215,000 new jobs in November; let the good times roll again!

[KrazyHorse]

The 142.6 might be determined differently, Big Christmas.

Like I said, the 215k represents an employer survey. The 142.6mil might represent a household survey. Not certain.

[Dauphin]

Either way, it ain't a big move. You still end up with the 5% unemployment rate.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No I didn't. That figure represents a net gain.

You think the 142.6 represents a net gain?

[Kuciwalker]

We're talking about the figure in the title of the thread.

[Tingkai]

Given that I was talking about total employment and then KH responded by saying "That number is supposed to take into account both losses and gains," his comment was unclear.

Just checked the bureau of labour web site and KH's statment is correct. Total employment and job creation come from different sources, according to Bureau of Labour statistics

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Household data:
Employment
Oct: 142.646 million
Nov: 142.594 million (down 52,000)

Establishment data
Oct: 134,074
Nov: 134,289 (up 215,0000)

But, household data also shows the U.S. labour force increasing by 97,000. Combined with the household reported loss of 52,000 jobs, we end up with unemployment increasing by 149,000.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Either way, it ain't a big move. You still end up with the 5% unemployment rate.

There have been months where there was a sizable correction made due to that discrepancy, IIRC.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Tingkai


You think the 142.6 represents a net gain?

No.

[Tingkai]

nm

[KrazyHorse]

nm you too

[Tingkai]

np

[KrazyHorse]

ok

[Ecthy]

Are you OK guys?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

so wait, we actually lost jobs this month?

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by DanS


Here's one explanation...

Why would a company do capital investments or hire, when the profits are rolling in at historically high levels without the investment? Why would a householder save when he is earning paltry sums on the investments that he has? Both are doing things that make sense to them.

Once the profits don't flow so freely, companies will do more capital investments and hire more robustly to try to drive top-line growth. (I note that while free cash flow increased in the third quarter, profits did not.) Once interest rates rise, the householder will consume less and invest more.

Empirical evidence doesn't support that explanation. Typically, when economic conditions deteriorate and demand decreases, corporates slash their capital expenditures to prevent excess capacity building up. Conversely, when demand increases, and in extension capacity utilisation and earnings, business increase capital expenditures. Thus, there's a strong correlation between corporate earnings and capital expenditures.

What you are saying essentially implies CEO's believe there's no potential left to increase profits, because we all know that classical economic theory states that business will always try to maximise profit.

[Colonâ„¢]

Re recession: there are several definitions for that term, one of them being 2 quarters of quarter-to-quarter negative growth. The problem with this definition is that it doesn't account for differences in potential growth. For instance, in country A potenial growth may 3% a year and in country B it may be 2% a year, because A has an annual population growth that's 1% higher. Thus if A would experience 0% growth that country's downturn would be as bad as -1% growth in country B. (or put differently, GDP/capita would decrease equally in both countries) Yet, according to that definition country A would not be in a recession and country B would.