most part don't pay enough to sustain people - especially with inflation rampant. The numbers look good, as long as you don't look too closely into the numbers - my point stands. Don't you find it curious that the article fails to mention these details? I do.
  - spaceman_2020 4y ago
    Probably why the markets didn’t completely puke on these numbers.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      I would hope investors are doing more research than reading short Washington Post articles.
mint2 4y ago
384+92 is 476. 384 + 92 - 172 is 304. How does that add up to 528 or are apples and oranges being compared?
whatinthenote 4y ago
The source being a tweet from clear right wing nutcase. Not gonna waste my time looking through his tweets to learn that he thinks there are "election fraud" in AZ. I'm not a labor economist and know nothing about job reports. A quick read into the technical notes mentions that there are two separate surveys and the 528k number comes from the second establishment numbers (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm).
- icedistilled 4y ago
  apparently the lesson the french researcher tweeting chorizo and calling it a star to raise awareness of appeal to experts is pretty well needed. Like in this thread, a random person on twitter with numbers and a likely bias is cited presumably just because the tweet happens to what the poster here wants to be true, not because the numbers are well explained.

by lowkey 4y ago

legitster 4y ago

The fed is using the exact same metric to count jobs as they were a year ago, 10 years ago, etc. You can nitpick it all you want but it's a consistent datapoint.

lowkey 4y ago
The fact is that full-time permanent jobs declined by 77k. The bulk of new job creation was in part-time, transient positions that for the most part don't pay enough to sustain people - especially with inflation rampant. The numbers look good, as long as you don't look too closely into the numbers - my point stands. Don't you find it curious that the article fails to mention these details? I do.
- spaceman_2020 4y ago
  Probably why the markets didn’t completely puke on these numbers.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    I would hope investors are doing more research than reading short Washington Post articles.

mint2 4y ago

384+92 is 476. 384 + 92 - 172 is 304. How does that add up to 528 or are apples and oranges being compared?

whatinthenote 4y ago

The source being a tweet from clear right wing nutcase. Not gonna waste my time looking through his tweets to learn that he thinks there are "election fraud" in AZ. I'm not a labor economist and know nothing about job reports. A quick read into the technical notes mentions that there are two separate surveys and the 528k number comes from the second establishment numbers (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.b.htm).

icedistilled 4y ago
apparently the lesson the french researcher tweeting chorizo and calling it a star to raise awareness of appeal to experts is pretty well needed. Like in this thread, a random person on twitter with numbers and a likely bias is cited presumably just because the tweet happens to what the poster here wants to be true, not because the numbers are well explained.