patrick.net

I could see #2 being somewhat true, but people were saying that in late 2009 as well and then prices dropped in 2010 and 2011.

#3 is kind of feeding into my point of speculation.

Goran_K says

Since Goran can't figure this out, 175,000 more jobs is 175000 more people that can pay rent...
What about the 190,000 jobs that were lost? The BLS just reported that unemployment just went up to 8.3% "mathematics professor who teaches at a major public university."

The first thing to understand about #'s are the source and context.

The jobs report come from a survey of approximately 140K large employers and government agencies covering 33% of the countries payroll. That is 172K private and -9K Government for bet of 163K. ADP, which also have deep insight into these things as they handle payroll for smaller/medium size employers (have 500K business payroll clients) reported 163K jobs added.

The unemployment report comes from 60K phone calls. I got this once and well it went yes, yes, yes in 1 minute, listened but worked on my laptop so not sure what the question was. 60K over 100M+ household is essentially less than 0.1% coverage.

From that perspective, I believe the household survey is junk (as far as predicitng job growth) and Goran really needs to think about things a step further. Your posts are getting ridicolous. It's a classic case of knowing a little but representing a lot.

Call it Crazy says

The other piece that no one discusses is where do the approximate 350K WEEKLY first time unemployed go??? That's over 1.4 Million a month.... do they all go out and find NEW jobs the next week so they aren't counted in the unemployment numbers???

The unemployment office does not close whether the country is in an economic boom or recession. Business' are not static and people get fired and hired everyday for various reasons. 300K+ plus people file for unemployment weekly even in 2002-2007.

In any case, if you understand how these things work, less than 400K weekly claims correlate with net job gains. The fact that 350K are filed a week tell me jobs are being added.

SFace says

I believe the household survey is junk

SFace, c'mon man. That's ridiculous that you would dismiss a metric that has helped guide the nation's financial policy for over century because it doesn't fit your personal agenda of boosting housing on the internet. Now you're trying to claim that job growth is actually up. I don't know if you're purposefully ignoring data, or simply boosting housing at all cost, but it's intellectually dishonest.

Secondly, most important thing you failed to mention is that the sample is only composed of those who are actively looking for work (per the EDD database in California for instance). Those who are long term unemployed, aka "depressed workers" and haven't looked for work for 2+ years, aren't even called. New grads who are actively looking, but have never had employment, are also ignored. So the report actually under reports REAL unemployment by a significant margin, which makes my point even more acute.

But of course, the BLS report, from which the nations unemployment numbers have been calculated for the past 130 years is now "junk" and should be thrown out according to some random guy on the internet named "SFace" because he thinks it doesn't support his personal agenda of boosting housing at any intellectual cost on the internet, and he doesn't understand the effectiveness and mathematics behind polling/sampling. Sorry, that's almost laughable.

A "housing recovery" is dramatically lower prices by it's very definition. Thus, housing is recovering.

Goran_K says

Now you're trying to claim that job growth is actually up. I don't know if you're purposefully ignoring data, or simply boosting housing at all cost, but it's intellectually dishonest.

Yes, job growth is up and the context is whether there were jobs created or lost. Establishment surevy and ADP survey says 163K, while the household survey says negative 193K. Obviously, I undestand the mechanics of the surveys while you have no clue.

Goran_K says

Secondly, most important thing you failed to mention is that the sample is only composed of those who are actively looking for work (per the EDD database in California for instance).

If you are referring to the household survey, you are clueless there as well as you don't even understand the sampling methodology which are explained in the BLS.

Goran_K says

sface doesn't support his personal agenda of boosting housing at any intellectual cost on the internet, and he doesn't understand the effectiveness and mathematics behind polling/sampling. Sorry, that's almost laughable.

You are talking about yourself. Really, only a fool like you would think a household survey is more effective than an establishment survey reinforced with a ADP survey when talking about jobs growth.

"Both surveys are subject to sampling error. The payroll survey has a much larger sample size than the household survey. The payroll survey’s active sample covers approximately 486,000 business establishments of all sizes representing about one-third of total nonfarm employment. The household survey is much smaller at 60,000 households, covering a very small fraction of total employed persons. Over-the-month changes in household survey employment are therefore subject to larger sampling error, about four times that of the payroll survey on a monthly basis."

Bottom line, the sampling and (non-sampling error caused by cold calls) is huge in the household survey.

Here's the establishment survey 90% confidence that the job added was within 1.6 standard deviation or 100K. In statistical context, we are 90% confident job growth are somewhere between 63K to 263K

Here's what Goran is relying on 90% confidence that the job added are within 1.6 standard deviation or +/- 400K. So we are 90% confident jobs are negative 592K to positive 208K.

If you think the household survey is superior (which is what you are implying as you claim job growth was negative 192K), you will end up looking as stupid as the Case Shiller July 2012 thread.

SFace, #2 to be ignored on my list. Such a shame.

Of course there are limitations and nuance of each. In the end, establishment survey is much more accurate than household survey. The tighter margin of error proofs that.

And I say this even if the indicator singals different thing. Between August 2011 and July 2012, the household survey showed much more job growth than what is reflected on the establishment survey. If household survey is such a holy grail of job growth, did anyone bother to see what it did the past 12 months?

Or indicator #4 as used by Roberto, and SFace:

Outright lie. Even if all indicators, reports, and empirical data shows that job growth is non existent and the amount people hitting the soup kitchen is growing, simply make up an arbitrary lie about why you believe employment is actually growing in the face of all logic, and reason, to fit your housing boosting agenda.

Even if you are confronted by a reliable 130 year old metric that actually under reports unemployment, simply disregard the data, and continue making up your own statistics. That way, your personal agenda is always supported.

Time will tell (or not because being dishonest is too easy).

robertoaribas says

Goran_K says

Time will tell (or not because being dishonest is too easy).

goran, you don't have the intelligence to have a conversation...obviously my post went over your head...

I am buying my next home this friday, one more next month, and my rental income after all bills including maintenance and vacancy will cross $6000 a month (and $1000 a month in mortgage payoff)

What do you have again, except jealousy of me?

You will still be on this forum years from now writing how all statistics save yours are wrong, and housing is dropping, when I no longer work and live on a beach in the tropics!

Roberto, it's that sort of post that no doubt irritates Goran - you seem to have had no other purpose than to big yourself up.

robertoaribas says

my rental income after all bills including maintenance and vacancy will cross $6000 a month

Really, that's such an awesome amount. I can totally see you retiring in the tropics very soon with that princely sum.

Goran_K says

robertoaribas says

my rental income after all bills including maintenance and vacancy will cross $6000 a month

Really, that's such an awesome amount. I can totally see you retiring in the tropics very soon with that princely sum.

Well,6000 a month in a desert would be pretty awesome.

Anyway, enough about Roberto's sand and cactus empire, I'm getting super jealous just thinking about it right now. Let's get back to unemployment numbers, shall we?

I think Mish's latest article does a superb analysis of all the numbers and trends that basically backs my point, and conversely shows that SFace is simply wrong (or dishonest) about job numbers being up.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/08/headline-jobs-163000-but-household.html

Some key points:

- US Unemployment Rate +.1 to 8.3%
- In the last year, the civilian population rose by 3,683,000. Yet the labor force only rose by 1,655,000.
- This month the Civilian Labor Force fell by 150,000.
- This month, those "not" in the labor force increased by 348,000 to 88,340,000, another record high. If you are not in the labor force, you are not counted as unemployed.
- In the last year, those "not" in the labor force rose by 2,027,000
- Over the course of the last year, the number of people employed rose by 2,770,000.
- Participation Rate was steady at 63.8%;
- There are 8,246,000 workers who are working part-time but want full-time work, an increase of 36,000
- Long-Term unemployment (27 weeks and over) was 5.185 million a decline of 185,000.
- Were it not for people dropping out of the labor force, the unemployment rate would be well over 11%.

In the last year, the civilian population rose by 3,683,000. Yet the labor force only rose by 1,655,000. Those not in the labor force rose by 2,027,000 to yet another record high 88,340,000.

That is an amazing "achievement" to say the least, and as noted above most of this is due to economic weakness not census changes.

Decline in Labor Force Factors

- Discouraged workers stop looking for jobs
- People retire because they cannot find jobs
- People go back to school hoping it will improve their chances of getting a job
- People stay in school longer because they cannot find a job.

As I said, the BLS numbers actually under report REAL unemployment by a significant margin. Long term depressed unemployed are simply not counted, they just "drop off". Most entry level analyst know this, but of course, if you have an agenda to support, such as lying about stronger economic indicators so you can boost housing, then of course all of the above is very damaging to your argument.

There can be no sustained housing recovery without job growth. Today's market is speculation, and that rally has leveled off in many metro areas already even though it's only early August.

Nobody has been able to explain how we are going to curb the runaway deficit, it looks like we have passed the inflection point long ago where the amount by which the GDP must grow just to stop the deficit from growing and pay interest only is still achievable. I mean I don't care for politics here, tax 90% or cut spending 50%, whatever you choose it will hurt (for the better) ;)