Job Growth

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

People who believe in being static.

 

The Opposite of Progressive I'm guessing.

Ahhh it's funny because of a spelling error    So basically your argument is reduced to being a grammar nazi  

Such a high level of discourse from you big guy   

[impartialobserver]

so Us jobs as measured by CES was revised down 818,000 jobs or .5% of the total. No one has yet to produce a reason as to how that benefits Harris. So that tells you that either the unemployment insurance side of it was off or the qcew side was off. Being that qcew is on fixed timelines and validated in other ways.. it has to be the unemployment insurance side. The UI side has a lot of variability. Hmm... 

[NAME REMOVED]

On 9/3/2024 at 6:04 PM, robosmith said:

Your graph doesn't show ^this. VERY FEW jobs created are the "LOWER PAYING SERVICES" and NONE in Jul 2024.

You need to get your eyes checked. LMAO

Why can't far right MAGA types read graphs that even Grade 4 students have no problem with? 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

so Us jobs as measured by CES was revised down 818,000 jobs or .5% of the total. No one has yet to produce a reason as to how that benefits Harris. 

Oohh the lies desperately trying to defend the dems.  

It was the largest percentage correction in over 15 years and nobody said it benefits harris, they said it benefitted biden when he announced the original "guestimate". 

And you'd have to be dishonest as the day is long to suggest you don't immediately see how making it look like the economy is stronger than it is benefits the gov't.  Seriously, you expect people to believe you can't understand why higher job growth might make a gov't look better?

Well, at least we know you're not being honest with us. Suspected as much but that's pretty much an admission.  "I can't imagine how a gov't would benefit from stronger economic news, it baffles me!!"   Sigh. 

[impartialobserver]

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Oohh the lies desperately trying to defend the dems.  

It was the largest percentage correction in over 15 years and nobody said it benefits harris, they said it benefitted biden when he announced the original "guestimate". 

And you'd have to be dishonest as the day is long to suggest you don't immediately see how making it look like the economy is stronger than it is benefits the gov't.  Seriously, you expect people to believe you can't understand why higher job growth might make a gov't look better?

Well, at least we know you're not being honest with us. Suspected as much but that's pretty much an admission.  "I can't imagine how a gov't would benefit from stronger economic news, it baffles me!!"   Sigh. 

A loss of 818,000 jobs is not a benefit.. no matter how you twist this. This is not good news for Harris. 

It is easily shown mathematically if you had the character or brain power for it.  It was an estimate and the estimate (gasp!) proved to be incorrect. No way. 

 

What is especially laughable is that you think that Biden approved the original number? A team of individuals that are 100% independent of him produces it and he restated. Guess what? Trump did the same. 

 

Edited September 4, 2024 by impartialobserver

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

A loss of 818,000 jobs is not a benefit.. no matter how you twist this. This is not good news for Harris. 

 

Nobody anywhere said it was. 

What people said was it was a benefit to biden when the original "Wildly favorable estimate" was made. 

By lying about what the issue is you demonstrate  your own dishonesty and partisanship. 

And the estimate was (gasp)  the least accurate estimate (no way!) in close to 2 decades (Shock!) and just happens to strongly favor biden and made him look much better than he should have at the time (shock! I'm socked, are you shocked). 

Look. Nobody is claiming that you are the most intelligent person on this board. But you are never going to sell the idea that you can't see why it would benefit Biden at the time to look like he was doing better than he was on the economy.  The fact you try to pretend you can't understand is just beyond childish. 

[impartialobserver]

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

well, wonder how much of this 142,000 in annual job gains is Biden fudging the number? 

[sharkman]

6 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

well, wonder how much of this 142,000 in annual job gains is Biden fudging the number? 

They also downgraded June and July job numbers, by over 85,000 total, a big miss for the whole summer:

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/06/jobs-report-august-2024.html

“The previous two months saw substantial downward revisions. The BLS cut July’s total by 25,000, while June fell to 118,000, a downward revision of 61,000.”

 

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, sharkman said:

They also downgraded June and July job numbers, by over 85,000 total, a big miss for the whole summer:

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/06/jobs-report-august-2024.html

“The previous two months saw substantial downward revisions. The BLS cut July’s total by 25,000, while June fell to 118,000, a downward revision of 61,000.”

 

My point is not to brag about positive job gains. Clear enough? It is to mock a certain somebody who thinks that the BLS fudges the numbers in order to make Biden and/or Harris look good. By the way.. monthly revisions happen every single month.. Been doing this for 9 years and have seen it every single month. August numbers will be preliminary and in Sept.. they will be revised. Nothing nefarious or interesting. Oh.. and then they are revised again in October and declared final. And then in march 2025.. the entire calendar year 2024 will be revised in a process called benchmarking. 

Edited September 6, 2024 by impartialobserver

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

My point is not to brag about positive job gains. Clear enough? It is to mock a certain somebody who thinks that the BLS fudges the numbers in order to make Biden and/or Harris look good. 

Nobody's buying your shit dude. You outed yourself  as partisan on this already and while you COULD argue (but didn't because you're full of it) that it's just a "happy coincidence" for biden that the numbers were off in his favor to a record level,  you can't possibly argue that gov't departments aren't capable of being influenced by the gov't or their political bias. 

Hell the FBI was for god's sake. Oh but BLS is MUCH more respectable than THEM right?  Please. 

[robosmith]

On 9/3/2024 at 5:28 PM, gatomontes99 said:

Good paying jobs growth is slowing down. Growth has slowed.

Of course growth has slowed. And inflation is down because demand is down.

All due to higher interest rates. Super low rates are useful to kick start the economy, and inflationary once the economy has recovered.

You're not a data guy, cause us data guys understand what is happening and why.

On 9/4/2024 at 10:43 AM, impartialobserver said:

this is too funny. 

Because he meant statisticians? More pathetic than funny.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Of course growth has slowed. And inflation is down because demand is down.

All due to higher interest rates.

Which were necessary to fight the inflation caused by biden's out of control spending. Which is always what happens when gov'ts spend recklessly as he did. 

So first he causes inflation which really hurts people

Then to fight the inflation that really hurts people interest rates go up, which really hurts people (which is the point)

Then because people are hurt spending slows and the economy goes down. Which really hurts people. 

Like....  when does that get fun?  Why would anyone vote for that?

[gatomontes99]

29 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Of course growth has slowed. And inflation is down because demand is down.

All due to higher interest rates. Super low rates are useful to kick start the economy, and inflationary once the economy has recovered.

You're not a data guy, cause us data guys understand what is happening and why.

Ok, but if we go below approximately 2.5%, no one will buy bonds so the fed will monetize the debate and inflation will rocket up.

[robosmith]

6 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Ok, but if we go below approximately 2.5%, no one will buy bonds so the fed will monetize the debate and inflation will rocket up.

That's right. Low rates are inflationary after the economy recovered.

[gatomontes99]

16 minutes ago, robosmith said:

That's right. Low rates are inflationary after the economy recovered.

No. They are inflationary. There is no "after the economy recovered." They are always inflationary.

[robosmith]

8 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. They are inflationary. There is no "after the economy recovered." They are always inflationary.

You don't understand the dynamics of the economy. Inflation only occurs when demand is higher than supply and neither of those move instantaneously. Of course demand can ruse much faster than supply and is inflationary until supply catches up.

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, robosmith said:

That's right. Low rates are inflationary after the economy recovered.

No, not at all. Low interest rates weren't inflationary.  SPENDING was inflationary. Pumping unearned dollars into the economy always sets inflation ablaze and of course that's exactly what happened.  

[CdnFox]

36 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. They are inflationary. There is no "after the economy recovered." They are always inflationary.

We had low interest rates for many years without inflation. Like, decades.  

What causes inflation is "Unearned" dollars entering the market. Normally if you get paid a dollar you create a dollar's worth of value in exchange.  As long as that happens good and demand tend to match up overall and there's limited inflation ,

But when the gov't borrows and then spends (even on gov't services), then there is no corresponding wealth being created for that dollar. It just magically appears and become available on the market. That drives inflation. 

The gov't superheated the economy by dumping cash into it with various spending. It reacted and we got inflation. To fight inflation we raise interest rates. That slows the economy which cools demand and reduces inflation again but at the cost of causing the economy to be very weak. 

Which the gov't often uses as  an excuse for more spending  

[gatomontes99]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

We had low interest rates for many years without inflation. Like, decades.  

What causes inflation is "Unearned" dollars entering the market. Normally if you get paid a dollar you create a dollar's worth of value in exchange.  As long as that happens good and demand tend to match up overall and there's limited inflation ,

But when the gov't borrows and then spends (even on gov't services), then there is no corresponding wealth being created for that dollar. It just magically appears and become available on the market. That drives inflation. 

The gov't superheated the economy by dumping cash into it with various spending. It reacted and we got inflation. To fight inflation we raise interest rates. That slows the economy which cools demand and reduces inflation again but at the cost of causing the economy to be very weak. 

Which the gov't often uses as  an excuse for more spending  

Friedman hits on this nicely:

Just so we are clear, there has been inflation almost every year. Most of the time it is around 2% and that's were the big gov people want it to be. It's like a frog slowly being boiled. At 2%, we don't complain and we don't worry about deficit spending. But at 11%, we complained. Bit, as long as there is a deficit that we can't sell bonds to cover, there is inflation.

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Friedman hits on this nicely:

Just so we are clear, there has been inflation almost every year. Most of the time it is around 2% and that's were the big gov people want it to be. It's like a frog slowly being boiled. At 2%, we don't complain and we don't worry about deficit spending. But at 11%, we complained. Bit, as long as there is a deficit that we can't sell bonds to cover, there is inflation.

Sure there's inflation but wage growth and lifestyle keeps up with it. The last 20 years prior to 2015more or less income Kept pace with and slightly exceeded inflation on average. So you have low inflation and you have low increase in wage and prosperity and that works out just fine. For various reasons you always want a little bit of inflation and our government always overspends a little.

But when inflation skyrockets and exceeds increases in wage and prosperity then you have a problem and it's almost always a result of spending. Not always, but almost always.

Although admittedly at the moment i'll rapid population growth in excess of our ability to adapt to our increasing population is also a major factor locally in Canada

[gatomontes99]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure there's inflation but wage growth and lifestyle keeps up with it. The last 20 years prior to 2015more or less income Kept pace with and slightly exceeded inflation on average. So you have low inflation and you have low increase in wage and prosperity and that works out just fine. For various reasons you always want a little bit of inflation and our government always overspends a little.

But when inflation skyrockets and exceeds increases in wage and prosperity then you have a problem and it's almost always a result of spending. Not always, but almost always.

Although admittedly at the moment i'll rapid population growth in excess of our ability to adapt to our increasing population is also a major factor locally in Canada

My point wasn't that wages didn't keep up with it. I was taking the very narrow view that inflation is always there when taxes and borrowing are lacking.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

My point wasn't that wages didn't keep up with it. I was taking the very narrow view that inflation is always there when taxes and borrowing are lacking.

Well fair enough, that's true as far as that goes.