Fuck its silent in here.......

[CT III]

Where to start?
1) this report was anomalous, as any economist will tell you.  The household seasonally adjusted number does not line up with any of the other economic data seen for months now, or any of the other data in the report, really. Labor is a coincident or even lagging indicator, so a pop in the middle of a sea of crappy data should be considered suspect. This news isn't really "decent" but rather "questionable" until it is confirmed by more information.
2) that said, all this talk about the numbers being deliberately manipulated is crap.  These are surveys, which have margins of error (I believe the 90% confidence interval on the U-3 rate is 0.2%, for example). These have noisy distributions.  Eli, i hope you noted my retweet of Matt Yglesias, who noted that accurately measuring employment in our economy is difficult.  Trends are much more important than any one point because they are more likely to be reflective of true conditions.
3) most of the rise in employment on the hh report seems to have come from part-time jobs anyway, not exactly a structural improvement.  In the payroll survey, it was mainly government jobs.
4) after years of horrible labor market conditions, no one should be celebrating until there's been at least a little sustained growth.

One report does not a trend make... Assuming it's reflective of actual market conditions.  Given the awful data tone across the board before this, one who is serious about economic analysis has to at least wonder what future revisions will bring.  I think the Heritage report that Tank so helpfully linked was about right... Up until the implications section that Tank also so effectively (and correctly) ridiculed.

tl;dr this report was bullshit because I'm conservative

That's not what I said at all, but ok.  Sorry I couldn't turn it into a single, erroneous, misleading sound bite.

Butthurt: ACHIEVED

[R-V]

The household seasonally adjusted number does not line up with any of the other economic data seen for months now

The chart on page 2 of this shows a pretty clear upward trend for both the seasonally adjusted household survey and the payroll survey.

[Slaky]

Where to start?
1) this report was anomalous, as any economist will tell you.  The household seasonally adjusted number does not line up with any of the other economic data seen for months now, or any of the other data in the report, really. Labor is a coincident or even lagging indicator, so a pop in the middle of a sea of crappy data should be considered suspect. This news isn't really "decent" but rather "questionable" until it is confirmed by more information.
2) that said, all this talk about the numbers being deliberately manipulated is crap.  These are surveys, which have margins of error (I believe the 90% confidence interval on the U-3 rate is 0.2%, for example). These have noisy distributions.  Eli, i hope you noted my retweet of Matt Yglesias, who noted that accurately measuring employment in our economy is difficult.  Trends are much more important than any one point because they are more likely to be reflective of true conditions.
3) most of the rise in employment on the hh report seems to have come from part-time jobs anyway, not exactly a structural improvement.  In the payroll survey, it was mainly government jobs.
4) after years of horrible labor market conditions, no one should be celebrating until there's been at least a little sustained growth.

One report does not a trend make... Assuming it's reflective of actual market conditions.  Given the awful data tone across the board before this, one who is serious about economic analysis has to at least wonder what future revisions will bring.  I think the Heritage report that Tank so helpfully linked was about right... Up until the implications section that Tank also so effectively (and correctly) ridiculed.

tl;dr this report was bullshit because I'm conservative

That's not what I said at all, but ok.  Sorry I couldn't turn it into a single, erroneous, misleading sound bite.

I'm just lazy and didn't read it.

[Eli]

Eli, i hope you noted my retweet of Matt Yglesias

I did no such thing.

[morpheus]

Where to start?
1) this report was anomalous, as any economist will tell you.  The household seasonally adjusted number does not line up with any of the other economic data seen for months now, or any of the other data in the report, really. Labor is a coincident or even lagging indicator, so a pop in the middle of a sea of crappy data should be considered suspect. This news isn't really "decent" but rather "questionable" until it is confirmed by more information.
2) that said, all this talk about the numbers being deliberately manipulated is crap.  These are surveys, which have margins of error (I believe the 90% confidence interval on the U-3 rate is 0.2%, for example). These have noisy distributions.  Eli, i hope you noted my retweet of Matt Yglesias, who noted that accurately measuring employment in our economy is difficult.  Trends are much more important than any one point because they are more likely to be reflective of true conditions.
3) most of the rise in employment on the hh report seems to have come from part-time jobs anyway, not exactly a structural improvement.  In the payroll survey, it was mainly government jobs.
4) after years of horrible labor market conditions, no one should be celebrating until there's been at least a little sustained growth.

One report does not a trend make... Assuming it's reflective of actual market conditions.  Given the awful data tone across the board before this, one who is serious about economic analysis has to at least wonder what future revisions will bring.  I think the Heritage report that Tank so helpfully linked was about right... Up until the implications section that Tank also so effectively (and correctly) ridiculed.

tl;dr this report was bullshit because I'm conservative

That's not what I said at all, but ok.  Sorry I couldn't turn it into a single, erroneous, misleading sound bite.

I'm just lazy and didn't read it.

That's fair.  

[J. Walter Weatherman]

I think the Heritage report that Tank so helpfully linked was about right... Up until the implications section that Tank also so effectively (and correctly) ridiculed.

[Eli]

Butthurt: ACHIEVED

In inspirational poster form:

[morpheus]

The household seasonally adjusted number does not line up with any of the other economic data seen for months now

The chart on page 2 of this shows a pretty clear upward trend for both the seasonally adjusted household survey and the payroll survey.

Those charts show employment barely keeping up with population growth.  Here's the employment to population ratio for context.



Notice the flatness at an historically low level. Again, an 800k print is not consistent with any of the recent or medium term trends.

[R-V]

an historically

I couldn't concentrate on your post because this made me BLIND WITH RAGE!

[J. Walter Weatherman]

an historically

I couldn't concentrate on your post because this made me BLIND WITH RAGE!

[R-V]

The household seasonally adjusted number does not line up with any of the other economic data seen for months now

The chart on page 2 of this shows a pretty clear upward trend for both the seasonally adjusted household survey and the payroll survey.

Those charts show employment barely keeping up with population growth.  Here's the employment to population ratio for context.



Notice the flatness at an historically low level. Again, an 800k print is not consistent with any of the recent or medium term trends.

Blind rage having dwindled, I'm guessing we probably agree on the following:

- there are still way to many people out of work
- barely enough jobs are being created to keep up with population growth, let alone get the out of work people back to work
- who is President is pretty far down the list of Factors Determining Job Growth
- people who say "LOL PRESIDENT BAD" after shitty jobs reports, and then say "ROFL BLS MAKIN SHIT UP" after not-so-shitty job reports, are asswipes that shouldn't be taken seriously

That's really all I'm saying without getting into answering the question of how to jumpstart job growth.

[Eli]

an historically

I couldn't concentrate on your post because this made me BLIND WITH RAGE!

I'm going to conference with CT about this, but I think we're going to need royalties given how often that thing could be used around here.

[CT III]

an historically

I couldn't concentrate on your post because this made me BLIND WITH RAGE!

I'm going to conference with CT about this, but I think we're going to need royalties given how often that thing could be used around here.

Yeah, we're going to need a good lawyer.  If only I knew where to find one of those.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

an historically

I couldn't concentrate on your post because this made me BLIND WITH RAGE!

I'm going to conference with CT about this, but I think we're going to need royalties given how often that thing could be used around here.

Yeah, we're going to need a good lawyer.  If only I knew where to find one of those.

And a halfway decent accountant.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

I like this...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/paul_ryan_obama_birthers.php

Paul Ryan has figured out a way of letting the birthers down gently.

Like many of his fellow congressmen, Ryan has been bombarded for years with letters from conspiracy theorists who believe President Obama was somehow secretly born in Kenya and so is ineligible to be president. The missives began even before Ryan became one of the president's biggest foes on budget issues and more recently as he joined the GOP ticket alongside MItt Romney.

But unlike some in his party who have been embarrassed by their own clunky and awkward responses to the birthers, Ryan has come up with an easy solution to deal with them.

He simply sends them a copy of the president's birth certificate.