3 ms·

Today was NFP day and the newest statistics should have set off bells for anyone reading them. A lot of people are already aware of the difference between the U

Today was NFP day and the newest statistics should have set off bells for anyone reading them. A lot of people are already aware of the difference between the U3 and U6 unemployment rates, but consider this: -11000 jobs were lost in November -there have been net job losses every single month since Jan 08 - the unemployment rate officially fell from 10.2 to 10.0 today. This is kinda like saying a function's value has started growing while its first derivative is still negative. Reeks of bullshit through and through.

cynicalkane 17y ago
Unemployment counts the number of unemployed active job-seekers, not the total number of people without jobs. It says so right in TFA.
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  The loss of jobs could easily have led to parents switching from 'employed' to 'home keeper'. I know people who have been fired, and because the cost differences between child care and income are negligible, they're better off being unemployed due to lower taxes.
  - josefresco 17y ago
    "I know people" unfortunately does not support your argument well.
    - mnemonicsloth 17y ago
      "The loss of jobs could easily have led to parents switching..." The point of speculation is that it doesn't require support.
UncleOxidant 17y ago
Good analysis of why the UE rate went down today even though jobs were lost: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/12/if-economy-lost-jobs-why-did.html http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/12/if-economy-lost-jo... Quick summary: Rate was probably overestimated in October and underestimated in November. But read it, it's a very informative article with scatter plots, etc.
teeja 17y ago
It's rather like the fact that the inflation rate has been skillfully manipulated since the 1980s... if you see it mentioned at all any more, which it used to be. But just because you're paying for the statistics doesn't mean you need them, unless you live on Wall St.

cynicalkane 17y ago

Unemployment counts the number of unemployed active job-seekers, not the total number of people without jobs. It says so right in TFA.

electromagnetic 17y ago
The loss of jobs could easily have led to parents switching from 'employed' to 'home keeper'. I know people who have been fired, and because the cost differences between child care and income are negligible, they're better off being unemployed due to lower taxes.
- josefresco 17y ago
  "I know people" unfortunately does not support your argument well.
  - mnemonicsloth 17y ago
    "The loss of jobs could easily have led to parents switching..." The point of speculation is that it doesn't require support.

UncleOxidant 17y ago

Good analysis of why the UE rate went down today even though jobs were lost: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/12/if-economy-lost-jobs-why-did.html http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/12/if-economy-lost-jo... Quick summary: Rate was probably overestimated in October and underestimated in November. But read it, it's a very informative article with scatter plots, etc.

teeja 17y ago

It's rather like the fact that the inflation rate has been skillfully manipulated since the 1980s... if you see it mentioned at all any more, which it used to be. But just because you're paying for the statistics doesn't mean you need them, unless you live on Wall St.