|
Posted by John Galt on July 22, 2008, 3:53 pm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"In spite of the hand-wringers, the U.S. economy isn't mired in a
>>recession -- and that's not just a technical matter of definitions. It's a
>>matter of how many jobs are likely to be lost as the country works its way
>>out of the mess created by the bursting of the housing bubble, the
>>resulting
>>financial-market turmoil and soaring energy prices."
>>
>>"Falling payrolls are usually a symptom of slowing economic growth. Hefty
>>productivity gains are making a difference this time, a contrast with past
>>slowdowns in which productivity normally fell."
>
> But that's giving the bogus numbers credibility.
That statement assumes that people believe that the numbers are bogus.
There's not much to say there, because if two people are working off
different sets of assumptions, they will come to two entirely different
views of reality. The debate, then, becomes more one of faith than of data.
> You need to have some understanding of the hedonic adjustments made to
> the labor scene to appreciate that the employment numbers are greatly
> over stated.
>
> Seriously this is a very big deal.
> http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/07/the-accelerat-1.html
> "Over the five month period ending in June, BLS B/D adds was a total
> of 922,000 new jobs. During the same period, the actually head counted
> Non-farm Payrolls (NFP) job creation was 709,000.
>
> "That's right, fictional Birth/Death job adds have been outpacing
> actually measured job creation by some 30%."
> As they do every year, BLS Net Business Birth/Death Model deleted jobs
> in January -- in 2007, it was 175k. That means that year-to-date, the
> net fabricated BLS new jobs was 747k -- versus NFP growth of 871k --
> that's 85.58% of NFP job growth.
>
> "Example of the absurdity of the new Birth/Death model -- in place
> since 2001 -- can be found in the specific employment sub-sectors.
> Construction jobs are an obvious error (housebuilders added 12,000
> workers), big jumps in education while school is out for summer is
> another, 'Leisure & Hospitality' B/D jobs are a multiple of the net
> category jobs created."
>
> SO 922,000 "new" jobs are modeling assumptions and are changing the
> numbers from negative to positive.
>
>
>>
>>"As demand slowed, businesses quickly cut the number of hours their
>>employees worked. That kept inventories from building and helped maintain
>>profits. The payroll reductions were possible only because workers still
>>on
>>the job produced more."
>
> Which doesn't change the fact less people are working, translating to
> less buying. Where's the consumer demand supposed to come from? Let's
> remember too they're already tapped out with negative savings and
> massive debt.
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/07/20/business/20debt-trap.html
>
>>"Even when factory output is increasing -- over the past 12 months
>>manufacturing production fell 0.6 percent -- there has been a loss of
>>jobs,
>
> Again less consumption.
>
>>Bernanke said, ``because the U.S. manufacturing sector is enormously
>>productive and its productivity has been growing more quickly that the
>>rest
>>of the economy.''"
>
> Making stuff with no demand?
You know, you've obviously thought out this stuff you believe at great
depth, and then you toss out a statement like that. Geez.
EXPORTS.
JG
>
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap