32,000 jobs in July not 240,000.was the fed wrong?

[millwx]

Strange a it sounds, the job of the Fed is to protect the currency, not the economy.

In late 1999/Early 2000 when the Feb was choking off the .com boom they were killing off inflationary fears, not "protecting" the economy.

Vorlon, missed your close bracket.  For the convenience of all, his graph is here...

[millwx]

Doesn't the economy need 150,000 a month to keep unemployment steady?

Lunar, I don't have the precise number in front of me (well, not that there is a "precise" number, since it varies and gradually increases in the long-run), but 150K is, roughly, correct.  One can do a very simplistic, back of the envelope calculation from census data.  Using July '03 Census Bureau estimates...

There are 20.5M 20-24 year olds; ther are 12.1M 60-64 year olds.  If everyone entered and left the workforce when eligible, that would be a net 8.4M.  But that's over 5 years.  So, that's 1.68M/yr.  That's 140K/month.  Not everyone enters the work force (homemakers, disabled, etc), but not everyone leaves when eligible either.  So, 140K/mo is probably the net "available" workforce increase.  The BoLS may actually have this data, but I've not seen it on their vast web site.  So, this is a very rough estimate, but should be in the ballpark.

[millwx]

And the unemployment numbers aren't usually affected because there are groups entering the workforce in big clumps (like at the end of the college year).

It's also an entirely different "poll", and questioning can matter (i.e., anyone who just throws in the towel and gives up looking is no longer "unemployed").  The unemployment didn't go down (much) during the all-too-brief job boom early this year, and it's not going back up now (yet?).

BTW, Vorlon posted that image on another thread.  Unfortunately, I forget which one.  Bush is below the curve now.  Only barely, but he will need a serious turnaround in the next two months in order to get back on track.

[millwx]

Don't you know that in the information economy payroll jobs will not be as prominent as they once were?  Why the profligate use of payroll statistics when more accurate numbers like the "Household" survey are available?

John, I just posted a link w.r.t. this.  The BLS and Greenspan disagree with you.  Sorry, I'll believe them long, long before you.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/06/news/economy/job_survey.reut/index.htm
Do all the handwaving you want.  The household survey is less reliable.  Period.

[millwx]

Don't you know that in the information economy payroll jobs will not be as prominent as they once were?  Why the profligate use of payroll statistics when more accurate numbers like the "Household" survey are available?

John, I just posted a link w.r.t. this.  The BLS and Greenspan disagree with you.  Sorry, I'll believe them long, long before you.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/06/news/economy/job_survey.reut/index.htm
Do all the handwaving you want.  The household survey is less reliable.  Period.

If my household survey is so innacurate, why is it used to calculate the unemployment rate?

I don't know.  Why don't you go ask the federal govt.  They're the ones stating that it's unreliable.  Not me.  I'm merely "quoting" them.  My guess is that it's just the best they have for judging unemployment.  Not "good", just the best they have.  Besides, they're not addressing its baseline accuracy in this article.  They're addressing which dataset is better... the exact same thing you were doing.  They disagree wholeheartedly with you.  And let's remember, these people are, at least indirectly, part of the administration.  If they had any way to, they would claim the unemployment data as being the more reliable.  They don't.

[millwx]

The payroll survey and the household survey can't be compared the way you are comparing them because they don't measure the same thing.

Clearly, we'll have to agree to disagree.  I understand your point about the basic economic structure changing... although I strongly disagree... there is no evidence to show that it is changing to the massive degree necessary to support your conjectures.  Nonetheless, there is no data to disprove it either.  So, there's no way you're going to convince me.  And there's no way I'm going to convince you.

But my point is simple... regarding the discrepancy (and, yes, I realize that your argument is that they're two different stats... and that's the reason for the discrepancy), if forced to choose, the experts (BLS, Greenspan - who's a Republican, major stock market investors - who clearly didn't like this report, etc) will pick the jobs data.

Moreover, it's irrelevant in terms of politics.  It's the jobs data that came in way off the mark.  So, that's the one getting the press coverage.  So, it's bad economic "news".

I fully understand what your argument is, and I fully disagree.  But I also understand that is difficult to prove or disprove your "paradigm shift" argument.  I'll trust the independent analysts' view.