Comments on: Payroll data mixed despite the bullish headline job loss figure http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/06/payroll-data-mixed-despite-the-bullish-headline-job-loss-figure.html Finance, Economics and Markets Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:37:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Edward Harrison http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/06/payroll-data-mixed-despite-the-bullish-headline-job-loss-figure.html#comment-56545 Edward Harrison Sat, 06 Jun 2009 11:36:00 +0000 http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/06/payroll-data-mixed-despite-the-bullish-headline-job-loss-figure.html#comment-56545 fundana. Point taken. This is a bit of misleading point. I did mention that non-farm payrolls INCREASED on an unadjusted basis as they had done in April as well. The aggregate add in jobs was 590,000, 446,000 of which came from the birth death model: http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm fundana. Point taken. This is a bit of misleading point. I did mention that non-farm payrolls INCREASED on an unadjusted basis as they had done in April as well. The aggregate add in jobs was 590,000, 446,000 of which came from the birth death model:
http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm

]]> By: fundana http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/06/payroll-data-mixed-despite-the-bullish-headline-job-loss-figure.html#comment-56544 fundana Sat, 06 Jun 2009 11:21:00 +0000 http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/06/payroll-data-mixed-despite-the-bullish-headline-job-loss-figure.html#comment-56544 You can't add the brith/death adjustment number to the nfp number. The B/D estimate is notn seasonally adjusted while the nfp data is seasonally adjusted. You can’t add the brith/death adjustment number to the nfp number. The B/D estimate is notn seasonally adjusted while the nfp data is seasonally adjusted.

]]> By: Edward Harrison http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/06/payroll-data-mixed-despite-the-bullish-headline-job-loss-figure.html#comment-56540 Edward Harrison Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:48:00 +0000 http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/06/payroll-data-mixed-despite-the-bullish-headline-job-loss-figure.html#comment-56540 Gary, it is an increase. Here's the progression of private non-farm payrolls since the beginning of the year (in thousands): 132,302 Jan; 132,138 Feb; 132,077 March; 132,348 April; 132,667 May The bottom was March. Gary, it is an increase. Here’s the progression of private non-farm payrolls since the beginning of the year (in thousands):

132,302 Jan;
132,138 Feb;
132,077 March;
132,348 April;
132,667 May

The bottom was March.

]]> By: Gary http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/06/payroll-data-mixed-despite-the-bullish-headline-job-loss-figure.html#comment-56539 Gary Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:17:00 +0000 http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/06/payroll-data-mixed-despite-the-bullish-headline-job-loss-figure.html#comment-56539 "BULLISH: The headline jobs number of a 345,000 loss comes from the establishment survey and is seasonally adjusted. The unadjusted numbers were even more bullish, showing an increase of 319,000 jobs." Did you really mean to say that the unadjusted numbers showed an "increase of 319,000 jobs" or might it have shown a "decrease of only 319,000 jobs?" I would find an increase of 319,000 jobs, even if it is unadjusted, to be insanely bullish. Thanks “BULLISH: The headline jobs number of a 345,000 loss comes from the establishment survey and is seasonally adjusted. The unadjusted numbers were even more bullish, showing an increase of 319,000 jobs.”

Did you really mean to say that the unadjusted numbers showed an “increase of 319,000 jobs” or might it have shown a “decrease of only 319,000 jobs?” I would find an increase of 319,000 jobs, even if it is unadjusted, to be insanely bullish.

Thanks

]]>