Seeking Alpha

The reason for the worsening jobs picture, writes Floyd Norris in the NYT, is because everybody...

The reason for the worsening jobs picture, writes Floyd Norris in the NYT, is because everybody looks at seasonally adjusted figures. "But those adjustments most likely overstate reality." Pre-adjustment, the private sector added 800K jobs/month in the last 3 months, while in June, the number of jobs rose by 1.8M Y/Y. Expect a poor July and August, a pick-up in September and an impressive October.
Comments (34)
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (9911) | Send Message
     
    To get a confirmation of declining private sector momentum you need
    both the Bureau of Labor Statistics y-o-y private sector momentum
    going below its 12 month moving average as well as the y-o-y ADP
    private sector momentum going below its 12 mth moving average....that is still not the case. Furthermore as long as the temporary help services and the truck transportation employment components are
    above their 12 month moving averages a recession is not imminent.
    8 Jul 2012, 06:35 AM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (9911) | Send Message
     
    FYI..last year non seasonally adjusted private payrolls increased only
    248,000 jobs from June to October...the last years seasonal factor
    for October was a sizable 1.05 for the household survey...Junes was .967.
    If we cannot muster positive non seasonally private sector job growth from June
    to October that is a recessionary sign.
    8 Jul 2012, 07:24 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13761) | Send Message
     
    Last year's June-October's hiring must be placed in the context of exaggerated fears, first, that the economy would fold after suspension of QE2, and, even more importantly, the accompanying hysteria generated by fear that the U.S. would default on its bond obligations (debt ceiling), and accompanying rating downgrade, which precipitated a near-20% collapse in the markets. Undoubtedly, this affected hiring adversely during the period.

     

    Absent some new theatrics, one should expect the economy, and hiring, to behave better than last year over the same period.
    8 Jul 2012, 07:45 AM Reply Like
  • rhgordon3505
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    first, i don't the that words such as "exagerated" and "hysteria" are anything but overstated and hyperbolic. second, i think that connecting the explanation that fears of a "folding" economy, bond default fears (in actuality, i doubt the "smart money" ever gave much credence to the possibility of a U.S. debt default from not extending the debt ceiling) to the that period's job creation, confuses two major issues: what impacts behavior-riddled investment markets and what "on-the-ground" factors drive employment. i just think don't think that causality can be verified. Third, is one to use events in Europe and globally as the reasons for this year's lackluster job creation? What reasoning shall we use next year? the "debt cliff'? An Obama re-election (if it happens)? the looming extension of the ACA?

     

    Perhaps the reason behind it all is much more simple: (1) increases in productivity have reduced the need to add more full-time workers as the economy endures minimalist GDP growth; (2) that this "step function" happens in all capitalist systems over time;(3) the hiring of more temporary workers, given employers's ability to avoid paying many benefits, including healthcare (whose costs are rising at 18%-20% annually) and, with the affirmation of much of the ACA, will only act as a disincentive for many small employers to hiring permanent workers.

     

    Cause and effect. Cause and effect.
    8 Jul 2012, 09:20 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13761) | Send Message
     
    rhg:

     

    Completely agree with your interpretations of the fundamentals. I was merely commenting about the relative soft patch of last summer, as against other quarters, without any regard to what's happening on the macro level and whether it's good or bad from a historical perspective.

     

    In any case, I am not a believer that changes at the margin in employment have much, if anything, to do with the performance of the economy, which I would contend is driven by the behavior of the vast majority with jobs and money, not those without. In fact, employment is a late-stage contrarian indicator, which, when it really heats up, usually signifies economic tops.
    8 Jul 2012, 10:26 AM Reply Like
  • Bear Bait
    , contributor
    Comments (679) | Send Message
     
    Just another theory. Should it play out, it could make things interesting!
    8 Jul 2012, 07:55 AM Reply Like
  • rhgordon3505
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    ....and, by the way, the jobs picture still sucks here in the Chicago area and many other parts of Illinois as surging State and Local taxes (soon to augmented by surging Federal taxes) are driving many to leave the state and head for Wisconsin and Indiana.
    8 Jul 2012, 09:24 AM Reply Like
  • GaltMachine
    , contributor
    Comments (1154) | Send Message
     
    I don't get these stories, perhaps it is the election year focus. When the news is bad, seasonal factors get blamed. When the news is overly good perhaps because of favorable seasonal factors (or a warmer than average winter) it is ignored and the focus is on the good news.

     

    The point is the seasonal factors do not the cause of the result, they are applied to the result and therefore as long as they are applied consistently, they allow you to compare period to period without bias. Over time fluctuations smooth themselves.

     

    You can look for interpretative clues in the data as Bbro and others do but when it comes to reporting the results just report the results especially since you have no clue whether you are any more correct than anyone else.

     

    It appears the NY Times feels compelled to defend their favored son since this is clearly damaging news.

     

    Quick quote from the Norris story:

     

    "June is the month when the seasonal adjustments call for the largest upward adjustment in private sector jobs, as students find summer work. If there are fewer summer jobs than there used to be, we would expect the June seasonally adjusted numbers to be disappointing. They have been so in each of the last three years.

     

    If that analysis is correct, the job numbers are likely to seem poor for the next two months, but to pick up with the September report on Oct. 5, and then to look impressive in the October report, which will appear on Nov. 2, four days before the election."
    8 Jul 2012, 11:28 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    The statement is crap, Floyd Norris is evidently just another political hack, campaigning for Obama.
    8 Jul 2012, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • SoldHigh
    , contributor
    Comments (1013) | Send Message
     
    Many HR folks at companies are already planning for a slowing economy after the election because they anticipate Obama will continue to hold his jackboots against the throats of the private sector. A vote for Obama is a vote for higher unemployment and continuous economic malaise.
    8 Jul 2012, 12:00 PM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (9911) | Send Message
     
    It all comes down to the undecided voter in Ohio...
    8 Jul 2012, 12:01 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13761) | Send Message
     
    bbro:

     

    As long as auto sales keep humming, it won't look good for Romney.
    8 Jul 2012, 12:05 PM Reply Like
  • GaltMachine
    , contributor
    Comments (1154) | Send Message
     
    bbro,

     

    You voted for President Obama in 2008. I am curious as to whether you have changed your mind about how you will vote in this election.

     

    Seems to me like you would be a representative, informed and engaged voter and your thoughts would be interesting.
    8 Jul 2012, 12:13 PM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (9911) | Send Message
     
    How I vote or voted really doesn't matter what does matter for those
    who are for Romney or Obama is that it comes down to the undecided voters
    in Ohio or Virginia. There are clearly defined red and blue states electorally. Romney can definitely win this election. He however
    is likely to lose battleground states of Nevada and Colorado due to
    the immigration issue( this is extremely important in the future for the GOP because Texas will be in play in 2020 if they don't significantly win over a lot more Hispanics). I do think Romney should ( can)
    win Florida and North Carolina so everything comes down to winning at least Ohio or Virginiaor both. It is those 2 states that I would
    measure. As an aside I believe whoever wins is going to credit for a gradually
    improving economy which ought to burn up whichever side loses .
    8 Jul 2012, 12:52 PM Reply Like
  • GaltMachine
    , contributor
    Comments (1154) | Send Message
     
    bbro,

     

    You confirm what is more or less the case in every election. Most people vote along party lines regardless of the performance of the incumbent assuming there is one. Voter turnout is going to be the defining factor in this election.

     

    I don't think there are many real "undecided" voters. Everyone knows who the President is and what he has accomplished to this point, fairly or unfairly, and therefore they are really only undecided about Romney.

     

    Which to me means with about 10% of the electorate in this category, it could be a wipeout for Romney if he can be seen as a good enough choice. Dick Morris, Clinton's former pollster, has analyzed all elections in the post-1964 period and found that undecideds break for the new guy most of the time which is why he is predicting a wipeout as happened to Carter who was well ahead in most polls as late as Sept. Morris evokes a visceral reaction but he tends to know his stuff.

     

    Which is why "hope and change" has morphed into destroy, diminish, and eviscerate Romney before he can tell his story.

     

    This will definitely be a very divisive, nasty and interesting election campaign.

     

    This a link to the Morris article if you are interested:

     

    http://bit.ly/N7InsG
    8 Jul 2012, 02:21 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13761) | Send Message
     
    Galt:

     

    Turnout is the whole ballgame more than ever because, now, we've crossed the great divide, with those that pay no taxes, are illegals or are otherwise on the Government gravy train making up the actual potential majority in each and every election going forward. The left knows this, and that's exactly why any attempts to enforce voter checks or any other sanity that limits voting to legal participants are vilified and fought by every legal, or any other, means.

     

    Frankly, in this "new world," I don't see a Romney victory, or any other Republican presidential victory, unless things are so deteriorated and in such a state of economic chaos that party and gravy-trail voting patterns break down entirely, and it's just a vote against any incumbent, no matter who it might be. As it is, regardless of the persistent fuming about employment, unless there's a cliff dive in the economy and markets between now and November, I'd expect Obama to win rather easily.

     

    I'd add, too, that the recent Supreme Court decision on ACA was a huge win for Obama. Those that oppose ACA and Obama are completely unaffected by the result and will continue to oppose Obama, as ever; however, for the Obama acolytes, this was testament that their guy can deliver the free goods, so rather than sitting home, despondent on election night, they'll all be out there pulling levers for more freebies from the "Provider."

     

    As investors, it's rather simple: invest as if you were, henceforth, going to be living in a socialistic country, because you are.
    8 Jul 2012, 02:45 PM Reply Like
  • GaltMachine
    , contributor
    Comments (1154) | Send Message
     
    Tack,

     

    "As investors, it's rather simple: invest as if you were, henceforth, going to be living in a socialistic country, because you are."

     

    Well if I believed that I would sell everything because that would surely be the death of our economy and its productive class.

     

    Most people in this country think the economy is sick and going in the wrong direction which is why I think it will be a landslide for Romney. We have a slow patch now and it is just a question of whether we started going in the positive direction again which the recent data suggests is not the case, otherwise the trajectory is moving pretty quick to the zero percent growth line. In any event, I don't think the economy is going to be a positive for the President at this point.
    8 Jul 2012, 02:50 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13761) | Send Message
     
    Galt:

     

    I only wish it were so.

     

    Parallels between today and Carter-Reagan in 1980 are variously mentioned. But, we're a wildly different country now, with a large majority of people believing in the fantasy of Government taking care of them and/or everything that's wrong, anywhere. This is not merely confined to leftists and freeloaders; it's become an endemic part of the national fabric to deride private industry and individual choice and, instead, to crave for everybody -- anybody -- in Washington to make life, if not enjoyable, 100% "safe" and "fair." The educational propaganda mills have finally won the battle after two generations of "graduates."

     

    Such fundamental changes in national outlook won't be altered by some gradual minor revelation. No, it will require large forces to collide with the sides of believers' heads before radical anger ensues about being deluded by those that promised everything for free, without need for work, sacrifice or risk. It will require a revolution in thought, not a revelation.
    8 Jul 2012, 03:02 PM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    "Turnout is the whole ballgame" exactly, tax payers have skin in the game so they will turn out in higher numbers this election then the last, the left cant say the same, so they are in full panic mode because they know they have lost many of the swing voters who pulled the switch for Obama last time. They no longer believe in his " Hope and Change", I believe there are many who still say they will vote for Obama but will not come Nov.
    8 Jul 2012, 03:17 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13761) | Send Message
     
    Enig:

     

    I hope you're right, but don't see it. Those that collect goodies know where their bread is buttered, so they stay home at their own peril, and no matter how chagrined they may be about things, generally, they're not about to bite the hand that feeds them and vote for the austerity platform at the same time.

     

    Think things have to take a decidedly negative dip between now and November for Romney to win in spite of himself.
    8 Jul 2012, 03:22 PM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (9911) | Send Message
     
    I read Dick Morris's article he does have a point about undecideds but
    the sighting of Rasmussen diminishes some of his point. Rasmussen
    uses a methodology which favors Republicans ( just like PPP uses
    a methodology that favors Democrats). Here are some guidelines
    to judging the efficacy of polls look at the gender breakdown,party
    indentification and minority representation. Rasmussen polls work if you believe this breakdown matches the 2004 turnout. PPP seems to
    promote a 2008 turnout. Whomever you are for I believe the election
    will hinge on these expectations ( will it be 2004 or 2008)
    8 Jul 2012, 04:13 PM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    Yes Romney cant seem to muster up the same unabashed demagoguery tactics as Obama, he shouldn't let the left drag him into fights he has won by default or doesnt need to fight. Obama has so many flaws it boggles my mind that Romney and or the Rep Pacs do not use Obamas own words against him 24/7. They could run a 30 min infomercial On Obama using his own words against him, play both sides of the tape.

     

    Obamacare is Obamas crown jewel, the Rep need to start digging into the bill and scare the hell out of everybody about what they find, make Obama defend his bill 24/7.

     

    Obama doesnt care what he says about Romney, true or not he gets it out there and lets it fester, and then you have Romney defending himself about these untruths, bringing it back into the main stream medias world focus and off Obama.

     

    The Democrats are masters at misdirection and obfuscation techniques which works superbly on their minions who are easily fooled.

     

    Romney is who he is, Something has to happen to turn the tide decidedly in his favor, strange as it might sound it can come down to whom he picks for a running mate that will make or break his chances of winning.

     

    I guess we just have to stay tuned
    8 Jul 2012, 04:29 PM Reply Like
  • Topcat
    , contributor
    Comments (439) | Send Message
     
    The ACA is the opposite..it STOPs freeloading, at least to a great degree. Although very poor people will not pay, we will pay for them, BUT, we will pay overall MUCH less since they will go to Drs and clinics and emergency rooms WITH insurance now, which will greatly reduce the spread of fees to the insured. It is NOT the final answer (although the insurance exchanges (i.e. finally really competition and free market) will also help greatly.
    8 Jul 2012, 09:58 PM Reply Like
  • Topcat
    , contributor
    Comments (439) | Send Message
     
    Once they understand the benefits of the health care act, they will stick with O. Romney has no plans at all, and the ones he has will drive the deficit up up and away. Once people find out about the Swiss bank accounts, special offshore companies, etc that he uses to evade taxes, it is all over. Those facts will all come out during the debates. He can't hit Obama on health care, since it is his own plan almost exactly, including the tax penalty.
    8 Jul 2012, 10:00 PM Reply Like
  • Topcat
    , contributor
    Comments (439) | Send Message
     
    Well then, speaking of the health care bill, why don't you list the parts that you don't like :)..and perhaps the parts you do.
    8 Jul 2012, 10:02 PM Reply Like
  • Topcat
    , contributor
    Comments (439) | Send Message
     
    And, another reason Romney won't win..a very in depth article by respected Vanity Fair explores the off shore tax havens...
    http://vnty.fr/LHYhqI
    8 Jul 2012, 10:21 PM Reply Like
  • idkmybffjill
    , contributor
    Comments (1692) | Send Message
     
    "The Democrats are masters at misdirection and obfuscation techniques which works superbly on their minions who are easily fooled."

     

    masters at misdirection? Are you getting confused with the Tea Party
    9 Jul 2012, 12:15 AM Reply Like
  • rhgordon3505
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    Tack:

     

    All i want to do is to disconnect investment markets direction/trends from job formation causality.
    8 Jul 2012, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (13761) | Send Message
     
    rhg:

     

    We're both speaking the same language on that one.
    8 Jul 2012, 01:08 PM Reply Like
  • sr1977
    , contributor
    Comments (336) | Send Message
     
    So people might contend that has already happened to some degree when you consider the effect QE (or perodic subtle promises of more QE) has had on the markets, while main street bounces along on the bottom.

     

    At any rate, consumer spending is 70% of the economy and since unemployed consumers spend less than employed ones its going to be hard to disconnect the market from the jobs reports.
    8 Jul 2012, 04:53 PM Reply Like
  • KJP712
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    If you kick enough people off the UE extended benefits then the number will go down.Those souls retreat into an economic netherworld that does not count them in the statistics.Very soon the Census report will reflect that these workers never existed in the first place making the labor numbers appear to be correct.
    8 Jul 2012, 07:59 PM Reply Like
  • GaltMachine
    , contributor
    Comments (1154) | Send Message
     
    I found this interesting nugget from a Jan 1980 Harris Poll:

     

    http://bit.ly/ON4sgo
    President Carter so dominates the American political scene now that his margin over Ronald Reagan in a post-Iowa trial heat has risen to an overwhelming 65-31 percent.
    And against George Bush, the GOP candidate who finished first in the recent Iowa caucuses, Carter leads by only a slightly lower 62-32 percent. These latest ABC News - Harris Survey results, taken among a cross section of
    1,195 likely voters on January 22nd, dramatically illustrate the incredible political comeback of President Carter. Only four months ago, Reagan held a 50-45 percent lead
    over Carter. This means that a 5 point deficit has been turned into a 34 point lead over this short span of time. This is the largest lead President Carter has held over
    any Republican since July 1976, when he was 39 points ahead of President Gerald Ford. "

     

    Also in late October 1980, Carter had an 8 point lead with Registered voters according to Gallup before losing by 10 points on election day.
    http://bit.ly/NcZesI
    8 Jul 2012, 09:59 PM Reply Like
  • idkmybffjill
    , contributor
    Comments (1692) | Send Message
     
    http://yhoo.it/LC7PT4

     

    Another factor that some here fail to account for.....Republicans should be increasingly more worried about appealing to the Asian population than the Hispanics.
    9 Jul 2012, 12:20 AM Reply Like
  • rhgordon3505
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    To all who believe that the introduction/extension of the ACA will lead to lower insurance premiums for those of us who will be paying for this:

     

    1) Please name for me ONE Federal government introduced and managed program of ANY TYPE that has resulted in forward costs actually going down, please;

     

    2) All we can do is to somewhat suppress what I expect to be dramatically higher national health expenditures and i believe we will do that by reducing Medicare fees to providers of all types and for hospitals to replace experienced providers with less experienced ones, or to replace them with less qualified care administrators. This is already happening, for example, in anesthesiology where "nurse anesthitists" are beginning to supplant actual physicianse. CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the deficit and reduce the INCREASE in costs (note:notice the phrase "reduce the increase in costs") are all bullshit because as anyone who has any semblance of financial modeling knowledge knows, 10-year-out estimates of savings are worthless.

     

    3) if you love nationalized, single payer (read: government, through your taxes) health plans, then you must be looking forward to our future, because that's where we are headed. Ever wonder why so many Canadians cross the border to the U.S. to privately pay for cancer treatment, cardiac care, knee/hip transplants or renal dialysis?. Or why the National Health Service in the U.K. actually filters out those for whom they will pay for this care?

     

    Can you say "death squads"
    9 Jul 2012, 10:13 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs