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 : John Pitera's Market Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jon Koplik who wrote (7888)	5/24/2007 2:01:06 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 33421

And, as a follow-up to lyin' & cheatin' (wrong) employment data ........................... I saved this one from a while ago. It's amazing how no one ever even considers the possibility that the economic number(s) that are at odds with all other observations ... are simply WRONG. Jon. ************************************************************ April 22, 2007 The Count For a Change, It’s Job Applicants Who Call the Shots By PHYLLIS KORKKI If you were asked to come up with an immutable law of job searching, one of them might be this: The lower the unemployment rate, the less time it takes to find a new job. But the world can work in unexpected ways, and so it does now. National unemployment dropped to 4.5 percent in the first quarter of this year, and yet it took job seekers a median 3.6 months to land a new position, according to a survey by Challenger, Gray & Christmas, the outplacement firm. That compares with 2.7 months in the first quarter of last year, when the unemployment rate was 4.7 percent.** The reason? Opportunities are so abundant in many fields that workers are not willing to settle for just any job. This is especially true for jobs that require four-year degrees, where unemployment is under 2 percent, according to Challenger. Have you always dreamed of a job with a four-day week working five-hour days with 12 weeks of vacation and free espresso drinks? Based on the numbers, this would be a good time to look for it. Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company.

To: Jon Koplik who wrote (7888)	5/25/2007 2:49:43 AM
From: Proud Deplorable	Respond to of 33421

How the Government Creates Jobs 321gold.com

To: Jon Koplik who wrote (7888)	5/27/2007 7:04:56 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 33421

NYT on phony, lying' cheatin' employment "strength" ............................................. May 26, 2007 Off the Charts Wait a Few Months Before You Believe the Numbers By FLOYD NORRIS IT is the newest economic statistics that usually get all the attention as investors and analysts try to gauge the health of the economy. But sometimes the statistics that take the longest to arrive can provide the most important information, particularly when they point to inflection points in the economy. So it may be with jobs data that the Bureau of Labor Statistics released this month for the third quarter of 2006. The new data calls into question the previous conclusion that employment grew at a strong rate in late 2006. And it indicates that many small businesses, which had been leading the way in job creation, are now suffering. As is shown in the accompanying graphic, companies with fewer than 50 employees lost workers in the quarter, while larger ones kept hiring, albeit at a reduced pace. It also appears that 8,000 more businesses closed than opened in that quarter, making it the worst quarter by that measure since the third quarter of 2001, when an economy already in recession was jolted by the Sept. 11 attacks. The data is included in a quarterly report, titled “Business Employment Dynamics,” that comes from reviewing employment at every company in the United States that is subject to state unemployment compensation laws. By that measure, private-sector employment rose by just 19,000 jobs in the quarter. The widely reported data from the bureau’s monthly survey of employers concluded that the quarter had a net gain in private-sector jobs of 498,000. That led economists to conclude that employment growth was holding up well even though the overall economy had slowed, growing at just a 2 percent annual rate. A big difference was in construction employment, which the quarterly study found contracted by 77,000 jobs in the quarter, in contrast to the increase of 34,000 jobs shown by the monthly surveys. “The data show we had two consecutive quarters of job losses in construction,” said David Talan, an economist at the bureau, noting the small decrease shown in the second quarter of last year. The figures do not cover exactly the same things, as a small proportion of employers — notably railroads and religious organizations — are not covered by unemployment insurance. And Kirk Mueller, a branch chief in the section of the bureau that deals with current employment statistics, said differing seasonal adjustment factors could affect the results. Eventually, the monthly numbers will be revised to reflect the results of the quarterly survey, but that will not be done until data is available for the fourth quarter of last year and the first quarter of this one, and Mr. Mueller said it was too early to conclude that major adjustments would have to be made. Robert Barbera, the chief economist of ITG, an investment advisory firm, said that he thought the third quarter had been an inflection point in the economy and that the end result would be a substantial reduction in earlier employment estimates. One reason the monthly survey can be inaccurate is that it has to estimate the number of jobs created by new businesses, which are by definition not included in the survey. It may be that those estimates were too high. It will not be until next February that the monthly numbers are revised in the next benchmark revision. We may learn then that the job market was not as strong as it seemed to be in late 2006 and early 2007. Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company.

To: Jon Koplik who wrote (7888)	12/1/2007 1:52:23 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 33421

NYT on : number of jobs created / "liar numbers" / revision of the government's estimate December 1, 2007 Estimates May Have Overstated Job Growth By FLOYD NORRIS The American economy appears to have created far fewer jobs this spring than has been reported so far, a new government report indicated yesterday. That could provide further impetus for the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates when it meets Dec. 11. The report included a sharp downward revision of the government's estimate of personal income growth for the second quarter. Because the changes were made as soon as better employment figures were available, the revisions made it seem likely that figures on job creation are also likely to be revised downward in coming months. The new report concluded that personal income from wages and salaries grew at an annual rate of 1.6 percent in the second quarter, far below the 4.5 percent that had previously been estimated. The government did not explain why the revision was made, and it is possible that some of it came from reducing estimates of wages or of the profits that employees received from exercising stock options. But it was most likely, said Robert J. Barbera, the chief economist of ITG, that the largest part of the revision came from a change in employment estimates. If so, he said, he expected the government would revise its estimate of the number of jobs created in the quarter, to as little as 50,000 a month from 126,000 a month. That would indicate that the economy was much weaker than had been thought. The Commerce Department had estimated that the overall economy grew at a 3.8 percent rate in the spring quarter, surging to a 4.9 percent pace this summer. But those figures are still subject to revision. The government's first estimates of personal income are based in part on the Labor Department's monthly survey of employers. The revision of the personal income statistics yesterday came after the statisticians first saw figures from unemployment tax collections during the quarter. Those figures, based on the number of employees actually on payrolls, are viewed as more accurate and will later be used to revise the job growth figures. The employment situation this year has been confused by a sharp difference in the two surveys the government releases each month. Through October, the payroll survey estimated that 1.2 million jobs were added to the American economy. The household survey, which is based on talking to a sample of workers, has shown a decline of 72,000 jobs so far this year. "This tells us the payroll number is truly flawed," Mr. Barbera said. "The number the Fed has to key on is the household time series." The payroll survey in the past has been considered more reliable and less volatile. But because it is based in part on assumptions about how many jobs are being created by new employers, it "is likely to have some difficulty producing reliable estimates at economic turning points or during periods when there are sudden changes in trend," the Labor Department stated on its Web site. A large part of the job growth reported this year has come from those estimates, rather than from the survey itself. The payroll survey underestimated job growth in 2003, when the household survey showed a better employment picture. In the end, the payroll figures were revised higher. Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company.