Payroll jobs grew by 166,000 last month. I don't know what's keeping this economy going, but whatever it is, I want some.
Update Sorry, a commenter says he doesn't know what Payroll jobs are. There are two surveys used to determine employment levels: payrolls (which surveys companies about their hiring), and household, which surveys people. The payroll survey is generally regarded as a more accurate barometer.
Is a "payroll job" in the Human Resources Dep't., adding up time cards? Or is this more econoblogger shorthand, possibly meaning something like jobs for which people are paid? Remember, we're speaking English here, & not every one is up on the jargon/shorthand.
Also: The link to the NYT story is not working, at least at this moment.
Isn't 166,000 just a little better than necessary for maintaining current unemployment levels? I believe ~145,000 is considered breaking even.
I think part of it is dependent on whatever black magic is keeping energy prices down despite skyrocketing oil prices.
The payroll survey is generally regarded as a more accurate barometer.
In this case, however, the household survey disagrees wildly, and there are comments in the article that the new jobs are hypothetical, based on assumptions rather than evidence. So the 166,000 may be nonsense.
The article also mentions that the strongest spike is in service jobs. Since I doubt those are typically well-paid, I can understand the expectation that it will not add to consumer confidence or spending, even should the jobs exist.
I wonder if these two methods of determining economic inclusion are becoming outdated. In this world of telecommuting and virtual storefronts, it takes a lot less to do a lot more in many circumstances. Does anyone know if there have been efforts to update the surveys/procedures to keep up?
On a related note (I think so anyway), I have also wondered about the savings rate. I wonder how many people are like me. I save agressively in capital equities with only the minimum left to money market accounts (CDs & savings accounts I do not consider). I also use credit cards as vehicles to pass my $$ through, but pay off religiously. So, I may count as negative savings (significant, but transient debt and no traditional 'savings').
Does any one know if these issues are accounted for within savings rate metrics?
Thanks. Now that you've explained it, I do remember discussion of the payroll vs. household survey here. The link still isn't working, though that may be at my end, as no one else has mentioned it.
Further research indicates that if you get rid of the "file:///p://" at the beginning of the link, it might just work. Glad to be of assistance.
P. S. Can anything be done about those highly irritating stroboscopic ads? That company's never getting a dime's worth of business from me.
Panthan,
The article also mentions that the strongest spike is in service jobs. Since I doubt those are typically well-paid
If you look at the BLS statistics, you'll see that there are two categories of non-farm jobs: "goods-producing" (manufacturing, mining, and construction), and "service-providing". The latter category includes everyone from doctors and lawyers to fry cooks and janitors.
I recall discussions of the difference between results of the payroll survey and the household survey. Unfortunately, the link in the post is not working. Past discussions have speculated that there are more self-employed people. Some of those self employed may want a paid job, but others may not.
Good point about credit card debt. I also make big purchases with a credit card in order to get the "rewards", but pay the entire balance every month, never paying a finance charge. I'm sure lots of others do so as well.
P. S. Can anything be done about those highly irritating stroboscopic ads? That company's never getting a dime's worth of business from me.
Posted by M. Bouffant | November 2, 2007 6:09 PM
there are 'ad-blocker' downloads you can install in your browser.
see: http://blog.mises.org/archives/007149.asp
links/suggestions within
I'm just parroting what I heard, but apparently the underlying data wasn't as good as the headline payroll number might suggest it would be. That said, good news is always welcome.
Megan (and Atlantic as well):
As someone who is suppose to offer insight into economic events, posting:
"I don't know what's keeping this economy going, but whatever it is, I want some."
...is both shallow and amateurish.
First of all, not even to add any additional commentary about the components of the report (jobs in the Real -Estate industry increased per this report) seem to offer some insight into either the inaccuracy of this report or the sheer lack of sustainability these jobs created offer.
Or you could have offered some level of critique into perhaps the fact that when it is all said and done, we actually need to spit out roughly 140,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population.
Which means, from a sheer percentage of the population employed perspective, this report likely means we have a trickle of improvement in the overall percentage of American employed based on non-sustainable jobs. Let’s not even get started with the fact most of these were in service sector jobs, which pay little to no benefits and are the quickest to be eliminated in a consumer driven slow-down.
And you want some of this? Wow – I am shocked you are still single, since you are impressed easily.
Who knows – maybe this speaks of your lack of work ethic as a blogger, since economists with REAL jobs somehow have to time to offer more valuable insight with less time. Who knows? But please, you should at least apologize for this sophomoric drivel being presented on one of the pre-eminent news/commentary oriented magazine web-sites in the country.
Dan:
yes - service sector jobs include fry-cooks to investment bankers....speaking of which - I highly doubt most of the service sector jobs were in the service sectors which pay well, given the fact our financial services industry is collapsing as we speak, putting pressure on employment numbers for financial analytics, consultants, accountants, brokers etc....
I have a hunch much of this hiring was from a push to increase the labor necessary to get the X-Mas season at retailers humming along even sooner. In addition, I would also guess that in a downturn, one of the last areas to feel the impact is the restaurant industry. This is both because when we tighten our belts psychologically, it is easier to put off buying that new car versus suddenly stopping eating out. This is especially true as we have turned to eating out as a necessity in our busy lives. So cutting out this is not as easy as it appears. Add to that the fact that often times one of the first areas to develop in newer development are the restaurant/commercial zones, especially since investors/businesses are building for future population increases. Given that so many new housing developments have been put off, I have a feeling you are seeing restaurants planned 1 - 2 years ago coming on-line still, and will close after the holiday season once they realize future development is not coming any time soon, and the current population in these areas are not viable for supporting the business plan. Longmont, CO comes to mind.
My guess is that a lot of this was hiring at restaurants which were planned in newer developments a year or two ago and are coming on-line still (even though the planned increased population to supp
Brad
Your first post attacked our host as being lazy and amateurish.
Your second post contains (in order), these helpful indicators of incisive analysis and intellectual rigour:
I highly doubt..
I have a hunch..
I would also guess..
I have a feeling..
My guess is..
Take them out, and there isn't a post at all.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinions. You may have to work a little harder if you want to convince anyone else to share them.
Brad,
To echo 41 degrees, I think the facts disagree with your guesses. Two of the hottest jobs now are finance and accountants. In fact, high paying professional level employees are finding that their services are in great demand now, the tightest market since 1999. Frankly, as a country, we have not produced enough ambitious and educated people to fill our economy's needs. Anyone with moderate skills and a mid-level education has no problem finding a good job right now.
The numbers are not being positively skewed by a push for an early X-Mas season. The numbers are always seasonally adjusted.
I don't think that the restaurant industry is a significant predictor of the economy as a whole. It is too faddish and responds to regional trends.
160,000 is a wonderful number for this period in the employmjent cycle. To also respond to an earlier post stating that 145,000 jobs is the replacement rate, that is not true now. Our labor force growth has shrunk so that the replacement number is now more likely to be 100,000 to 120,000.
While there may be problems with some sectors of the economy (there always are), the labor market is not one of them. Parsing data in a desparate attempt to find the negative in a positive report is not good policy.
jbb,
no doubt you make some good points, especially relating to the on-going SarbOx-created accounting/consulting boomlet, though, these reports need to be understood through this: http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm ..filter, at the very minimum...
I suspect that the reason the ongoing expansion is hard to understand is that it's occuring primarily in the Sun Belt. In September, metro Houston added about as many jobs as metro New York with less than half the population. And having an ARM reset isn't really a big deal on a $150,000 mortgage. Hardly anybody has in the major media centers has such a small mortgage, but nearly everybody in the rest of the country does.