December Nonfarm Payrolls: +155K vs. consensus +150K, 161K previous (revised from...

This news story has 18 comments:

Register or Login to rate comments »

WMARKW Comments (8563)
 
Still just barely absorbing population growth into workforce.
4 Jan, 09:20 AM Reply Like

Macro Investor Comments (5770)
 
Mark, Would you say the same if unemployment went from 0% to 0%?
4 Jan, 10:01 AM Reply Like

WMARKW Comments (8563)
 
Don't understand your question? Please help me. If we are not absorbing new population growth - we are building a backlog of unemployed who aren't participating as fully as possible in both the economy as well as the tax system. We are underachieving.
4 Jan, 01:26 PM Reply Like

Macro Investor Comments (5770)
 
My question is simple. Let's say the unemployment rate went from 0% to 0%. Of course, it can't fall from below 0%. Would you then look at the unchanged unemployment rate and say that we are not absorbing new entrants? Of course not. Then if the unemployment rate goes from 7.8% to 7.8%, why does that suddenly indicates to you that we are not absorbing new entrants? It simply means that the economy created just enough jobs to absorb the new entrants, as it would do for the 0% to 0% case.
4 Jan, 01:32 PM Reply Like

WMARKW Comments (8563)
 
Macro - you can think a little better than that. You postulate unemployment rate changes as though they have something to do with EMPLOYMENT. In some cases they do and in some cases they don't. If "unemployment" were 0%, that doesn't mean that we necessarily have to be creating jobs. The fact of the matter is this - while unemployment rates have gone down over the past 4 years, employment as measured by non-institutional work force has been essentially unchanged. Of course there are reasons for this:

1. People fall off the unemployment rolls when they become disqualified.
2. The old farts are retiring

So, the real question you should have responded with is this:

Are the "old farts" retiring at a pace that is faster than population growth is adding new people to the job force?
4 Jan, 04:52 PM Reply Like

Macro Investor Comments (5770)
 
I do not need to do anything Mark. You are the one who suggested that the unemployment rate somehow shows that not enough jobs are being created to absorb the new entrants. I just explained to you that ceteris paribus the unemployment numbers doesn't show that.

That's all really.
4 Jan, 06:26 PM Reply Like

WMARKW Comments (8563)
 
Not really, the payroll report first talks about new jobs, then about unemployment rate. My first comment was about 155k new jobs - you were the one who brought up unemployment rate.
4 Jan, 06:46 PM Reply Like

Macro Investor Comments (5770)
 
Oh, I see. So 155k new jobs is not absorbing new population growth? The unemployment rate would go up then, wouldn't it?
4 Jan, 06:52 PM Reply Like

Tricky Comments (1266)
 
His original post said "barely absorbing population growth".

Which is why the unemployment rate didn't budge.
4 Jan, 09:10 PM Reply Like

Macro Investor Comments (5770)
 
But then he said:

" If we are not absorbing new population growth - we are building a backlog of unemployed who aren't participating as fully as possible in both the economy as well as the tax system. We are underachieving. "

I am just trying to educate him on how unemployment work.
4 Jan, 10:15 PM Reply Like

WMARKW Comments (8563)
 
Thanks for your attempts. Are your serious? How do you get unemployment? Do you get it by offering yourself for hire in the workplace? If you graduate from high school or college and do not find a job, do they then give you unemployment? First you answer those questions and then consider the question about absorbing new population growth and you'll see that unemployment is a measurment of the change in the workforce that "qualifies" for unemployment via filings. It has nothing to do with population, population growth, the size of the workforce, or the number of people leaving the workforce due to retirement.
7 Jan, 03:18 PM Reply Like

Macro Investor Comments (5770)
 
Mark, I recommend you do a little bit of research on how the Labor Department conducts its surveys when determining unemployment. It has nothing to do with people collecting unemployment.
7 Jan, 06:10 PM Reply Like

WMARKW Comments (8563)
 
"6. Is the count of unemployed persons limited to just those people receiving unemployment insurance benefits?

No; the estimate of unemployment is based on a monthly sample survey of households. All persons who are without jobs and are actively seeking and available to work are included among the unemployed."

Let's see. Isn't that essentially the same criteria used to pay a person "unemployment", unless they have exceeded the maximum term of available unemployment.

And you still miss the point of the initial question. Are the old farts retiring faster than new population growth. If so, then the workforce can remain stable or actually decline.
7 Jan, 06:22 PM Reply Like

Macro Investor Comments (5770)
 
Mark, No, it is not essentially the same. Stop spinning and admit that you were wrong. Sheesh!

If that's the point of the original question, then surely you have some data that proves that retirement is outpacing new entrants? Show it.
7 Jan, 07:46 PM Reply Like

june1234 Comments (996)
 
Yest. the labor dept reported 370,000 people lost their jobs last week x 4 weeks = 1.48 million lost jobs for Dec . Subtract the 155,000 jobs , grab pocket calculator. I preferred the USA Today headline myself: Economy ends the year with 155,000 more jobs.
4 Jan, 09:42 AM Reply Like

Tatertot Comments (136)
 
That's a completely wrong metric to use. The jobs report is net jobs gained. If we considered the 1.48 million jobs over the last month being lost, then we had (1.48 million + 155,000) jobs being gained. If you don't believe me, look at the history of jobs reports and jobless claims. You'll find that if the new jobs added weren't net jobs, only nominal jobs added, then we'd probably be at something like 0% employment.
4 Jan, 11:09 AM Reply Like

WMARKW Comments (8563)
 
Why not just look at the non-institutional labor force and see how those numbers have not changed in the last 4 years.
4 Jan, 01:28 PM Reply Like

mickmars Comments (1118)
 
58.6% of civilian population is now employed. A tick down from 58.7% last month. We've stabilized at "blah".

http://bit.ly/uosUSn
4 Jan, 12:00 PM Reply Like