You do not seem to have read what you posted with much attention to the fine print, Jay.
I have cut and pasted a paragraph from the post that you linked to, Jay, authored by some unidentified doomster, as follows:
"According to the household survey, civilian employment increased from 137,384 million in February to 137,691 million in March, up 307,000. These are the raw, not seasonally adjusted, figures. Usually, employment rises in March due to seasonal effect. Accordingly, indeed, the seasonally adjusted data for March shows a decline by 3,000. In other words, zero job growth."
You have to pay attention to the details here to see the doomster sleight of hand. When adjustments to the raw data result in increases in reported employment when compared to the raw data, the doomsters decry the adjustments as politically-motivated skulduggery. Here, the doomster that you quoted is happy to accept the seasonal adjustment on its face, as it happens to result in a reduction in reported employment of 310,00 jobs, yielding a result that happens to agree with the doomster bias....Accordingly, indeed, the seasonally adjusted data for March shows a decline by 3,000. In other words, zero job growth.
Now, look carefully, and you will see that the raw data - i.e. the unadjusted result of the establishment survey - showed 307,000 more people working in March than in February...According to the household survey, civilian employment increased from 137,384 million in February to 137,691 million in March, up 307,000. These are the raw, not seasonally adjusted, figures.
In any case, I submit to you that it is a mistake to draw any global conclusions from the nature of the adjustments applied to any one set of monthly employment numbers. This is an oft-repeated doomster trick, always presented with an aha! flourish and an implication that the author has achieved something close to resolving Schrodinger's paradox. What is more important is that the numbers are collected using a consistent methodology and that conclusions are drawn from the trend and changes in the trend. The employment trend is showing a reversal - i.e. the bias is towards employment growth after a long period of stagnant employment. |
