The monthly Federal Jobs report

[Value Buy]

Every month, the Government reports whether jobs are being created in this economy, and how many, etc.

I have a question.
With baby boomers retiring at the rate of 6,000 to10,000 a day, I have to assume already working staff are moving up into those slots.
If they are, and business hires replacement workers for the now empty lower paying slots, are these reported as "new jobs" or simply are filled with new hires, who are not listed as a "newly created job"?

DJ, I wonder if you or Tenn, could give any details to this.

I have a sneaking suspicion, that business is actually hiring more people than reported, unless every new hire is listed as a new job hire. 
In any event, with baby boomers retiring in very high weekly numbers right now, replacement workers have to fill these slots whether business is creating additional jobs or not.
This has to bode well for our economy, imo.

[Tennesseer]

Aug 5, 2013 8:12:33 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Every month, the Government reports whether jobs are being created in this economy, and how many, etc.

I have a question.
With baby boomers retiring at the rate of 6,000 to10,000 a day, I have to assume already working staff are moving up into those slots.
If they are, and business hires replacement workers for the now empty lower paying slots, are these reported as "new jobs" or simply are filled with new hires, who are not listed as a "newly created job"?

DJ, I wonder if you or Tenn, could give any details to this.

I have a sneaking suspicion, that business is actually hiring more people than reported, unless every new hire is listed as a new job hire. 
In any event, with baby boomers retiring in very high weekly numbers right now, replacement workers have to fill these slots whether business is creating additional jobs or not.
This has to bode well for our economy, imo.

VB-if a company is adding a new person to its payroll, I assume that would be considered a new hire/new job hire because the new hire could be doing some of the job functions of the employee who left along with some newly created duties and responsibilities.  I don't believe the government gets into the minutia of a job. 

[jkapp]

When I worked in payroll, we had to send a list of all new hires to goverment agencies.  So I think all new hires would be reported in the stats...although the initial numbers are always estimates.

[OldCoyote]

In 2007- 2008 we had to have 325000 jobs just to break even with new job seeker coming into the market.

July 2013,  We added 162000 jobs,  unemployment drops,  and we are told how the economy has recovered.

REALLY, Just how does that work?

[fairlycrazy23]

Aug 5, 2013 8:53:55 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

In 2007- 2008 we had to have 325000 jobs just to break even with new job seeker coming into the market.

July 2013,  We added 162000 jobs,  unemployment drops,  and we are told how the economy has recovered.

REALLY, Just how does that work?

I wizard did it.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 5, 2013 8:12:33 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Every month, the Government reports whether jobs are being created in this economy, and how many, etc.

I have a question.
With baby boomers retiring at the rate of 6,000 to10,000 a day, I have to assume already working staff are moving up into those slots.
If they are, and business hires replacement workers for the now empty lower paying slots, are these reported as "new jobs" or simply are filled with new hires, who are not listed as a "newly created job"?

yes.  newly created job is kindof a bad term for it, in the situation you described.  "new hire" would be a better term.  and that is precisely how it is reported.

this is why SOME people here harp on and on about the decline in workforce participation.  personally, i don't think it is a problem.  it is simply a natural manifestation of national demographics.

i should say that it is "not a problem" in terms of employment/unemployment- but it IS a problem in terms of taxation.  high wage earners leaving the workforce and being replaced by low wage earners is a serious issue indeed.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 5, 2013 8:53:55 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

In 2007- 2008 we had to have 325000 jobs just to break even with new job seeker coming into the market.

that number is disputed.  this is at the very highest end of the range.  i think 200k is far closer.

July 2013,  We added 162000 jobs,  unemployment drops,  and we are told how the economy has recovered.

REALLY, Just how does that work?

statistically, of course.  a lot of people retired last month, or stopped seeking work.  this is why it is better to look at the trends than the absolute month to month numbers.

[Value Buy]

Aug 5, 2013 10:43:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 5, 2013 8:12:33 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Every month, the Government reports whether jobs are being created in this economy, and how many, etc.

I have a question.
With baby boomers retiring at the rate of 6,000 to10,000 a day, I have to assume already working staff are moving up into those slots.
If they are, and business hires replacement workers for the now empty lower paying slots, are these reported as "new jobs" or simply are filled with new hires, who are not listed as a "newly created job"?

yes.  newly created job is kindof a bad term for it, in the situation you described.  "new hire" would be a better term.  and that is precisely how it is reported.

this is why SOME people here harp on and on about the decline in workforce participation.  personally, i don't think it is a problem.  it is simply a natural manifestation of national demographics.

i should say that it is "not a problem" in terms of employment/unemployment- but it IS a problem in terms of taxation.  high wage earners leaving the workforce and being replaced by low wage earners is a serious issue indeed.

So......in other words, we are not creating "new jobs".
We are just re-assigning newly opened up jobs, that were there and are open because someone retired or dropped dead.
Hmmn..........
Not exactly a ringing endorsement for those "shovel ready jobs" four years ago.
Thank God the baby boomers are retiring. We are saving the economy one job at a time

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 5, 2013 8:12:33 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Every month, the Government reports whether jobs are being created in this economy, and how many, etc.

I have a question.
With baby boomers retiring at the rate of 6,000 to10,000 a day, I have to assume already working staff are moving up into those slots.
If they are, and business hires replacement workers for the now empty lower paying slots, are these reported as "new jobs" or simply are filled with new hires, who are not listed as a "newly created job"?

DJ, I wonder if you or Tenn, could give any details to this.

I have a sneaking suspicion, that business is actually hiring more people than reported, unless every new hire is listed as a new job hire. 
In any event, with baby boomers retiring in very high weekly numbers right now, replacement workers have to fill these slots whether business is creating additional jobs or not.
This has to bode well for our economy, imo.

If employment is at 100% because there is one job, and one person working, and the working person leaves the job, and a new person comes along to fill the job, the person that left a job is no longer looking for work- then employment is still at 100%.  So, the unemployment rate doesn't change- nor does the number of new hires- nothing changed that is relevant.

The recent 'improvement' in the unemployment rate was due almost entirely to people that stopped looking for work, not new jobs created.  Most- as in the vast majority- of the new jobs created were part time, and they were in low paying industries like restaurant and retail.  There are effectively no jobs. 

If the work force participation rate which is nearing an all-time low were where it was when Obama took office, we would be nearing 12% unemployment right now.  However, because they stop counting as unemployed people that give up looking for work, we have the number we have.  

The bottom line on Obama and jobs is this:  9 million fewer jobs.

[workpublic]

govt. numbers are always lies and propaganda.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 6, 2013 7:23:20 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Aug 5, 2013 10:43:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yes.  newly created job is kindof a bad term for it, in the situation you described.  "new hire" would be a better term.  and that is precisely how it is reported.

this is why SOME people here harp on and on about the decline in workforce participation.  personally, i don't think it is a problem.  it is simply a natural manifestation of national demographics.

i should say that it is "not a problem" in terms of employment/unemployment- but it IS a problem in terms of taxation.  high wage earners leaving the workforce and being replaced by low wage earners is a serious issue indeed.

So......in other words, we are not creating "new jobs".

no.  which is why "new hires" is the preferable term.

We are just re-assigning newly opened up jobs, that were there and are open because someone retired or dropped dead.
Hmmn..........
Not exactly a ringing endorsement for those "shovel ready jobs" four years ago.

even Obama retracted that term.  but you are not going to acknowledge that ever, are you?

Thank God the baby boomers are retiring. We are saving the economy one job at a time

actually, people retire.  that is a fact.  they die too. 

but i don't think it is a good thing at all, from the standpoint of federal revenues.  if they delayed it a bit longer, that would be preferred. 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 6, 2013 8:43:02 GMT -5 workpublic said:

govt. numbers are always lies and propaganda.

you like using the term "lies", don't you?

[workpublic]

only when describing non truths. i find it more distinct than "mis spokens"

when an entity puts out data it knows is untrue or not accurate, it is a lie. I apologize for being so simple.

politicians, bureaucrats, activists, "professionals", educators, religious leaders lie all the time. the morals of our society have accepted it as normal behavior. that is why, imho the world needs a "reset".

[djAdvocate]

Aug 6, 2013 13:21:24 GMT -5 workpublic said:

only when describing non truths. i find it more distinct than "mis spokens"

i prefer "spin".  but i guess i am just generous in that way. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 6, 2013 10:04:09 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

However, new jobs are being created.  We hired four just this month.  In addition we took on two sub contractors.

We are hardly unique.  People are hiring all over the place up here.  Our problem is that a lot of people have left the workforce since the start of the Bush Meltdown, and many of them have not been replaced.

We are busy to the point of turning work away, and again, we are just part of the trend.

I need to come do some consulting work with your company.  When you have a capacity problem, you don't turn work away- you raise prices until it goes away.  Then you have a marketing problem, and those can be solved, too.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 6, 2013 17:11:16 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 6, 2013 10:04:09 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

However, new jobs are being created.  We hired four just this month.  In addition we took on two sub contractors.

We are hardly unique.  People are hiring all over the place up here.  Our problem is that a lot of people have left the workforce since the start of the Bush Meltdown, and many of them have not been replaced.

We are busy to the point of turning work away, and again, we are just part of the trend.

I need to come do some consulting work with your company.  When you have a capacity problem, you don't turn work away- you raise prices until it goes away.  Then you have a marketing problem, and those can be solved, too.

good advice.  actually, if you are in a niche market, you can raise prices until you see unit count decline, as well.  there is little risk, and lots of potential reward.  we raised prices 17% in the last year, and sales are up.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 6, 2013 17:21:18 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 6, 2013 17:11:16 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I need to come do some consulting work with your company.  When you have a capacity problem, you don't turn work away- you raise prices until it goes away.  Then you have a marketing problem, and those can be solved, too.

good advice.  actually, if you are in a niche market, you can raise prices until you see unit count decline, as well.  there is little risk, and lots of potential reward.  we raised prices 17% in the last year, and sales are up.

I think we actually agree quite a bit on business matters.  I doubled my fees in 2012, and I raised them 25% this year- and I have more (and better) clients.

[usaone]

The Labor Forse Participation Rate is no where near an all time low.

Until the Baby Boomers came of age in the early 1970's the rate was around 58-59%.
With the Baby Boomers retiring, that where we are heading back to.

Over a Million people are hired and fired ever month. The difference in those two numbers are what's reported every month. Some are new jobs and some are replacements for people retiring.

Until our Capacity Utilization number rises over 80%, we will not have more robust hiring.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 6, 2013 19:17:54 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 6, 2013 17:21:18 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

good advice.  actually, if you are in a niche market, you can raise prices until you see unit count decline, as well.  there is little risk, and lots of potential reward.  we raised prices 17% in the last year, and sales are up.

I think we actually agree quite a bit on business matters.  I doubled my fees in 2012, and I raised them 25% this year- and I have more (and better) clients.

yeah, we mostly disagree on the role of government.  that is fine.  i enjoy the debate.  it would suck to agree on everything. 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 6, 2013 20:41:02 GMT -5 usaone said:

The Labor Forse Participation Rate is no where near an all time low.

Until the Baby Boomers came of age in the early 1970's the rate was around 58-59%.
With the Baby Boomers retiring, that where we are heading back to.

Over a Million people are hired and fired ever month. The difference in those two numbers are what's reported every month. Some are new jobs and some are replacements for people retiring.

Until our Capacity Utilization number rises over 80%, we will not have more robust hiring.

usa- you make several good points, but i am puzzled about where the WPR will end up.  here is why.

workforce participation among MEN has been falling for a generation.  now, this could be simply because women are entering the workforce.  i am not prepared to argue otherwise.  but it could also be that work is seen as less of a path forward by men.  in other words, they are taking the same general view of things that women used to take, and deciding whether to opt in or out, depending on their circumstances.  the ONLY reason the the WPR rose to a new high in 2000 was WOMEN.

here is where the speculating starts.  if the trends continue, the workforce will be balanced between women and men, and they will end up competing for the same jobs.  if that is the case, it seems reasonable that both men AND women will reach some point of stasis that is at a point of approximately equal workforce participation.  the question then becomes = what is that?  it seems reasonable to expect that watching the MALE participation rate will reveal that point, since it is nowhere near the local maximum.  in other words, it will take a long time for women to equilibrate in the market.  men will get there sooner.

[usaone]

DJ. I don't think they will be competing for the same jobs. As women started entering the job market in the latter half of the 20th century new jobs were created. They didn't take jobs from the men.

i think the drop in the participation rate for Men is a combination of many factors. 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 6, 2013 20:57:52 GMT -5 usaone said:

DJ. I don't think they will be competing for the same jobs. As women started entering the job market in the latter half of the 20th century new jobs were created. They didn't take jobs from the men.

i think the drop in the participation rate for Men is a combination of many factors. 

so do i.  but i would be interested in hearing what YOU think they are.  or do you want me to go first>? 

[usaone]

Well I have not researched it very much but I think more are staying home to raise the children.

men are retiring earlier than women.

men are dying earlier than women. 

[Value Buy]

Aug 6, 2013 13:16:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 6, 2013 7:23:20 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

So......in other words, we are not creating "new jobs".

no.  which is why "new hires" is the preferable term.

We are just re-assigning newly opened up jobs, that were there and are open because someone retired or dropped dead.
Hmmn..........
Not exactly a ringing endorsement for those "shovel ready jobs" four years ago.

even Obama retracted that term.  but you are not going to acknowledge that ever, are you?

Thank God the baby boomers are retiring. We are saving the economy one job at a time

actually, people retire.  that is a fact.  they die too. 

but i don't think it is a good thing at all, from the standpoint of federal revenues.  if they delayed it a bit longer, that would be preferred. 

Did the President actually retract the term "shovel ready"?
I honestly missed the memo........
With the Pelosi statement, "we have to pass it to see what's in it", to billions wasted on "shovel ready jobs", I am getting jaded.
I am kind of like the College youth at University of Berkely back in the sixties, when he told a newsman,
"never trust anyone over thirty", I just believe we cannot trust anyone in D.C.
We all get over thirty, and should not be trusted.
Seriously though, I feel the economy is getting good, but job creation just is not doing anything what they should be doing at this point.
I do not understand it.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 7, 2013 8:19:57 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Aug 6, 2013 13:16:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

actually, people retire.  that is a fact.  they die too. 

but i don't think it is a good thing at all, from the standpoint of federal revenues.  if they delayed it a bit longer, that would be preferred. 

Did the President actually retract the term "shovel ready"?
I honestly missed the memo........

the retraction never makes as much press as the original headline.

With the Pelosi statement, "we have to pass it to see what's in it", to billions wasted on "shovel ready jobs", I am getting jaded.
I am kind of like the College youth at University of Berkely back in the sixties, when he told a newsman,
"never trust anyone over thirty", I just believe we cannot trust anyone in D.C.
We all get over thirty, and should not be trusted.
Seriously though, I feel the economy is getting good, but job creation just is not doing anything what they should be doing at this point.
I do not understand it.

you think Sequestration has something to do with it?  the GAO does.

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 5, 2013 8:53:55 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

In 2007- 2008 we had to have 325000 jobs just to break even with new job seeker coming into the market.

July 2013,  We added 162000 jobs,  unemployment drops,  and we are told how the economy has recovered.

REALLY, Just how does that work?

It's absorbed into the steady decline of the LFPR: Labour Force Participation Rate. You can't be considered "unemployed" if you aren't considered a part of the labour force.

It's a bald-faced statistical fudge. And the 162K number will be revised downwards for three months.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 7, 2013 10:23:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 5, 2013 8:53:55 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

In 2007- 2008 we had to have 325000 jobs just to break even with new job seeker coming into the market.

July 2013,  We added 162000 jobs,  unemployment drops,  and we are told how the economy has recovered.

REALLY, Just how does that work?

It's absorbed into the steady decline of the LFPR: Labour Force Participation Rate. You can't be considered "unemployed" if you aren't considered a part of the labour force.

It's a bald-faced statistical fudge. And the 162K number will be revised downwards for three months.

that last assertion is very much uncertain, Virgil.  i am trying to find data on the "average revision" but no luck so far....

[usaone]

The monthly number has actually been revised UPWARDS over the last few months.

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 7, 2013 12:00:19 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 7, 2013 10:23:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It's absorbed into the steady decline of the LFPR: Labour Force Participation Rate. You can't be considered "unemployed" if you aren't considered a part of the labour force.

It's a bald-faced statistical fudge. And the 162K number will be revised downwards for three months.

that last assertion is very much uncertain, Virgil.  i am trying to find data on the "average revision" but no luck so far....

No such thing as mean reversion when it comes to job numbers.

There are rare, tiny upwards revisions to the NFP numbers, and rare, tiny downwards revisions to first-time unemployment claims, but they're inevitably followed by opposing revisions of greater magnitude in subsequent months.

ZH keeps track of the revisions on the major numbers and posts plots of them every once in a while. The next time I see one for the NFP print, I'll post it here.

For the unemployment numbers, they don't even bother with the pretense of an unbiased initial estimate. I believe those numbers have been upwardly revised 36 of the last 39 times, which is, statistically speaking, impossible for a fair estimator.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 7, 2013 13:37:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 7, 2013 12:00:19 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that last assertion is very much uncertain, Virgil.  i am trying to find data on the "average revision" but no luck so far....

No such thing as mean reversion when it comes to job numbers.

There are rare, tiny upwards revisions to the NFP numbers, and rare, tiny downwards revisions to first-time unemployment claims, but they're inevitably followed by opposing revisions of greater magnitude in subsequent months.

ZH keeps track of the revisions on the major numbers and posts plots of them every once in a while. The next time I see one for the NFP print, I'll post it here.

For the unemployment numbers, they don't even bother with the pretense of an unbiased initial estimate. I believe those numbers have been upwardly revised 36 of the last 39 times, which is, statistically speaking, impossible for a fair estimator.

i would love to see that, Virgil.  seriously.  i like good data.