Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
drrayjo

U.s. Non-Farm Payroll

Recommended Posts

"Expectation":

U.S. nonfarm payrolls probably fell by 167,000 in the month to about 131 million, marking the 21st consecutive month of falling employment, according to economists polled by MarketWatch. The official unemployment rate is expected to rise to 9.8% in September from 9.7% in August, the worst since June 1983.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091002-704386.html

Reality:

"Non-Farm Payrolls Shrink Much More Than Expected, Down by 263,000 in Sept. Unemployment Rate at 9.8% (story developing)"

http://www.cnbc.com/

How many more times does this have to be unexpected...We're NOT OK!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the markets were expecting 9.8%? If so there might be a rally when the S&P opens... or not. :)

Last time the % was higher but the numbers lower, which gave the markets a filip. This time the % is steady and on course for 10% soon regardless.

Of more significance is the horribly un-Panglossian headline number which breaks a bullish run significantly and will lead to a big sell off today...already happening on FTSE.

Edited by drrayjo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the markets were expecting 9.8%? If so there might be a rally when the S&P opens... or not. :)

They seem to be sweeping people out of the (potential) labour force as fast as they dare.

U-6 at 17%!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They seem to be sweeping people out of the (potential) labour force as fast as they dare.

U-6 at 17%!

U-6? Is that the real unemployment figure? They just said that was 17% on Bloomberg. Shocking. We haven't even begun to feel the pain we're going to get. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very grim!

I wondered just how bad that compares with a longer history and found this: http://www.forecast-chart.com/forecast-unemployment-rate.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.png

Equal to 1982, which was the worst in at least 60 years. Also, many say that the figures are much more rigged these days than they used to be, although I don't know the details/validity of such claims.

If it rises again, it will almost certainly be the worst (peace time) unemployment since the great depression! :ph34r:

EDIT: Just realised it was 9.7 in '82, so it is worse already! :blink:

EDIT2: These are yearly too of course, which is a little unfair! ;)

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'fraid so...

316ok06.jpg

sorry, just thought Id get that in before Noel did.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/us-panel-for-more-bank-stress-tests-if-unemployment-rises/473866/

Bank stress tests should be repeated if the US unemployment rate rises beyond levels assumed by regulators in a recent round of examinations that provided relief to markets, according to a report released by a bailout watchdog panel on Tuesday.

The Congressional Oversight Panel said in the report that the stress tests should also be repeated periodically as long as banks continue to hold “appreciable amounts” of toxic assets.

The monthly report from the panel, led by Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Warren, said the stress tests, ordered by the US Treasury Department for the top 19 US bank holding companies, used a risk-modeling approach that on the whole was “reasonable and conservative.”

But the panel noted that it is impossible for an outside party to replicate the loss projections that form the core of the tests. It noted, however, that the “more adverse scenario” assumption for the US unemployment rate in the tests has nearly been met so far in 2009. The May unemployment rate of 9.4% pushed the average for the year to 8.5%, not far from the 8.9% assumed.

“We recommend that Treasury publicly track the status of its stress test macro-economic assumptions (unemployment, GDP, and housing prices) and repeat the stress test if the adverse scenario assumptions have been exceeded,” the panel said.

The stress test results on May 7 caused many investors to breathe a sigh of relief when regulators ordered 10 of the top 19 US banks to raise nearly $75 billion in new capital, far less than feared. Since then, the tested banks as a group have executed or announced share sales totaling about $65 billion.

The report also comes as the Treasury is preparing to announce which of these banks will be allowed to repay billions of dollars in emergency government capital injections received last fall.

Nine of the 19 banks, which each have assets exceeding $100 billion in assets, have met key conditions set by the Federal Reserve for repayment, including selling new shares, issuing debt without a government guarantee, and resolving capital deficiencies identified by the stress tests. The nine banks have received $66.7 billion in government capital.

Looks like the stress tests where not rigorous enough.

Has the yearly figure breached the 8.9% used in these rigorous tests which proved how solvent the US banking system was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

joblosses.jpg

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/comparing-this-recession-to-previous-ones-job-losses-3/

It would appear that no other recession has had a jobless recovery like this one.

When looking at the graph you must also remember the data is very understated for obvious market manipulation/political reasons.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/bls-discloses-it-has-overrepresented-payroll-data-824000-or-15

BLS Discloses It Has Overrepresented Payroll Data By 824,000 Or 15%

A part of today's BLS announcement that has not received much attention is the BLS' own disclosure that it "may" have lost an additional 824,000 jobs in LTM period ended March 2009, in addition to the already disclosed 4.8 million job losses.

Edited by Confounded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1485-September-Unemployment-ACTUAL-LOSS-995k.html

Headlines: 263,000 "jobs lost" and unemployment rate up to 9.8%.

That's not good - there goes the "second derivative" argument.

Weekly earnings are also down by $1.54, which is bad news too.

But the Household Data is VASTLY worse than reported. Here are the month-over-month changes, and they're in the realm of frightening. (all numbers in thousands)

Civilian Labor Force: 154,879 to 153,617 this month.

Employed: 140,074 down to 139,079 this month.

That's a loss of 995,000 jobs, not 263,000, and the labor force contracted by 1,262,000 people!

The participation rate was absolutely decimated, down 0.6% this last month alone. The people "not in the labor force" rose by a staggering 1,516,000 in the last month.

The government doesn't count people as "unemployed" who have given up and exited the labor force, but as I have repeatedly noted whether the government counts them or not the corner store owner sure as hell does!

The fact of the matter is that nearly 1 million fewer people were working in September as compared to August; there has been absolutely no improvement in that trend whatsoever.

Unemp-2009-09.png

Payrolls-2009-09.png

Denniger doesn't appear impressed by the figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   289 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.