Actually I would call it “more of the same” (not “strong.”)
At the top of this month’s jobs report the BLS notes that 30,000 of the “jobs added,” were actually autoworkers returning from their voluntary strike. I also note that 17,200 jobs were Hollywood workers returning from the strike that ended a month ago.
I am happy for them, both groups, but it certainly does not mean “the economy got stronger so more people got jobs.”
That is certainly not the case. In fact the BLS report breaks down like this:
Motion picture and sound recording added ______17,200 jobs (strike ended)
Motor vehicles and parts added ______________ 30,000 jobs (strike ended)
Healthcare added _________________________ 76,800 jobs
Food services and drinking places added _______ 38,300 jobs (Yeah McDonalds!!)
Government added _________________________ 49,000 jobs Total Above ____________________________ 211,300 jobs
The rest of the economy lost 12,300 jobs.
That’s right, lost jobs.
I hope it’s all good. That’s what “we” all want but being on the frontline of our economy and what I’m currently experiencing…let me just say…my spider senses are tingling.
The number of people working one full-time and one part-time job stands at an all-time high. The number of workers with two full-time jobs reached a historic peak in September. Inflation has outpaced wage growth.
I swear to god this happens every year. People jump out of the woodwork who have no understanding of how these reports are made. No concept of why they’re called seasonally adjusted numbers.
@tnt is correct about seasonal adjustments.
Unadjusted: 477,000 total jobs added were added in Nov including 264,000 retail jobs.
Adjusted, thus numbers were plus 199.000 and minus 38,000 respectively.
Reporting the seasonally-adjusted numbers is widely-used practice including in his linked article
That was also the practice I used when I posted
There are some serious questions about the “later revisions” that tend to come out months later, but to my knowledge no serious analysts are questioning the “seasonally adjusted” part.
Right.
Christmas hiring was 264,200 retail workers.
BLS reported that as negative 38,400.
Why? Retail has not hired very much this year.
In fact, it hired 38,400 fewer people than normal
.
.
.
The employment picture is not strong.
Except for healthcare and and restaurants the story is pretty much like a watered down version of FDR.
In the depression, FDR hired a million people to dig holes and fill them up again.
The difference? In those days the media was more honest. It reported “FDR has a jobs program,” not “Jobs report comes in strong. The depression is over. The economy is super-great soaring like an eagle.”
The media did not report it that way, and people would not have believed it.
Today, the left not only believes it, they spend their time shilling that untruth on the internet.
McDonald’s is also not a hotel. Calling it all McDonald’s jobs is grasping at straws downplaying 75k health sector jobs is grasping at straws. Saying that the economy lost 12k jobs is really trying to make it seem worse than it is. Saying that a 3.7 percent unemployment rate means that the job numbers are not good is some kind of weird.
Wait till a Republican is president these numbers will be amazing. The same exact numbers mind you.
The numbers must be bad. They must be because employers are hiring Christmas workers. They must bcause it’s government jobs it must be because the strikes ended