Will Friday's data show job gains in December?

[Lief 🗽]

From what I've read, estimates are between +50,000 and -50,000. Do you think we'll see the first job gains in something like two years on Friday morning?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well the Private group that said we lost 150,000 jobs in November said we lost 80,000 in December. So its possible considering the Gov't report showed only 11,000 jobs lost in Nov that December has positive job growth.

[Bo]

No.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I doubt it.  It should show marked improvement over November, but I don't think we'll turn the corner until the January or even maybe February reports.

[Tender Branson]

Yeah, I think slight growth of 30.000 jobs

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Unemploymentclaims-data-apf-488031698.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=7&asset=&ccode=


More good news on the Unemployement Intial Claims data. Its nearing the 425,000 considered the highest point at which job growth can occur. Also economists expect 8,000 job losses in December however the unemployement rate is expected to raise to 10.1% . And positive growth is expected in the next two to three months. However the Unemployement rate could surge to 10.5% as the "discouraged" workers start looking for work again and add to 10.1% who are still looking and haven't given up.

[CARLHAYDEN]

From what I've read, estimates are between +50,000 and -50,000. Do you think we'll see the first job gains in something like two years on Friday morning?

The labor department has been playing games with the data (which is wildly at variance with other data, particularly ADP).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nope 80,000 lost. However we gained 4,000 with revisions in November instead of losing 11,000 but added another 1,000 lost to October.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Economy-sheds-85000-jobs-in-rb-3785494434.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

[Sam Spade]

This month's jobs report is a reason why you can't just base anything on one month when you're dealing with statistical estimates.

Next month is the baseline month for the year, so unless the government is interested in really faking the numbers, we should get a realistic picture for once (no seasonal adjustments and the birth/death model, which I think is seriously screwed up, is not in the picture).

Weekly hours worked were unchanged, which brings into question last month's rise there.

660,000 dropped out of the labor force again.  Not good after a month where it appeared like things were turning in that number too.

Interesting that Europe, Canada and the US all showed pretty bad jobs report today.

Full report here:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

[CARLHAYDEN]

This month's jobs report is a reason why you can't just base anything on one month when you're dealing with statistical estimates.

Next month is the baseline month for the year, so unless the government is interested in really faking the numbers, we should get a realistic picture for once (no seasonal adjustments and the birth/death model, which I think is seriously screwed up, is not in the picture).

Weekly hours worked were unchanged, which brings into question last month's rise there.

660,000 dropped out of the labor force again.  Not good after a month where it appeared like things were turning in that number too.

Interesting that Europe, Canada and the US all showed pretty bad jobs report today.

Full report here:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

It looks like a needed adjustment in the January estimating formula will be implemented.  The problem is that the adjustment may be too generous, artificially reducing the unemployment rate.

If this happens, the February numbers can be really scary!

BTW, the number of workers removed from the labor force by bls in the period from December of 08 to December of 09: 3,545,000!

The number of persons admitted by bls to have been unemployed 27 weeks or longer during the same period has increased by: 3,618,000!

Oh, and the U-6 percentage increased to 17.1% in December from 16.4% in November of 09!

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No blame Obamanomics stuff today, CARL?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Michael Steele weighs in:

After Attacking Bush During Periods Of Job Growth, And Pledging Their Stimulus Would Create Millions Of Jobs, Where’s The Dems’ Outrage?

RNC CHAIRMAN MICHAEL STEELE: “For close to a full year the American people have been forced to watch and in many cases bear the burden of our ever increasing national unemployment rate which unfortunately remained in the double digits throughout the month of December.  More than 85,000 Americans lost their jobs in the month of December, meaning more than 2.8 million Americans have lost their jobs since the stimulus passed, and the national unemployment rate remains at 10 percent.  The American economy is a powerful and amazingly resilient system that will always naturally return to balance because of the determination and unique ingenuity of the American worker.  But President Obama’s singular focus on enacting his government-run liberal policies are single handily preventing this return.  It’s time for President Obama to heed the recent words of Democrat Senator Ben Nelson and finally do what he should have been

source:  gop.com

[Sam Spade]

Michael Steele = idiot

[Lief 🗽]

ugh, this is a bad news sandwich with extra blah.

[phk]

From Mankiw

[Bo]

From Mankiw

If McCain was President the rate would likely be even higher.

[Bo]

No.

I was right.

[rdouty]

From Mankiw

If McCain was President the rate would likely be even higher.

There is no way one could ever make that assumption. This graph simply demonstrates that the Theory of Rational Expectations is alive and well in the economy.
The failure of keynesian economics, and therefore Obama's plan, is that it does not take into account the Supply Function.

[opebo]

There is no way one could ever make that assumption. This graph simply demonstrates that the Theory of Rational Expectations is alive and well in the economy.
The failure of keynesian economics, and therefore Obama's plan, is that it does not take into account the Supply Function.

Actually the graph is no reflection at all upon Keynesian economics, Obama's plan, or the 'supply function', whatever that is.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I doubt it.  It should show marked improvement over November, but I don't think we'll turn the corner until the January or even maybe February reports.

Well I was partly right.  December showed losses, but November was revised to show 4,000 jobs created.

[k-onmmunist]

Umm, opebo, it would be nice if you could explain WHY rather than just being dogmatic about this.

[opebo]

Umm, opebo, it would be nice if you could explain WHY rather than just being dogmatic about this.

Well, obviously because there could be myriad other causative factors not shown in the graph.

[Beet]

The only reason this graph is so popular is because it shows the Obama people making a clear mistake.

[k-onmmunist]

Umm, opebo, it would be nice if you could explain WHY rather than just being dogmatic about this.

Well, obviously because there could be myriad other causative factors not shown in the graph.

COULD is the key word in that sentence.

[opebo]

Umm, opebo, it would be nice if you could explain WHY rather than just being dogmatic about this.

Well, obviously because there could be myriad other causative factors not shown in the graph.

COULD is the key word in that sentence.

The point is the graph proves nothing - the explanation given by those touting the graph is no more certain than any other.