Net job loss?

[rockymountaindem]

Perhaps I'm naive, but isn't the 112,000 figure today a net job gain figure, not a gross gain? I thought this figure was gains minus losses. Am I wrong, is there another figure which includes the losses? What is the whole truth?

[NewJeffCT]

1. pretty sure it is a net number

But, in the grand scheme of things, it is a net loss, as our growing population means that we have to create a minimum of 150,000 to 170,000 jobs per month just to stay even...

[ixion]

2. yeah, the way I'm understanding it...

112K jobs were added, but the minimal amount of jobs that needs to be added is 300K per month in order to keep up with population growth. And this doesn't include people who have been unable to find a job since the recession started in 2000.

[NewJeffCT]

3. Recession started in 2001

Stop - you're being brainwashed by the Reich Wing media. The recession did not start in 2000 under Clinton!!

[ProfessorGAC]

4. You're Right

From a statistical point of view, the growth fell by a significant degree from the 3 month moving monthly averages of the prior 10 years in May of 2001. You know, right after the tax cuts went through.

Good going, Georgie boy.
The Professor

[papau]

7. Professor - a question on the current seasonal adjustment technique

CPS began using the X-12 ARIMA software for seasonal adjustment of time series data in 2003-

Is this stable from month to month, year to year?

I have gotten the idea - from where I forget - that this is a new technique that is less stable than the old X-11 software.

Thanks

:-)

[ProfessorGAC]

11. I'm Not Really Sure

I don't use that software (i'm a SAS guy), so i'm not sure i have any frame of reference on which to base an opinion.

I can opine on your stability question? The whole concept of averaging to maintain stability by adding statistical power to the trendlines. The shifts in averages are, by definition, more meaningful than a shift in individual values, so significance is more easily detectable at the moment of shift. ARIMA obviously does that (hence the MA in the name). So, the trends that form are mathematically stable, by definition. The only caveat is that as the number of input variables rise, the system approaches a chaotic bias state. So, the inherent stability of the model is dependent on the judicious selection of variables, interactions, and weighting.

I know that's not exactly what you asked. Best i can do.
The Professor

[papau]

15. Excellent answer - but I wonder if we have added enough new vaiables

so as to achieve that "chaotic bias state"?

in any case - thanks for the post!

:-)

[ixion]

6. hmmm... I remember watching my stock options go down in 2000

to a point where they weren't worth the paper the were printed on. There were tons of companies laying off people all around, and soon the company I was at became yet another victim. That was late in 2000, as I recall. I was laid off from that company in 2001, but that was after many companies had already gone belly up when the .com bubble burst. And keep in mind that I worked for one of the tech 'darlings' of Wall Street.

Please understand: I am not being brianwashed by the RW media because I don't read US news. Mostly the Guardian and the Toronto Star, etc.

So I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making accusations like that w/o first finding out why I may have said something. ;-)

[stewert]

9. Some Facts.........

The economy started slowing down in late 2000, but the official recession did not
start until march of 2001, 2 months after Bush took office.

The economy did create 112,000 jobs in January, employers also cut 117,000 jobs
in January.

Nobody seems to know for sure if the 112,000 jobs were a net gain or a gross gain.

Even if the economy did create a net gain of 112,000 jobs in January that is pathetic,
and well below any estimates.

The economy needs to create 150,000 non-farm payroll jobs per month just to break
even with the population growth. These numbers of 300,000 etc. are ridiculous.

Every month 150,000 new people become old enough to work, it's called population growth.

That means the economy has to create 150,000 new jobs a month just to break even.

And those jobs need to be non-farm payroll jobs. Paul Krugman and others have said
anything under 150,000 non-farm payroll jobs a month is a loss because it does not keep up
with the population growth.

Employers also cut 117,000 jobs in January, does anyone know if that offsets the 112,000
jobs created, or is the 112,000 new jobs a net gain of 112,000 for January ?

[ixion]

14. good facts, stewert

thanks.

[salin]

5. what is the number needed (averaged over months) to make up

for the cummulative job loss over Bush's term? I think I read back in December from Krugman that it was something in the magnitude of 400,000 or 450,000?

[Doctor_J]

8. I computed

how many months it would take, at the robust December growth rate that * was crowing about, to make up for his losses. It came out to 250 months. So if the current growth continues, in a little over 20 years we'll be back to Clinton's employment level.

[stewert]

10. If..........

If the economy created a net of 200,000 jobs per month for 10 months straight,
we would still be close to a million jobs behind where we were when Bush took office.

At that rate Bush will be dead before the economy matches the 22 million jobs Clinton created
when he was president.

[TahitiNut]

12. Here's my graph... updated today.

Remember, 'employment' is how labor shares in the benefits of our nation's economy.

[Cheesehead]

13. It would be interesting to see

The number of people in the workforce graphed against these employment numbers.

On the posted graph, it's pretty easy to see what a departure from "normal" the current situation is. The correlation coefficient (r^2) won't look so hot after a few more years of this trend.