Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (3117)	3/30/2004 11:48:17 AM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 116555

still, there is some duplicity here, as the striking workers were never counted as unemployed, even as their temporary replacements were counted as new workers. so the unemployment rate was overstated while they were on strike. Interesting.... wont we lose 50,000-70,000 temp jobs? M

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (3117)	3/30/2004 11:51:04 AM
From: Robert Douglas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

there is some duplicity here, as the striking workers were never counted as unemployed, even as their temporary replacements were counted as new workers. so the unemployment rate was overstated while they were on strike. You're mixing the two surveys. We're talking about the establishment survey and the payroll numbers. This reports the total employment and is often distorted by large strikes. Both surveys are very rough guesses at best and are subject to faulty survey techniques, poor seasonal adjustments and many other factors. They are heavily revised, often years after the fact and seem to be worst at turning points in the economy. The recovery from the early 90s recession was originally characterized as jobless too, only to have a million jobs added to the first payroll reports many months after the fact. This is a blunt tool and should be used carefully.